“EVERYBODY LIES”… That is the lie that the Devil wants you to believe.  He is the FATHER OF LIES.  All he can do is LIE because there is NO TRUTH in him.  SO if you are seeking Satan as your source of LIGHT.  You are deceived.  People like to be around other people who make them feel comfortable about themselves.  Evil people, sinners, those who drink, rape, do drugs, steal etc… they don’t want to be around good, honest, law abiding people.  People seek out the lowest common denominator.  That is why they loved their Pagan Demon Masters better than The Most High GOD.  Because they wanted gods who were like them.  Fallen, evil, unrighteous, lascivious, drunken whoremongers.  Check it out.  Find a god or goddess that wasn’t into something forbidden by The Most High.

EVERYONE DOES NOT LIE.  THOSE who are born again and filled with the SPIRIT OF GOD…Can’t LIE… at least not for long and not successfully.  WHY?  Because the spirit inside them will not allow it.  They will feel the conviction of their sin deep inside and they will repent.  They will call on the Lord and find forgiveness and GOD will clean them up and change them from the inside out.  Christ/Yeshua is our Plume Line.  He is the standard by which we try to live.  We are be molded into his His image day by day.  Unbelievers have no absolute Standard by which they live.  They measure themselves by others or some arbitrary teaching of men.  Men with faults and failings, just like the ancient demon gods.  They feel no remorse when then lie, cheat, steal etc… they don’t care if they hurt or offend you.  They live by their appetites.

Have you ever wondered why they made it legal in the USA to use propaganda on US Citizens??  Probably for the same reason they decided we needed to make it legal to torture prisoners.   Don’t you think?  We used to pride ourselves on the fact that we were above such things.  This is what separated us from savages and barbarians.  We had laws to protect the rights of every human being, most especially our citizens.

We should mercy and kindness even to our enemies.  That is why we had favor with GOD. As a nation, we lived by his Commandments.  Justice and Righteousness were important to us then.  Integrity and truth were paramount. Because without TRUTH, you have nothing.

When Truth is no longer the standard…lies are everywhere.  Once you have been stung by that truth, you lose all trust and faith.  How can you trust anyone, when lying is no longer considered wrong?  You have no idea who is telling the truth, if anyone.  You have no idea when someone is lying and when they are speaking truth.  TRUTH is lost in the mire.

How can a legal system prevail, when truth is gone?  How can you trust the police reports? The witness Testimony? The Lawyers? The Jury?  The Judge? The Medical Examiner?  The DNA Technician?  The Lie Detector?  The Lie Detector Operator?  How can you trust ANYONE?

How can you trust the Government officials?  The Politicians running the country?  The politicians running for office? The lawmakers? The Bankers?

WITHOUT TRUTH… THERE IS NO TRUST… WITHOUT TRUST THERE IS NO PEACE.. WIITHOUT PEACE There is every kind of crime, madness, violence and destruction… THERE IS CHAOS!

CHAOS is EXACTLY what the elite globalist want.  Have you not heard them saying it for decades now?  Did you think they were kidding?  Or, was your mind just not willing to believe something so ridiculous.   It seemed laughable to many.  WELL, I BET YOU ARE NOT LAUGHING NOW… IF YOU ARE, YOU WILL NOT BE FOR LONG.

I know it is an unpopular topic today, but we are going to talk about the GOD of the Bible and FAITH and TRUST in HIM.  That is where America had it over the rest of the World.  Because whether or not the country was created to serve HIM, whether or our Founding Fathers were true believers or Freemason/Illuminists, as a NATION we were living our lives by GODLY values and calling on HIS name and seeking His blessing in everything we did as a Nation.  THAT is why we were blessed all those many years.

It is the LAW of GOD that serves man, not the Laws of men, or the Law of Many.  The rights we hold so dear ARE GOD GIVEN RIGHTS!!  The only way we can lose them is to turn our backs on HIM!!  No Government can take them away.  No enemy foreign or domestic.  No entities from other dimensions.  The only way that we can lose our RIGHTS is to lose our connection to the ONE who proclaimed them.  The ONE  who preserves and protects us.  THE ONE WHO LOVES US.


He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
We need to appoint/elect/receive/follow only men of GOD!!
Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:

We need to submit all things to GOD and serve him with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength.

Only fear the Lord, and serve him in truth with all your heart: for consider how great things he hath done for you.


If you have not seen my earlier post on fake news, check it out here:

FAKE NEWS – Who do you Believe?


Without Truth There Is No Freedom

USA: June brings my  quarterly request for donations. Your financial support for the website tells me that my efforts are valued and worthwhile.  Your donations support me in standing up to the smears. Telling the truth in America in these days is a punished, not a rewarded, activity.

The United States is best understood today as the Disunited States.  There is less unity than in 1860.  Civility is gone from debate; indeed, debate itself is gone.  Integrity and respect for truth have lost out to worship of money and the rule of power.  Ideology has shoved aside facts.

Money and power are all. We have seen this in the intentional exaggeration of the Covid threat for Big Pharma profits and the institutionalization of arbitrary government power over civil liberty.  Today, with the exception of some free Red states, such as Florida, in the Disunited States our exercise of our civil liberty requires the government’s permission. You are free only by the government’s permission.  In other words, the US Constitution has lost its authority.  We now live under the authority of the power seekers.

Government and corporate spying have destroyed privacy, another Constitutionally protected right.

Education has been replaced with cult indoctrination. In blue states and in some local school districts of red states, white American students are taught that they are racist by nature.  They are infused with personal guilt for slavery that ended 156 years ago.  Speech codes are imposed that prevent any challenge to the propaganda masquerading as eduction.  The brainwashing of white Americans is imposed by law in blue states such as California, Washington, Oregon, and New York.  Parents who complain are fired by their corporate employers who have imbibed the Critical Race Theory kool-aid. No American who works for a US corporation has freedom of speech.

It is today ordinary for white liberals to speak of “exterminating whiteness.”  Whether they realize it or not, it includes themselves.  What is meant by exterminating whiteness?  The most radical mean it literally—the genocide of white people.  White people being systemic racists are inconsistent with “social justice.”  Most white liberals, such as those on blue state school boards, mean by exterminating whiteness the extermination of “white values,” such as meritocracy and colorblindness.

Colorblindness meant that the best person got the job regardless of race.  It was seen as a way of guaranteeing that a meritorius black person would not be passed over because of race.  But white liberals now say that colorblindness is a white value that upholds meritocracy, whereas “equity” requires that blacks advance because of race, not because of merit.

Exterminating whiteness also means taking down white monuments, burning or delisting white books, rewriting white history as one vast ongoing crime.  Essentially what is required of us is that we reject and denounce Western civilization. If you don’t denounce your civilization, it is proof that you are a racist.

It started years ago—“Western Civ has to go.”  The white liberals thought this was great–denounce your own civilization. 

Another way of eliminating whiteness is open borders to peoples of color who eventually outnumber and rule the minority whites.  The Camp of the Saints explains what to expect. Already we see in the Western world governments more responsive to immigrant-invaders than to ethnic citizens.

Many older patriotic Americans dismiss the assaults on whiteness as silly nonsense.  It is silly, and it is nonsense, but it is nevertheless highly successful in destroying the system of beliefs that comprise Western civilization.  Indeed, the destruction of the beliefs—the glue—that hold our civilization together is almost complete. People such as Martyanov, the Saker, Dimetri Orlov, and myself see collapse staring us in the face.  We all hope that we don’t outlive its occurance.

In the West everything is denunciatory.  Nothing is affirmatory.  So many decades of denunciation of the West’s crimes has collapsed belief.  The West is disarmed and helpless.

