Sinclair’s Sin: Breaking the Liberal Media Narrative

The liberal media uproar over Sinclair Broadcasting was as predictable as snow in a blizzard.

First comes the news that one Justin Simmons has quit his job as a producer at a Nebraska Sinclair outlet. The CNN headline was this: “Sinclair producer in Nebraska resigns to protest ‘obvious bias’”  

And as reported here at CNN:

A morning TV producer at a Sinclair-owned station in Nebraska has resigned in protest of what he calls the company’s “obvious bias.”

Justin Simmons gave notice at KHGI TV on March 26. This was after Sinclair’s corporate headquarters mandated that local anchors read the controversial promos warning of “fake” and biased news, but before the promos went viral and became a national topic of discussion.

Simmons told CNNMoney that he had been concerned about Sinclair’s corporate mandates for the past year and a half, and that the promos were just the final straw.

“This is almost forcing local news anchors to lie to their viewers,” he said.

One can only point out the obvious here. The liberal state media is filled with “boosterish” videos and programing for liberal causes. (See: the CNN townhall on gun control. But one of countless examples.) Which is exactly why neither Simmons nor CNN or other liberal media folk complain.

But before you can say “liberal state media bias” we learn something else that was exactly nowhere in the CNN report, much less in Simmons’ statement. As reported here by NewsBusters’ own Nicholas Fondacaro:

The Federalist’s James Hasson discovered that ‘[Simmons], who joined the station nearly four years ago, is heavily involved with a self-described ‘civil resistance movement’ called Democracy Spring.’

Hmmm. And what is that? Mr. Hasson reveals this: 

“A quick review of Simmons’s Twitter account shows him using the hashtag “#Resist” at a Dulles Airport protest against President Trump’s travel ban, boasting about “When we took over [Paul Ryan’s] podium protesting,” and giving a YouTube interview about his role organizing a Black Lives Matter protest. Simmons was employed by Sinclair while he participated in all of those activities, and these are but a fraction of his social media posts. 

The former Sinclair employee, who joined the station nearly four years ago, is heavily involved with a self-described “civil resistance movement” called Democracy Spring. The movement’s stated goal is to remove money from American politics (the Supreme Court’s repeated First Amendment rulings to the contrary notwithstanding, apparently) through civil disobedience.

In other words? Mr. Simmons, as befits his right as an American, is a left-wing political activist whose day job is as a TV producer.And there was not only not a peep about this in the CNN story – one can only wonder how this decided left-wing bias influenced the stories that Mr. Simmons helped present to his Nebraska viewers over the years.

Which in turn cuts straight to the heart of the problem with liberal media bias. To be a liberal in the media is to be presented to the audience as a straight-shooter, a neutral observer charged with a “just the facts m’am” presentation. When in fact the “just the facts” presentation is actually all about the “facts” as presented through a liberal lens. 

The reason the Sinclair episode here is so enlightening is that it shows just how the liberal media game works. Sinclair, a conservative media company, takes over what has been an outlet putting out “news” as decided by a producer (and presumably others) who have, shall we say with understatement, “a liberal world view.” Precisely because the liberal game is interrupted and its monopoly on news presentation is changed by a conservative – all liberal media hell breaks loose. 

Note well that statement from Simmons on being instructed to produce other than the liberal media narrative. “This is almost forcing local news anchors to lie to their viewers.”

Were local viewers informed of Simmons’ left-wing activism by his own station? There is no indication – not an instance of it – in the CNN story. Perhaps the phrase “lie to their viewers” is too strong in discussing the lack of reporting on Simmons’ left-wing views by his own station and from all sorts of liberal outlets who pounced on the story, but at a minimum it was deceptive not to tell viewers and readers this key piece of information.  It is totally left out of the story – completely.

So as presented by CNN its own viewers were being led to believe that Simmons was some honest broker-journalist who is disturbed to see bias materialize at his station. When in fact Simmons himself was a man of active political bias from the left – and no one at the station blinked and CNN mysteriously never found time to report when they wrote up the story.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but not only has this story backfired big time on CNN and Simmons and every other outlet that reported the story without noticing what was really going on here. In fact this calls attention to exactly the problem with the liberal media well beyond CNN. 

The word “narrative” is much used these days in discussing journalism. The online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “narrative” as it is used here this way: “The representation in art of an event or story.”

What Sinclair is doing around the country is “taking control of the liberal media narrative” of the news as broadcast on Sinclair stations – and changing it.“The liberal media narrative” something that has been held in a monopoly until the advent of talk radio, Fox News, the Internet and – in this case – now by Sinclair.