Strange it is that a disarmed and helpless West is so well defended by the one thousand billion dollar annual budget of the military/security complex and the 700 or so overseas military bases of the Disunited States.  But this is no defense of Western civilization.  It is a defense of the power and budgets of defense contractors, CIA and other “intelligence agencies,” the supply chains for defense industries, the university physics and chemistry faculties on Defense Department grants, the political campaign contributions that flow back from the military industries to candidates for the House, Senate, and Oval Office.

The one thousand billion dollar annual “defense” budget requires an enemy, and this requirement negates any security from the vast sum expended. Despite the Defense budget, it is far more dangerous to have an enemy than not to have one.  Having Russia as an enemy enhances the defense budget and reduces our safety.  For the sake of the power and profit of the US military/security complex Washington needs the Russian threat to keep the money flowing.

But what country in its right mind would want as an enemy a nuclear armed country whose weapons systems were far superior to its own?

During the 20th century Cold War the US and Soviet leaders worked to reduce tensions.  Arms control treaties were agreed, and communication was kept open.  This saved the world from many false alarms of incoming ICBMs.  Today the tensions, thanks to Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden, are so high that false alarms will be believed.  The world can end simply because of a false alarm.

For expressing concern together with Stephen Cohn, now deceased to our great loss, that a nuclear war could be the consequence of a lack of trust between Washington and Moscow, I was accused of  “Putin worship” by Michael C. Moynihan, a person of no known achievement at a website called “The Daily Beast.”

The digital revolution has endowed journalism with minimal intelligence and minimal integrity.  As Udo Ulfkotte wrote in his 2014 book, they are Bought Journalists.

These bought journalists respect money more than life.  If the world experiences nuclear Armageddon, it will be the fault of the Western Presstitutes who helped the military/security complex resurrect the Cold War.

By Paul Craig Roberts 


1) Richard Stengel is the founder of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC). He describes his job as “chief propagandist.”I’m not against propaganda. Every country does it, they have to do it to their own population, & I don’t think it’s that awful.”
Another word for master narrative is called History.  Basically every country creates their own narrative story.  My old job with the State Department was what people used to joke about, as the Chief Propagandist.  We have not talked about propaganda.  PROPAGANDA, I am not against Propaganda.  Every country does it.  And they have to do it for their own population. I don’t necessarily think it is that awful.  The idea of a News Cartel I mean I was at a time in 2012 during that election and I remember, I mean you are competing against Cartels and everybody and I remember sitting on a panel with the then editor of the New York Times who said “It’s really hard to break through these days”. This is THE EDITOR of the New York Times saying it’s hard to breakthrough.  I almost, I wanted to jump of the platform I’m like what’s it like for the rest of us? So, I mean, so there’s no Car–I mean there are Cartels but the Cartels don’t have the indemnity like they used too.
Then the Mr. Stengal called for a last question and he selected a gentleman in the audience.  I could not understand his accent but I think the gist of his question was “How are we to know what is really happening in the world, when the narrative we get from our leaders is ALWAYS Propaganda?
To which Mr. Stengal replied… “You know what?  I HATE LAST Questions.  He did not respond to the questions.  I never… I usually just want end something before the last question.  Um, but at any rate, I want to thank this fantastic panel. I did want to talk about optimism.  The optimism is all of you there (pointing at the audience) that had to teach your students about this and using some of the techniques and some of the sources we talked about here today.  And I hope you are successful.  Thank you very much.


Describes his job as “CHIEF PROPAGANDIST”!

He says ” I’m not against propaganda.  Every nation does it, they have to do it to their own population. AND, I don’t think it’s that awful.”


Biden state media appointee advocated using propaganda against Americans and ‘rethinking’ First Amendment

Richard Stengel propaganda censorship Biden

Biden state media appointee advocated using propaganda against Americans and ‘rethinking’ First Amendment

The head of the Joe Biden transition team for the US Agency for Global Media, Richard Stengel, has branded himself the “chief propagandist,” urged the government to use propaganda against its “own population,” and called to “rethink” the First Amendment.

Richard Stengel, the top state media appointee for US President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team, has enthusiastically defended the use of propaganda against Americans.

“My old job at the State Department was what people used to joke as the chief propagandist,” Stengel said in 2018. “I’m not against propaganda. Every country does it, and they have to do it to their own population. And I don’t necessarily think it’s that awful.”


Richard “Rick” Stengel was the longest serving under-secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs in US history.

At the State Department under President Barack Obama, Stengel boasted that he “started the only entity in government, non-classified entity, that combated Russian disinformation.” That institution was known as the Global Engagement Center, and it amounted to a massive vehicle for advancing US government propaganda around the world.

A committed crusader in what he openly describes as a global “information war,” Stengel has proudly proclaimed his dedication to the carefully management of the public’s access to information.

Stengel outlined his worldview in a book he published this June, entitled “Information Wars: How We Lost the Global Battle Against Disinformation and What We Can Do About It.”

Stengel has proposed “rethinking” the First Amendment that guarantees the freedom of speech and press. In 2018, he stated, “Having once been almost a First Amendment absolutist, I have really moved my position on it, because I just think for practical reasons in society, we have to kind of rethink some of those things.”

The Biden transition team’s selection of a censorial infowarrior for its top state media position comes as a concerted suppression campaign takes hold on social media. The wave of online censorship has been overseen by US intelligence agencies, the State Department, and Silicon Valley corporations that maintain multibillion-dollar contracts with the US government.

As the state-backed censorship dragnet expands, independent media outlets increasingly find themselves in the crosshairs. In the past year, social media platforms have purged hundreds of accounts of foreign news publications, journalists, activists, and government officials from countries targeted by the United States for regime change.

Stengel’s appointment appears to be the clearest signal of a coming escalation by the Biden administration of the censorship and suppression of online media that is seen to threaten US imperatives abroad.

Richard Stengel MSNBC Russia propaganda censorship Biden

From Obama admin’s “chief propagandist” to Russiagate-peddling MSNBC pundit

Before being appointed as the US State Department’s “chief propagandist” in 2013, Richard Stengel was a managing editor of TIME Magazine.

In the Obama administration, Stengel not only created the Global Engagement Center propaganda vehicle; he also boasted that he “led the creation of English for All, a government-wide effort to promote the teaching of English around the world.”

After leaving the State Department in 2016, Stengel became a strategic advisor to Snap Inc., the company that runs the social media apps Snapchat and Bitmoji.

Stengel also found time for a fellowship at the Atlantic Council, a think tank closely linked to NATO and the Biden camp which has received funding from the US government, Britain, the European Union, and NATO itself, along with a host of Western weapons manufacturers, fossil fuel corporations, Gulf monarchies, and Big Tech juggernauts.

Stengel worked closely with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, a dubious organization that has fueled efforts to censor independent media outlets in the name of fighting “disinformation.”

But Stengel is perhaps most well known as a regular political analyst on MSNBC in the Donald Trump era. On the network, he fueled Russiagate conspiracy theories, portraying the Republican president as a useful idiot of Russia and claiming Trump had a “one-sided bromance” with Vladimir Putin.

Stengel left MSNBC this November to join Biden’s presidential transition. The campaign announced that he was tapped to lead the Biden-Harris agency review team for the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM).

USAGM is a state media propaganda organization that has its origins in a Cold War vehicle created by the CIA to spread disinformation against the Soviet Union and communist China. (The agency was previously called the Broadcasting Board of Governors, or BBG, until it rebranded in 2018.)

USAGM states on its website that its most important mission is to “Be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States.”

An agency shakeup this year produced revelations that USAGM provided clandestine assistance to separatist activists during the protests that consumed Hong Kong in 2019. The program earmarked secure communications assistance for protesters and $2 million in “rapid response” payouts for anti-China activists.

Richard Stengel’s “obsessive” crusade against Russian “disinformation”

When Richard Stengel referred to himself as the State Department’s “chief propagandist,” advocated the use of propaganda against the American people, and proposed to “rethink” the First Amendment, he was participating in a May 3, 2018 panel discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

During the CFR event, titled “Political Disruptions: Combating Disinformation and Fake News,” Stengel hyped up the threat of supposed “Russian disinformation,” a vague term that is increasingly used as an empty signifier for any narrative that offends the sensibilities of Washington’s foreign policy establishment.

Stengel stated that he was “obsessed with” fighting “disinformation,” and made it clear he has a particular obsession with Moscow, accusing “the Russians” of engaging in “full spectrum” disinformation.

Joining him on stage was political scientist Kelly M. Greenhill, who mourned that alternative media platforms publish “things that seem like they could be true… that’s the sphere where it’s particularly difficult to debunk them… it’s this gray region, this gray zone, where it’s not traditional disinformation, but a combination of misinformation and play on rumors, conspiracy theories, sort of gray propaganda, that’s where I think the nub or the crux of the problem lies.”

Stengel approved, adding, “By the way those terms, the gray zone, are all from Russian active measures, that they’ve been doing for a million years.”

The panelists made no effort to hide their disdain for independent and foreign media outlets. Stengel stated clearly that a “news cartel” of mainstream corporate media outlets had long dominated US society, but he bemoaned that those “cartels don’t have hegemony like they used to.”

Stengel made it clear that his mission is to counter the alternative perspectives given a voice by foreign media platforms that challenge the US-dominated media landscape.

“The bad actors use journalistic objectivity against us. And the Russians in particular are smart about this,” Stengel grumbled.

He singled out Russia’s state-funded media network, RT, lamenting that “Vladimir Putin, when they launched Russia Today, said it was an antidote to the American English hegemony over the world media system. That’s how people saw it.”

Ben Decker, a research fellow at the Misinformation Project at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, lamented that “RT is invading every weekly finance media space.”

But Decker was cheered by the proliferation of US oligarchs committed to retaking control of the narrative. “In America and across the world,” he stated, “the donor community is very eager to address this problem, and very eager to work with communities of researchers, academics, journalists, etc. to target this problem.”

“I think that there is an appetite to solve this from the top down,” he continued, urging the many academics in the audience “to apply for grant money” in order to fight this Russian “disinformation.”

The CFR panel culminated with an African audience member rising from the crowd and confronting Stengel: “Because what is happening in America is what the United States flipped on the Global South and in the Third World, which we lived with, for many, many years, in terms of a master narrative that was and still is propaganda,” the man declared.

Rather than respond, Stengel rudely ignored the question and made his way hurriedly for the exit: “You know what, I hate last questions. Don’t you? I never, I usually just want to end something before the last question.”

The video of the revealing confrontation caused such a furor that CFR’s YouTube account disabled comments and made the video unlisted. It cannot be found in a search on Google or YouTube; it can only be found with the direct link.

The video of the full discussion is embedded below:


Does anyone else remember when the Obama administration helped make it legal for the U.S. government to use propaganda on its own citizens?

The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 did just that. With a swift stroke of the pen, our country was instantly transported back in time to a 1950’s Soviet-esque era.

The law was originally crafted in 1948 to prevent the U.S. government from using any of the many foreign-targeted propaganda outlets to broadcast direct messages to the American people (i.e.- propagandizing them). This law remained on the books until about the 1980’s when it was brushed off by some Reps. in Congress. They wanted to add more protection for the people of the U.S. from the massive disinformation and propaganda efforts being undertaken by the U.S. against the Soviets during the Cold War.

The law remained for a time until Obama’s administration along with many members of Congress decided it was time to “modernize” the decades-old act. Modernize being the operative word here. They essentially gutted the act. And there you have it. Our country had become a country where ‘comrade Barack’ would now be deciding what information would be allowed and which information was to be ridiculed and suppressed.

All of this didn’t happen overnight.

Now, we can look back almost a decade in the future from the point in time when the act was gutted. It seems valuable to see where it all went wrong.

Today, our government is becoming more intrusive in our lives than ever before. If we could have told our past self from 10 years ago where our country is now, they’d definitely think you were crazy. But, the truth is that since this landmark in time, the legalization of domestic propaganda that is, we have seen a sharp rise in government interference and intervention in major elections going straight to the Presidential race.

Multiple News Stations Across The Country Repeating The Exact Same ‘Editorial’ Moment To Socially Engineer The Population.

Everything seemed to start spiraling out of control around 2015. Donald Trump busts on to the scene like a veritable ‘Kool-Aid man’ entering the arena by smashing through the media’s brick wall of cognitive dissonance and social conditioning. The ‘elites’ scrambled to develop new strategies to combat the mass red-pilling that Trump was able to pull off on a regular basis.

The stage was set and Donald was the man for the moment. But, then he quickly became the subject of multiple intelligence operations. The media, who so willingly and openly helped thrust Donald Trump in to the stratosphere of political celebrity, were now being infiltrated by former intelligence officers and seedy congressmen and women with highly questionable pasts.

They spun fantastic tales of Russian prostitutes and spied on nearly every critical member of the Trump campaign. They held hearings based on rumors and speculation that was assuredly planted in the news by the same agencies and institutions using it as the pretext for more spying and an eventual effort to impeach.

The lies began to fly.

CNN Fact Checking Donald Trump.

Now, we are forced to ask ourselves ‘how much of the news will we ever be able to trust?’

The answer is yet to be seen.

The government is openly engaged in using propaganda to re-shape our nation. If we are to trust the information coming from the news industry then we must address this major issue that has now become systemic and pervasive.

How will we look back on this moment in ten years?











video image 44.9K14:24

Insanity! Right down to what hashtags they’re using, the American Medical Association is telling physicians what they need to say about the “pandemic” and the dangerous shots being called “vaccines”.
1 year, 5 months ago

video image 142K1:38
To Watch this Video on BitChute Click the Title Link below: 
This Is Extremely Dangerous to Our Democracy
1 year, 1 month ago
video image 358941:21
To Watch this Video on BitChute Click the Title Link below: 
The Counsel on Public Relations: A History of the Fake News

Edward Bernays lays down the foundation for what would become the carefully crafted propaganda machine that currently controls 99 percent of our airwaves.

Crypto:Bitcoin: 3KpaRNh28JhnpwfcHq3QkPfBsNL3tSf5CsEthereum: 0x5f37Ed27519E2e750DAa3EA8CbF43EDD2859fb6dLiteCoin: Ld8HnbtfojQmoCotVwvawzyBbPPAUJTNvG\BSV: 12uFKAYRhsKodLfJfP88H8Eb1ULmNv1eAE
2 years, 3 months ago

video image 69419:34
To Watch this Video on BitChute Click the Title Link below: 
1 year, 8 months ago
video image 69425:33
To Watch this Video on BitChute Click the Title Link below: 
Propaganda! Fake News! How in the World Will We Know?

I am not making any final judgements about anything here. I’m just giving you some information to help you ask the hard questions. My goal is to help people use their brains and common sense to make informed decisions, instead of allowing a bunch of crooked beaurocrats to think for you. 🥰👍🙏💕

Fake News! How in the World Will We Know? #CGI #russiaukraine #deepfake
11 months ago

5 months ago
video image 10504:19
To Watch this Video on BitChute Click the Title Link below: 
How Elites Brainwash The Public By Controlling The Narrative Back Then Like Now

The organizations and policies they use to control information the public has access to. How and what they do to get the masses to think in the manner they want them to think and believe what they tell them. So powerful it is that they will line up by the millions to die. They don’t report the news or find it…they create the news. Most of the time they just make it up any way they want.
1 year, 10 months ago

video image 47161:02:19
To Watch this Video on BitChute Click the Title Link below: 
Controlling the Narrative: Power + Privilege | Our Interesting Times

Dr. E. Michael Jones returns to Our Interesting Times to discuss his article and best selling e-book about Privilege.