All of this has legendarily brought to the surface the left-wing addiction for control – in this case control of media narratives. Whether it was Bill Clinton complaining about Rush Limbaugh back in the ’90s or Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton complaining about Fox News yesterday and today or liberal groups trying to take —  fill in the blank —  Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, all of Fox News and more —  off television or radio air, the objective is the same.Try and get control of the media narrative.

In short: In the world of the Left, dissent from the liberal state media narrative is not to be allowed. And in this case, what Sinclair is doing in putting a conservative voice on its air, is a threat to the cozy, clubby world of the liberal media narrative. 

So, producer Simmons quits and makes much of it. But somehow his left-wing activism doesn’t quite make the cut in the liberal media stories reporting on his resignation.

But of course. That’s how they play the game.

Alas? This game is over for good. The liberal state media narrative monopoly is no more. Which is exactly what makes the liberal journalists who once ran the media roost so furious.

Source Article from

Innocent Email Throws #NeverAgain Narrative Into Question

Next Story

Soon after 17 people were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on February 14, 2018, a group known as Never Again MSD emerged on social media. The group’s Facebook page, for instance, ‘run by survivors of the Stoneman Douglas shooting’, was surprisingly up and running the following day, February 15, complete with the popular #NeverAgain.

The students that comprise Never Again MSD are widely regarded as the initiators of the ‘March For Our Lives’ gun-control demonstrations that took place in Washington, DC and across the nation on March 24. The march has now spawned many more initiatives that are fighting to end gun violence.

The power of youth, eh? It’s a charming narrative. But let’s read on.

A Revealing Email

On March 30, blogger Dr. Eowyn wrote a post on the ‘Fellowship of the Minds’ website that suggests that plans for the demonstrations were initiated long before the Parkland shooting. The evidence? A statement in an email sent to a source of European researcher Ole Dammegard by Officer Scott C. Earhardt of the Homeland Security Bureau of the Metropolitan Police Department:

In reference to your inquiry concerning the March For Our Lives Demonstration, here in the District of Columbia on March 24, 2018. MPD received a permit application several months prior to the actual event, and there was several months of planning for this large event.

If a permit application for the march was received several months prior to the actual event, of course, then the notion that ‘March For Our Lives’ sprung from a spontaneous grass-roots initiative by high school students is completely destroyed. But not just that. It also gives added weight to suspicions that the entire Parkland shooting was a false flag event.

OK, let’s tread slowly here. Whenever the term ‘false flag’ is brought up, it tends to polarize people into two camps: believers and non-believers. It’s a difficult thing to sit on the fence long enough to use proper discernment, because of the amount of cognitive dissonance it causes.

What is a ‘False Flag’?

Wikipedia tells us, ‘False flag refers to covert operations designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party (group or nation) being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility.’

The Parkland shooting, strictly speaking, is a false flag event if there was a hidden agenda—like gun control—behind the execution of the event. It is not a matter of whether or not all the deaths reported were fabrications.  The lynchpin, in this case, would be if perpetrator Nikolas Cruz was not acting solely of his own accord (i.e. that he was under the influence of drug-facilitated mind-control by the true planners of the event and/or was aided in material ways by hidden accomplices who are not recognized in the official narrative). Certainly much evidence has been brought forward to support this possibility, but this article will be limited to the single piece of evidence discussed above.

If the Parkland shooting had planners whose motive was stricter gun control, then certainly the idea of trauma-stricken kids starting an emotional grassroots movement chastising NRA-funded politicians for their inaction on strong gun control legislation is a most powerful optic. In fact, this idea evokes visions of a jubilant self-congratulatory celebration after a long brainstorming session inside a well-funded liberal think tank.

Damage Control

And so, if these planners got wind of an email that leaked out which states that preparations for the ‘March For Our Lives’ demonstrations occurred months before the Parkland shooting, they would quickly realize that their narrative was going to be challenged. And they would naturally move into damage-control mode.

What tools are at their disposal?

  • Order ‘concerned citizens’ (read: trolls) onto the offending blog to refute the validity of the email. Check. (Read comments from EpiDoc and others in the comments section of the article here.)
  • Order ‘non-partisan bloggers’ to write posts refuting the validity of the email. Check. (This post in the blog Politifact came up as the first ‘top story’ in a Google search on ‘March for Our Lives’)
  • Order ‘independent watchdogs’ to label as ‘FALSE’ the premise established by the email. Check. (This Snopes entry came up as the second ‘top story’ in a Google search on ‘March for Our Lives’)
  • Most importantly: Compel the offending party by any means necessary to deny, retract, or at minimum keep silent. Check. (Officer Earhardt has up to now not responded to requests for confirmation of the email)

Using Discernment 

I stand before you as a person with a single-minded interest: the truth. I do not write to tell you what is true, I write to stoke your level of discernment in your own personal search for the truth, as a comrade-in-arms.