Dr. E. Michael Jones is a world renowned and best-selling Catholic author, lecturer, and editor of Culture Wars magazine. His books include:
3 years, 6 months ago

video image 331114:27

sharing video clips fake news media don’t showcopyright owned by Dr Charlie Ward

Pfizer Was Fully Aware That Their ‘Vaccines’ Were UnsafeRobert Kennedy Jr: “Your chance of dying of a heart attack from that vaccine, according to their own studies, is 500% greater than if you’re unvaccinated, so they knew they were gonna kill a lot of people, and they did it anyway.”
8 months, 1 week ago

video image 23073:53
To Watch this Video on BitChute Click the Title Link below: 
Power Hungry People Controlling The Narrative, The So Called ‘Mocking Bird’

Plandemic 2 Documentary Clip 7
2 years, 5 months ago

video image 142629:38
To Watch this Video on BitChute Click the Title Link below: 
The Pattern Of Controlling The Narrative

Who controls the past controls the present! The ability to tell the story of history is always done by the victors, with this in mind think of the Zionist Cause, and how it has impacted and manipulated historical events in order to get their state . . .
3 years, 5 months ago


Although Lincoln gave speeches about slavery dividing the country, the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) has made a hugely successful run at rewriting that history. Established in 1894, the UDC was the premiere ladies’ organization for anyone who was—or was married to—a person of some importance in the Confederacy.
Since the 20th century, several governments have realized that they could rewrite history to their own benefit. And they have been doing just that. Governments promote these edited versions of history through their schools and textbooks. Their students learn a distorted account of history, which they will often believe into adulthood.

Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, is among the historical figures now rejected by liberal culture. (Photo: Stock Montage/Getty Images)

A generation ago, America’s Founding Fathers were venerated. Today, they’re more likely to be under attack from the media, teachers, and politicians. And it’s not just the Founders, but our founding documents, institutions, and other leaders from our past. Our colleague, Jarrett Stepman, has written about all this in a new book called “The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past.” In today’s episode, Kate Trinko, our editor-in-chief, sits down with Jarrett to unpack what this effort is all about.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunesPippaGoogle Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at Enjoy the show!

Kate Trinko: Jarrett Stepman, my colleague here at The Daily Signal, is out with a new book. We’re very excited. It’s called “The War on History,” and you can buy it on Amazon or in your local bookshop maybe, but it’s available all around and I’d encourage you to [read it].

If you’re a regular Daily Signal reader, you’ve been reading Jarrett’s excellent analysis of history for years. I know that I personally have learned a lot from him. Of course, he’s really gifted at pointing out what’s great about America’s history, and he’s really great at pushing back at why the left is wrong that everything is terrible and we are a nation of terrible people and all that fun stuff. But before I go any further, Jarrett, thanks for joining us.

Jarrett Stepman: Thank you very much, Kate.

Trinko: Let’s talk about what’s going on. We’ve seen a lot of fighting about history in recent years, whether it’s Christopher Columbus and if we should still have Columbus Day, it’s whether our Founders—who had slaves—were evil men all around, it’s whether the U.S. was founded on good principles or was founded on inherently evil principles, at least in part.

Why do you think we’re fighting so much about history right now?

Stepman: I think it’s a large part, of course, about politics, which a lot of this directly connects to. It’s not just about the details of history. I think a lot of this comes from especially, I think, in the last part of President Barack Obama’s term and some early parts of President Donald Trump’s.

I think you’ve seen the kind of rise of what people call identity politics and I think that has fueled a large part of what we see as this kind of attack on history and statues, that the statues represent for many the things they see as a problem with America, a problem with our history.

They identify as one thing or another and you see a lot of this ugliness, where people who maybe are uncomfortable with history or, frankly, a lot of times don’t know much about it, but have this idea that America is somehow bad and wrong, they see those symbols as something they need to destroy.

So it becomes part of this kind of power politics of today. Instead of winning arguments and debates with people, we need to destroy them and it’s hard to have a debate with the past. What do you do with it? You simply tear it down.

And I think that’s what a lot of these activists have been doing over the last few years and I think that they have only escalated the targets of these attacks.

It started kind of small, and now it spreads from everything—as you introduced this, Christopher Columbus to Founding Fathers. We’re talking across the board now. These things are up for discussion now in a way that they certainly weren’t even 10 years ago.

Trinko: You brought up the term “power politics.” What do you think the heart of these fights are? What are the values that people are fighting about, almost using history as a proxy?

Stepman: Yeah, and that’s exactly it. History is a proxy and a cudgel. And I think that for many, especially on the hard left in America, I’m not just talking about generally liberals, I’m talking about the hard left, they really do see American principles and values as antithetical to their own views.

I think especially with the rise of President Donald Trump, they saw it as an imperative for them not just to win the arguments and debates with those who they disagree with, but to simply wipe them out and destroy.

This is kind of the idea of the deplorables and stuff like that. A lot of people in our history have been turned into the deplorables, and this is what they see as what’s wrong with America now is based on what it was before.

Of course, they want to fundamentally transform the United States. For many of them, they are often radicals and socialists, and they see a lot of the ideas at the heart of America, not just these individuals on these statues, but these real ideas, the Constitution, Declaration, they see these things as impediments to what they really want to accomplish in this country and I think they see American culture as also an impediment.

So that’s why they’ve turned and tried to turn Americans against these things. If they can’t make them forget, then they will simply go out and destroy.

Trinko: Yeah, it’s funny how fast it seems to be happening.

Jarrett, you and I both grew up in California, in the Bay Area, near San Francisco. And I went to public school in the beginning years of elementary school, and I remember learning about the Pilgrims, and it was great and I just cannot imagine in today’s world that California public school students are still being taught that. I would imagine it’s a lot more fraught. We still had the recycling talks, but yeah, this issue just seems to move faster and faster.

And of course in California recently, in San Francisco, there was the huge fight over the mural of George Washington in a San Francisco high school, which I believe the latest is they’re going to cover it, but not destroy it—but that might kind of be the same.

You talked about how that painting was done by a liberal, or maybe liberal isn’t the right word, but someone on the left who did not think highly of Washington. And I’m wondering, does that suggest to you that we’re reaching, perhaps, a new fever pitch on the war in history? Even acknowledging Washington’s flaws … we still have to destroy Washington?

Stepman: Absolutely, I think you hit the nail on the head. The original portrait that you’re referring to, it was done by a man who I think many would have defined as maybe even a communist, in his own time, it was done in the 1930s.

It was supposed to have a kind of what he would think of as a nuanced portrayal. It depicted slavery, [in one part] there’s a dead Native American there, but the portrayal isn’t glowingly positive once you kind of see George Washington, kind of the marble man of the American Revolution, but that wasn’t enough. …

People were offended by this and even the idea that you would depict George Washington alongside slavery, they wanted it just destroyed, just wipe it out, just completely cover it up because we can’t even see these things or talk about [them], they simply just have to be disappeared.

And we just have to disappear any reference now to George Washington, and I do think that represents the next step. We can’t even be thoughtful about these issues, we can’t even judge them based on the merits of the things. It’s just the idea that, “Well, there’s this thing that makes me uncomfortable, I disagree with, get rid of it. Let’s just turn it to something that I like.”

I think that that creates kind of a fanciful notion of what we should be and I think these debates of our history and certainly people like George Washington, the Founders, I think they’re very fair to have. Obviously, history isn’t just rainbows and sunshine. …

Trinko: If only.

Stepman: If only, but [it] isn’t. … As a conservative I see history as a long string of a lot of ugliness that the great things that have come from it I think are things that should be celebrated, which is kind of the point I make in my book.

For a lot of these people, they don’t see that way. They want some kind of utopian future in which there’s no more wars, there’s no more sadness, there’s no more racism, there’s no more oppression. And they think the only way you can do that is to cover up all the old sins of the past and then just rebuild this brave new future without any reference to where we came from and how we got there.

Frankly, I don’t think it accomplishes their ultimate ends and I think it makes us a less thoughtful society and some ways, a much less tolerant society, incredibly.

Trinko: And of course, if you know your history at all, you know that utopias do not have the greatest track record.

Let’s turn to the actual historical facts here. One of the things that I really enjoyed about your book was your chapter on the founding. And it’s so easy in today’s environment to forget all that went right during the founding and how extraordinary it really was that they had these ideas and these beliefs … they were men of huge intellect.

But before I stammer any further, I’m going to turn over to you. Why was the founding actually great?

Stepman: When you look back at the revolutions in history, there are scant few successes. Really, most turn into violence. Of course, most Americans, people across the globe, know about the French Revolution, which ended in, certainly many what sounded like high-minded ideals and ended up with the guillotine and ended up with mass violence and there was no liberty, there was no equality, there was just misery.

The American founding ultimately was very different. I think it was a product of a lot of Americans who were susceptible to the ideas of the founding.

There were many radical aspects of … the idea that all men are created equal—which is imbued in our Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, based on God-given rights—things like this.

Societies hadn’t been founded on these things. Societies were often a product of force and fraud. How few civilizations had the opportunity to write down a founding document? Really, we were the first one.

And the Founders took that responsibility very seriously and created a founding document, the Constitution of the United States, that survives with very few changes to this day. That’s an incredible thing.

It provided for a country that at the time was 13 colonies, then states, a thin strip along the Eastern seaboard of about 3 million people. Now we have a giant, vast, what Thomas Jefferson would call an empire of liberty that stretches across this continent where you have still under that same Constitution, that same document, that has created liberty and prosperity for untold generations and will for many more.

That’s an incredible accomplishment, especially considering that of all the civilizations in the world, we’re kind of the youngest. We’ve only been around for a short while.

If somebody was around in 1600 and they suddenly found themselves here today, I think the only civilization that would truly shock them would be the creation of the United States—seemingly out of nowhere that suddenly arose to become a superpower and a country with vast liberty and prosperity.

Trinko: Confederate statues have been, I’d say, the biggest flashpoint in recent years. Should they be taken down? Should we have plaques added to them? Well, I don’t think they should, but sometimes it’s just mob rule and they are taken down.

You delve into the book a little bit [about] the history of these statutes. So how did they come about? Why were they done so long, in many cases, after the Civil War and what was the greater context that led to the creation of these statutes?

Stepman: There’s a lot of localism involved with this kind of stuff. And I think that’s an unfortunate missing part of this debate. … There were some statutes that were created for sordid reasons and a lot of others were there as simple tributes to those who had died. Some of them were actually symbols of unity where the nation came back together.

I think there’s actually, and I did mention this in my book, this happened recently, a so-called Confederate statue that’s actually near Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, which is kind of a head-scratcher. Why would they have a Confederate statue?

The truth was, they put that there because there was a Southerner who had moved up there who had built a statue to the Union soldiers and the ending of slavery in this country and giving thanks. And so they said, “Hey, this guy, we know he fought for the Confederacy, but he’s a good guy, he understands what happened.”

There was this moment of forgiveness and saying, “Well, he’s one of our Americans now, too. And we’re going to have a monument to the Confederates who fought against us knowing that now again, we’re all Americans once again. Slavery’s been destroyed and we can go on in the future as countrymen.”

Trinko: Are you saying the guy who put up the original Union statue was a former Confederate soldier?

Stepman: He was.

Trinko: Oh, that’s fascinating.

Stepman: Yes. And so they’ve actually taken this statue down, which I think is very sad because they call it a Confederate statue, but it wasn’t there to celebrate the glory of the Confederacy or slavery, anything like this. It was simply put up to remark on a lot of Southerners. After the war, the country went on. And a lot of people had a change of heart.

Many former Southerners said, “Hey, we’re happy that the Union has come back together.” Some of them admitted that they fought for the wrong thing and I think that was an important part of the healing process that this country had to go through.

Most civil wars don’t end up with a rebuilding of the nation or anything like liberty, they usually entail years, decades, maybe violence forever between different groups.

Our Civil War ended and there certainly was a lot of ugliness even after the war. But there is a kind of miracle that took place in that we actually had a country after this war that certainly caused more deaths than all of our other wars combined where the issues were of the highest stakes.

So there’s a lot of complexity, especially when it comes to the creation of a lot of these Confederate statues, some of the speeches that have taken place at the base. There were some people who at some statues said racist things, others who did not, who said that they wanted to pay tribute to those who had died and to family members.

Sometimes we lose a little of that humanity. Now we’re over 150 years later, we forget that if a school had a lot of young men who went off, most of them in their early teens, they go off to war and they never come back.

How does a community talk about that and memorialize that? These are brothers, these are husbands, even if they fought for, in many cases, a bad cause, how do you memorialize that?

And the nation kind of came to this kind of agreement. We’re going to memorialize, we can say that the Union was right and that slavery was an evil. And yet notice also that a lot of Southerners, they’re our fellow Americans and we should still be sad that so many Americans had to die to purge this evil of slavery.

Trinko: One of the charges alleged against these statues is that they were built around the same time as the rise of the KKK or increased prominence. Why was there such a delay between the Civil War and when the statutes started being erected?

Stepman: The first thing is after the war, the South was, frankly, so impoverished that it was impossible to build statues when they can hardly feed people. And that’s something that was certainly noted, that immediately after the war there wasn’t much building going on, period.

A lot of these statues were built especially at the 100-year anniversary, and, actually, there were Union statues going up around the same time. In fact, funny enough, a lot of statutes around the country look exactly the same, whether they’re Union or Confederate, because they were making them out of the same factories. They were just these kind of generic statues.

So there were a lot of tributes, especially on the 100-year anniversary, which I think was very big. A lot of Americans were trying to look back and say, “Hey, this is this horrible war that our grandfathers and our grandmothers witnessed firsthand.”

People wanted to pay tribute to that. How they did that was incredibly varied across this country. I think we sometimes nationalize every issue and a lot of these statues had a lot of local significance to people in the community. Some of that is forgotten today, but a lot of these statutes were created for memorialization.

Now, I’m not saying that every single statue had the purest of motives, period. There was a lot of racism in this country, certainly in the 1920s, certainly up into the 1950s, things like this.

So certainly those sentiments existed, but the idea that all of these statutes were simply created as a part of white supremacy or the Ku Klux Klan, it’s not accurate, it’s not factual, and I think it really does a disservice to the actual ones, the sometimes very complex history that is there.

Trinko: Yeah, and I think that something that I really enjoyed about your book was that you do get into the complexities and it’s something that I personally struggle with, what I think should be done with Confederate statues.

In all the reading I’ve done, obviously, The Daily Signal has covered a lot of these controversies, I don’t remember ever reading a news report that got into whether the original statue was commemorated with racist speeches or not. And to me that’s a huge signifier. It’s always just so broad.

Stepman: It really is and it’s upsetting, and I talk about certain figures. I wrote about Robert E. Lee, obviously, he’s been a major figure in this, and I talk about [how] Robert E. Lee made the wrong decision to go to war.

I think it’s OK for Americans and maybe even a lot of Southerners to say, “Hey, he made the wrong decision to go fight for the Confederacy.” And yet a lot of his statements that he made about teaching your children to be Americans once again after the war were very important to this being a united country once again.

Not all of his legacy is perfect or great, but that part of it is. And that’s something that we should celebrate and a lot of Americans across the board, many who hated slavery and the Confederacy, came to recognize that.

So again, these are nuances that are often lost in modern debates over these statues and these figures who now just simply thrown into the modern political debate without any nuance.

Trinko: In another chapter of your book, you discuss how Teddy Roosevelt is great. That is not a commonly held opinion among conservatives. So tell me what you like about him.

Stepman: Yeah, I defend Theodore Roosevelt very specifically in this book. And I very intentionally chose figures who were not just simply conservative or liberal figures, but ones who contributed something very specific to this country.

And Roosevelt … is coming under attack, especially the Natural History Museum in New York wants to take down his statue, they say it looks imperialist, things like this.

Theodore Roosevelt, he is a larger-than-life kind of individual. I think a lot of Americans, whether they be conservatives or liberals, both have kind of grabbed hold of him for their causes. I think it serves kind of the martial aspects of Theodore Roosevelt. Progressives like the fact that he seemed to like some bigger government programs. He was kind of an economic nationalist or things like this.

So to me, that was not what ultimately Theodore Roosevelt contributed to American civilization. To me, it was his Americanism, his grappling with the very serious issue at the time, which was high levels of immigration, which were very common in the late 19th century. And how is America going to deal with that?

I think Theodore Roosevelt, his speeches and his discussions over bringing in new immigrants are incredibly important because he is a chief proponent of what I would call patriotic assimilation.

He absolutely believed that we need to make sure that those who come here wave the American flag, will be welcomed just like us. And he wrote speeches both rebuking those who didn’t want that, who essentially, and even in his own day, wanted some kind of form of, I guess you could say multiculturalism and also the nativists.

He said, “If a man comes here or a woman comes here or anybody comes here and they want to be Americans, they adapt to our ways. It doesn’t matter where you come from, you’re an American, period.” And I think his statements about that and why that’s so important, how to deal with these issues, are so important, especially in the modern context.

Our fights over immigration are so ferocious and a lot of this gets lost. How do you build a unified country when you have people who come from all over the world to that country from many different backgrounds? Roosevelt came from a time where the nation’s elite tried to direct newcomers to American ideas, to our history, to the founding.

Theodore Roosevelt was very much a part of that. And to me, as a conservative, yes, I don’t agree with all of his economic policies, I think sometimes he looked over federalism as an important issue, but on that issue, he was very much right. And he had a lot to teach Americans in the 21st century.

And I think he’s certainly somebody that shouldn’t simply be erased from history or disappeared because we don’t agree with everything he said, he has a lot to teach us. I think that’s an important part of his legacy, certainly one that very much influences us today.

Trinko: All right, maybe I’ll have to slightly reconsider what I think of Roosevelt then.

By the way, if any of you ever come to Washington, D.C., there is a lovely island in the Potomac named after him with a slightly bizarre monument in the center, but it’s a great place to walk around.

Stepman: I love that monument, I love it.

Trinko: Speaking of a larger-than-life Teddy Roosevelt.

So we hear a lot from parents and grandparents and, as I mentioned earlier in this show, a lot of kids are not being taught history [correctly] right now.

How would you recommend, again parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, whatever, how can you help your child if they’re going to a public school or somewhere else where they’re not learning about history? What would you say are the most important things to teach them about?

Stepman: Absolutely. You can pick up my book, which will, hopefully, debunk some of the attacks on our history that are coming from, I think, unfortunately, a lot of hard-left historians. Of course, a lot of parents probably know about Howard Zinn, who was a hard-left communist, essentially. Unfortunately, his books are used a lot in schools.

I do say for parents especially, be very aware of the curriculum that young children are bringing home. In schools throughout this country, I think a lot of these battles are being fought there. And to a certain extent, you always need to put pressure on teachers and parents, you need to be very aware what your child is learning in school.

You could also go and find resources, teach kids on Fourth of July, it’s great to have a barbecue and it’s great to celebrate this country, but maybe say something and read the Declaration of Independence. Keep a Fourth of July kind of Seder going where you read about this country’s history and ask young people to think about and explain what that means to them. …

One of the reasons why I got pulled out of a public school at a young age—believe it or not, I know the date, it was June 6, 1994, and it was the anniversary of D-Day. And my father asked me when he came to pick me up, “What’d you learn?” And I said, “We learned about writing postcards and stuff.” And he’s, “Well, anything else?” I was like, “No.”

And my father actually went in and confronted the teacher about this. He says, “Why isn’t my son learning about D-Day? This is very important.” There were a lot of young people that aren’t much older than these kids who died and fought for liberty and freedom and things like this and the teacher just couldn’t get this. And eventually, he did pull me out of school because they weren’t teaching these values and put me in a private school.

I understand that’s often a very hard thing for parents, which is why I believe very strongly in the issue of school choice, which is a necessary element in a lot of these cases where if the local public school is not doing a good job and not providing an education, not teaching the civic values that are essential to having a republic, pull them out of school, send them to a place that will teach that, homeschool your kids.

There’s a lot of curriculum out there. There’s a lot of primary sources that teach kids about civics and about what this country is all about. And I think that’s on Americans because that’s vital. We live in a republic, we the people are expected to create our own laws.

We’re expected to be, in some ways, more understanding of how politics works, how civics works, how our history is than other people who live under tyrannical governments. So that is essential to our wellbeing and our future.

Sometimes this takes fighting in a local school board, sometimes this takes pulling your kid out of school, and sometimes it just takes sitting down with your children and using some primary resources, using some books, and saying, “Well, let me teach you about the Founders. This is what they stood for. This is why it matters to you, and pass these things along to other people as well.”

Those things are essential and critical. That’s where it brought us to this point and I think that even in this time where there is, unfortunately, a lot of ignorance about history, I think that a lot of the polls are very bad, this information is available.

We live in the internet age, there’s mass information, there’s, and you can buy books. This information exists out there. It’s just a matter of using it and bringing it to the right people and also fighting a little bit.

People are saying that the Founders are no good, the Constitution is rotten. Debate people and say, “Hey, I don’t think that’s right. Let me inform you about what the truth is.” And I think that is important, that Americans have courage to stand up for what their country is and has symbolized. And that’s an incredibly important thing, land of the free and home of the brave.

Trinko: It sounds like you have a great dad.

Again, the book is called “The War on History,” it’s brand new, out this week. Please buy it, it’s a great book, I really recommend it.

In addition to the book, if you are looking for resources, Jarrett does a terrific podcast with our other colleague, Fred Lucas, who is a White House correspondent and also historian. That podcast is called “The Right Side of History.” They get into a lot of these things, it’s always a great listen.

Jarrett, thank you for joining us.

Stepman: Thank you very much.


Mayors in multiple cities have ordered the removal of statues honoring Confederate leaders. (Photo: David Rae Morris /Polaris/Newscom)

George Orwell said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

In the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, censorship, rewriting of history, and eliminating undesirable people became part of Soviets’ effort to ensure that the correct ideological and political spin was put on their history.

Deviation from official propaganda was punished by confinement in labor camps and execution.

Today there are efforts to rewrite history in the U.S., albeit the punishment is not so draconian as that in the Soviet Union.

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu had a Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee monument removed last month. Former Memphis Mayor A.C. Wharton wanted the statue of Confederate Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, as well as the graves of Forrest and his wife, removed from the city park.

In Richmond, Virginia, there have been calls for the removal of the Monument Avenue statues of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Gens. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and J.E.B. Stuart.

It’s not only Confederate statues that have come under attack. Just by having the name of a Confederate, such as J.E.B. Stuart High School in Falls Church, Virginia, brings up calls for a name change.

These history rewriters have enjoyed nearly total success in getting the Confederate flag removed from state capitol grounds and other public places.

Slavery is an undeniable fact of our history. The costly war fought to end it is also a part of the nation’s history. Neither will go away through cultural cleansing.

Removing statues of Confederates and renaming buildings are just a small part of the true agenda of America’s leftists.

Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and there’s a monument that bears his name—the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. George Washington also owned slaves, and there’s a monument to him, as well—the Washington Monument in Washington.

Will the people who call for removal of statues in New Orleans and Richmond also call for the removal of the Washington, D.C., monuments honoring slaveholders Jefferson and Washington?

Will the people demanding a change in the name of J.E.B. Stuart High School also demand that the name of the nation’s capital be changed?

These leftists might demand that the name of my place of work—George Mason University—be changed. Even though Mason was the author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which became a part of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights, he owned slaves.

Not too far from my university is James Madison University. Will its name be changed? Even though Madison is hailed as the “Father of the Constitution,” he did own slaves.

Rewriting American history is going to be challenging. Just imagine the task of purifying the nation’s currency.

Slave owner Washington’s picture graces the $1 bill. Slave owner Jefferson’s picture is on the $2 bill. Slave-owning Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s picture is on our $50 bill. Benjamin Franklin’s picture is on the $100 bill.

The challenges of rewriting American history are endless, going beyond relatively trivial challenges such as finding new pictures for our currency. At least half of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were slave owners.

Also consider that roughly half of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were slave owners. Do those facts invalidate the U.S. Constitution, and would the history rewriters want us to convene a new convention to purge and purify our Constitution?

The job of tyrants and busybodies is never done. When they accomplish one goal, they move their agenda to something else.

If we Americans give them an inch, they’ll take a yard. So I say, don’t give them an inch in the first place.

The hate-America types use every tool at their disposal to achieve their agenda of discrediting and demeaning our history. Our history of slavery is simply a convenient tool to further their cause.


It’s no surprise that some people in our government are doing everything they can to fundamentally rewrite our history, but the level at which its being done seems to be reaching new heights as the federal government attempts to indoctrinate an entire generation through their new common core school standards.

This week in Springfield, Illinois a story came out showing yet another example of how the government is attempting to rewrite history and brainwash our children. As part of their history curriculum, middle school students in Springfield are being taught about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – but what they’re being taught is far from what our founders ever intended.

Middle school students in Springfield, Illinois – and probably other areas of the country that are using the same textbooks – are being taught that under the second amendment Americans are only permitted to have  “certain weapons” and under certain restrictions.

In the textbook, children are taught that the second amendment “states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison.” Last time I checked, registration was not part of the second amendment!

Textbook Showing definition of Second Amendment
Photo of the Textbook Provided to the Illinois Gun Owners Rights Facebook page by a local Springfield, IL. parent.

While many dismiss these types of events as “innocent mistakes,” I think they’re part of a larger more sinister plan – an attempt to silence the opposition and fundamentally change our country by rewriting our history. In my opinion – and I know some people might think I’m going too far – this isn’t much different from Nazi Germany propaganda.

We are living in a country where a majority of people are completely ignorant to the laws of the land. They’ve been so brainwashed by years of government/media propaganda, that most people don’t care – or notice – the fact that our Constitution is being violated on a daily basis.

Think about it…. Over the last couple of years, we’ve learned that the federal government is listening to our phone calls, monitoring the internet, purchasing drones to spy on the American Public, building smart grids to track our every move, and creating Fusion Centers with the sole purpose of keeping tabs on law-abiding American citizens.

And what does the public do? Nothing; they sits idly by playing on their iPhones and talking about what some idiot T.V. star is wearing.

I usually stay away from stories that don’t relate back to preparedness or survival in some way, but I truly think this issue has a lot to do with our continued existence as a country. If we don’t start paying attention to what’s going on, we may very soon lose this country and our freedom.



1948 propaganda Santa Flickr/x-ray delta one

The newest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes an amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on the American public, reports Michael Hastings of BuzzFeed.

The amendment — proposed by Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and passed in the House last Friday afternoon — would effectively nullify the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion.

Thornberry said that the current law “ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible way,” according to Buzzfeed.

The vote came two days after a federal judged ruled that an indefinite detention provision in the annual defense bill was unconstitutional.

Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, who released a highly critical report regarding the distortion of truth by senior military officials in Iraq and Afghanistan, dedicated a section of his report to Information Operations (IO) and states that after Desert Storm the military wanted to transform IO “into a core military competency on a par with air, ground, maritime and special operations.”

Davis defines IO as “the integrated employment of electronic warfare (EW), computer network operations (CNO), psychological operations (PSYOP), military deception (MILDEC), and operations security (OPSEC), in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting our own.”

IO are primarily used to target foreign audiences, but Davis cites numerous senior leaders who want to (in the words of  Colonel Richard B. Leap) “protect a key friendly center of gravity, to wit US national will” by repealing the Smith-Mundt Act to allow the direct deployment of these tactics on the American public.

Davis quotes Brigadier General Ralph O. Baker — the Pentagon officer responsible for the Department of Defense’s Joint Force Development (i.e. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines) — who defines IO as activities undertaken to “shape the essential narrative of a conflict or situation and thus affect the attitudes and behaviors of the targeted audience” and equates descriptions of combat operations with standard marketing strategies:

For years, commercial advertisers have based their advertisement strategies on the premise that there is a positive correlation between the number of times a consumer is exposed to product advertisement and that consumer’s inclination to sample the new product. The very same principle applies to how we influence our target audiences when we conduct COIN.

Davis subsequently explains the “cumulative failure of our nation’s major media in every category” as they continually interviewed only those senior U.S. officials who had top-level access, even as the officials given that clearance were required to stick to “talking points” given to them by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

If the NDAA goes into effect in its current form, the State Department and Pentagon can go beyond manipulating mainstream media outlets and directly disseminate campaigns of misinformation to the U.S. public.



The Cable goes inside the foreign policy machine, from Foggy Bottom to Turtle Bay, the White House to Embassy Row.

For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences.

Broadcasting Board of Governors / Washington Forum
Broadcasting Board of Governors / Washington Forum
JULY 14, 2013, 7:06 PM

For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts. So what just happened?

Until this month, a vast ocean of U.S. programming produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. The programming varies in tone and quality, but its breadth is vast: It’s viewed in more than 100 countries in 61 languages. The topics covered include human rights abuses in Iran, self-immolation in Tibet, human trafficking across Asia, and on-the-ground reporting in Egypt and Iraq.

The restriction of these broadcasts was due to the Smith-Mundt Act, a long-standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years, perhaps most consequentially by Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. In the 1970s, Fulbright was no friend of VOA and Radio Free Europe, and moved to restrict them from domestic distribution, saying they “should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics.” Fulbright’s amendment to Smith-Mundt was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky, who argued that such “propaganda” should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. “from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity.”

Zorinsky and Fulbright sold their amendments on sensible rhetoric: American taxpayers shouldn’t be funding propaganda for American audiences. So did Congress just tear down the American public’s last defense against domestic propaganda?

BBG spokeswoman Lynne Weil insists BBG is not a propaganda outlet, and its flagship services such as VOA “present fair and accurate news.”

“They don’t shy away from stories that don’t shed the best light on the United States,” she told The Cable. She pointed to the charters of VOA and RFE: “Our journalists provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible discussion, and open debate.”

A former U.S. government source with knowledge of the BBG says the organization is no Pravda, but it does advance U.S. interests in more subtle ways. In Somalia, for instance, VOA serves as counterprogramming to outlets peddling anti-American or jihadist sentiment. “Somalis have three options for news,” the source said, “word of mouth, al-Shabab, or VOA Somalia.”

This partially explains the push to allow BBG broadcasts on local radio stations in the United States. The agency wants to reach diaspora communities, such as St. Paul, Minnesota’s significant Somali expat community. “Those people can get al-Shabab, they can get Russia Today, but they couldn’t get access to their taxpayer-funded news sources like VOA Somalia,” the source said. “It was silly.”

Lynne added that the reform has a transparency benefit as well. “Now Americans will be able to know more about what they are paying for with their tax dollars — greater transparency is a win-win for all involved,” she said. And so with that we have the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, and went into effect this month.

But if anyone needed a reminder of the dangers of domestic propaganda efforts, the past 12 months provided ample reasons. Last year, two USA Today journalists were ensnared in a propaganda campaign after reporting about millions of dollars in back taxes owed by the Pentagon’s top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan. Eventually, one of the co-owners of the firm confessed to creating phony websites and Twitter accounts to smear the journalists anonymously. Additionally, just this month, the Washington Post exposed a counter-propaganda program by the Pentagon that recommended posting comments on a U.S. website run by a Somali expat with readers opposing al-Shabab. “Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership,” reported the Post.

But for BBG officials, the references to Pentagon propaganda efforts are nauseating, particularly because the Smith-Mundt Act never had anything to do with regulating the Pentagon, a fact that was misunderstood in media reports in the run-up to the passage of new Smith-Mundt reforms in January.

One example included a report by the late BuzzFeed reporter Michael Hastings, who suggested that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act would open the door to Pentagon propaganda of U.S. audiences. In fact, as amended in 1987, the act only covers portions of the State Department engaged in public diplomacy abroad (i.e. the public diplomacy section of the “R” bureau, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.)

But the news circulated regardless, much to the displeasure of Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), a sponsor of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. “To me, it’s a fascinating case study in how one blogger was pretty sloppy, not understanding the issue and then it got picked up by Politico‘s Playbook, and you had one level of sloppiness on top of another,” Thornberry told The Cable last May. “And once something sensational gets out there, it just spreads like wildfire.”

That of course doesn’t leave the BBG off the hook if its content smacks of agitprop. But now that its materials are allowed to be broadcast by local radio stations and TV networks, they won’t be a complete mystery to Americans. “Previously, the legislation had the effect of clouding and hiding this stuff,” the former U.S. official told The Cable. “Now we’ll have a better sense: Gee some of this stuff is really good. Or gee some of this stuff is really bad. At least we’ll know now.”


ministry of truth

Please Share This Story!
In nineteen Eighty Four language, Obama has just created the “Ministry of Truth” with the signing of S.2943.The bill’s co-sponsor is Sen. Rob Portman, former U.S. Trade Representative with plenty of Trilateral Commission connections.  TN Editor

Late on Friday, with the US population embracing the upcoming holidays and oblivious of most news emerging from the administration, Obama quietly signed into law the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which authorizes $611 billion for the military in 2017.

In a statement, Obama said that:

 Today, I have signed into law S. 2943, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.” This Act authorizes fiscal year 2017 appropriations principally for the Department of Defense and for Department of Energy national security programs, provides vital benefits for military personnel and their families, and includes authorities to facilitate ongoing operations around the globe. It continues many critical authorizations necessary to ensure that we are able to sustain our momentum in countering the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and to reassure our European allies, as well as many new authorizations that, among other things, provide the Departments of Defense and Energy more flexibility in countering cyber-attacks and our adversaries’ use of unmanned aerial vehicles.”

Much of the balance of Obama’s statement blamed the GOP for Guantanamo’s continued operation and warned that “unless the Congress changes course, it will be judged harshly by history,” Obama said. Obama also said Congress failed to use the bill to reduce wasteful overhead (like perhaps massive F-35 cost overruns?) or modernize military health care, which he said would exacerbate budget pressures facing the military in the years ahead.

But while the passage of the NDAA – and the funding of the US military – was hardly a surprise, the biggest news is what was buried deep inside the provisions of the Defense Authortization Act.

Recall that as we reported in early June“a bill to implement the U.S.’ very own de facto Ministry of Truth had been quietly introduced in Congress. As with any legislation attempting to dodge the public spotlight the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 marks a further curtailment of press freedom and another avenue to stultify avenues of accurate information. Introduced by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu, H.R. 5181 seeks a “whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions” to counter “foreign disinformation and manipulation,” which they believe threaten the world’s “security and stability.”

Also called the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S. 2692), when introduced in March by Sen. Rob Portman, the legislation represents a dramatic return to Cold War-era government propaganda battles. “These countries spend vast sums of money on advanced broadcast and digital media capabilities, targeted campaigns, funding of foreign political movements, and other efforts to influence key audiences and populations,” Portman explained, adding that while the U.S. spends a relatively small amount on its Voice of America, the Kremlin provides enormous funding for its news organization, RT.

“Surprisingly,” Portman continued, “there is currently no single U.S. governmental agency or department charged with the national level development, integration and synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation.”

Long before the “fake news” meme became a daily topic of extensive conversation on such discredited mainstream portals as CNN and WaPo, H.R. 5181 would task the Secretary of State with coordinating the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to “establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response,” which will pinpoint sources of disinformation, analyze data, and — in true dystopic manner — ‘develop and disseminate’ “fact-based narratives” to counter effrontery propaganda.

In short, long before “fake news” became a major media topic, the US government was already planning its legally-backed crackdown on anything it would eventually label “fake news.”

* * *

Fast forward to December 8, when the “Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act” passed in the Senate, quietly inserted inside the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.

And now, following Friday’s Obama signing of the NDAA on Friday evening, the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act is now law.

* * *

Here is the full statement issued by the generously funded Senator Rob Portman (R- Ohio) on the signing into law of a bill that further chips away at press liberties in the US, and which sets the stage for future which hunts and website shutdowns, purely as a result of an accusation that any one media outlet or site is considered as a source of “disinformation and propaganda” and is shut down by the government.

President Signs Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill into Law

Portman-Murphy Bill Promotes Coordinated Strategy to Defend America, Allies Against Propaganda and Disinformation from Russia, China & Others

Amends the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 to prohibit funds for the Department of State or the Board from being used to influence public opinion or propagandizing in the United States. (Under current law such provision applies to the United States Information Agency [USIA].)

Propaganda is legal in the United States

Barrack Obama free photo via Pixabay
Barrack Obama free photo via Pixabay

Americans have the Obama Administration to thank for what’s happening today.


You don’t have to be a journalist, a political analyst or a sociologist to notice the huge shift that has happened in the media of the United States. Dozens of television channels, newspapers, magazines, and websites have morphed into PR vehicles. Unbiased journalism is long gone. Who do we have to thank for that? The Russians? Trump? The media themselves? The answer is: Barrack Obama.

Thanks, Obama

In a statement released on December 23, 2016, President Barrack Obama said: “Today, I have signed into law S. 2943, the ‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.’

The funding of the US military was hardly a surprise, but the Defense Authorization Act had something much more significant buried deep inside it, under layers of legislation — the Countering Foreign propaganda and Disinformation Act.



KIM BROWN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Kim Brown in Baltimore. Last Friday, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law. The NDAA allocates almost $19 billion in military and war spending. Now, within this massive piece of legislation is a law that will create an anti-propaganda agency known as the Global Engagement Center. That’s right, within the NDAA is another law known as the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act. Now, this Act was initially introduced by Senators Rob Portman, Republican, from Ohio and Democrat, Chris Murphy from Connecticut. This was back in March. Now, this was before it was integrated into the NDAA. Now, this Act creates a center run by the US State Department whose goal will be to, “expose and counter, foreign disinformation operations by our enemies, and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support the US allies and interests.” The Propaganda Act also establishes a fund to train a local journalists and provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations – that will participate in countering propaganda and advance fact-based narratives that support US allies and interests.


You are so on point about this subject
Love your channel! See you’re not posting for a while now. Did you start a new one?? KUDOS👍
Pres. Obama Quietly Signs The “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” Into Law … ‘The Ministry of Truth’ will now oversee the United States’ media! December 23rd, 2016, Pres. Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017, during Friday evening, effectively making the “Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act,” law. This law will give the President/government, full control over all media in the USA, as well as with what type of free speech can actually be expressed and tolerated in media, and on social media platforms.