What I have come to believe is that in issues such as this, there are two forces at play: those who are seeking to uncover the truth and those who are promoting an agenda based on false perception. Each individual piece of information needs to be examined on its own merits, where commonsense human motivation becomes the guiding principle.

Breaking Down The Email

In the case of Officer Earhardt’s email, let’s look at what makes sense using this lens. Is it likely that Officer Earhardt did not write this email, as commenter EpiDoc suggests? No. There is hard evidence that otherwise stands up to scrutiny.

Is it likely that he ‘had mistakenly mixed up the annual D.C.-based March for Life rally that happened in January with the more recent March for Our Lives demonstration in the email,’ as claimed in the Politifact article? No. While people do occasionally make mistakes of this kind, they are not so common. After all, the date of March 24th was explicit in the email. Note that the idea of the officer confusing two different marches is obviously one of the few options available if one is trying to discredit this evidence.

Furthermore, this is in conflict with EpiDoc’s claim that the email itself was a fabrication. Whenever we see a stark contradiction in two attempts at the refutation of evidence being used in search of the truth, your discernment antennas should be up in full force.

Finally, Snopes’ claim their investigation determined that ‘the permit application for the March for Our Lives rally was received on 21 February 2018, one week after the massacre’ is brought into question based on the fact that in the District of Columbia Special Events Task Group / Special Events Planning Guide, it is stipulated that organizers of such events must ‘Submit Letter of Intent to the MSETG AT LEAST 180 DAYS PRIOR to the planned date of the event.’

The Battle For Our Collective Perception

If we are to arrive at the ultimate truth about the Parkland shooting, we need to examine every piece of evidence presented on both sides with open discernment, and then see how our conclusions from each piece of evidence cohere with one another. We can also use this method to bring together our understanding of such events in general, as a consequence of recurring patterns we notice.

It is simple enough for those who want to forward a false perception to refute a single piece of evidence that challenges the revelation of truth, especially if the general public are more ‘comfortable’ with that very mainstream perception. And that helps keep the status quo. Those who wish to lock us into a false perception realize that it is actually the awesome power of our collective perception that creates the world that we live in.

Our task as truth seekers is to see the patterns of deception and learn to recognize, in each instance, whether the pure truth is earnestly being sought, or a false perception is being maintained.

The Shamanic Way of Healing

The Sacred Science follows eight people from around the world, with varying physical and psychological illnesses, as they embark on a one-month healing journey into the heart of the Amazon jungle.

This incredible true story details how ancient shamanic healing methods can work to shift our bodies and minds. here.

Read the incredible true story here.

The Shamanic Way of Healing

8 people with illnesses go into the jungle to heal naturally… read the incredible true story here.


Source Article from

NBC Adopts Gov. Brown’s ‘War on California’ Narrative Against Sessions

Please support NewsBusters today! (a 501c3 non-profit production of the Media Research Center)


Source Article from

James Tracy: Ten Reasons Parkland Narrative Stinks

by James F. Tracy

(abridged by 

Below is a brief discussion of the most glaring inconsistencies and overall problems evident in information and coverage of the Parkland incident that necessitate further consideration of the overall event.

1. Missing Surveillance Video. Ensconced in a locale boasting a $600,000 media property value. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is among the most modern and well-funded in Florida. Like other schools throughout the state, the campus was equipped with a comprehensive video monitoring system of buildings’ interior passages and exterior walkways. The Broward County School District is withholding video taken during the February 14, 2018 mass shooting at the school that could reveal exactly how the event transpired. It appears that some video may have been obtained by the Miami Herald, which posted it with the headline, “Video Shows Blood-Smeared Floor, Body Inside Douglas Classroom.” The article has since been removed from the newspaper’s website.

2. Scripted Lines? A Stoneman Douglas high school junior and ROTC member, Colton Haab, who sought to participate in a CNN TownHall broadcast on February 21, claimed the cable network provided him with a list of “scripted questions.” “I expected to be able to ask my questions and give my opinions on my questions,” Haab explained to local ABC affiliate, WPLG-TV. “CNN had originally asked me to write a speech and questions, and it ended up being all scripted.” 

Shortly thereafter Haab stated on FoxNews that based on his experience he believed all of the questions asked by Stoneman Douglas students and community members at the CNN TownHall were scripted.

3. Manufactured Dissent? Stoneman Douglas High students impacted by the event were rapidly mobilized by Democratic political leaders to advocate for the Party’s foremost rallying cries-strengthened gun control laws. News media including CNN and state and federal Democratic Party operatives, including Florida Representative and former Democratic Party National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, advised key Stoneman students in organizing the #NeverAgain movement and arranging protests, including a lobbying trip to Tallahassee to meet with Florida legislators. Parkland, however, is represented by Democratic Representative Ted Deutch, another staunch gun control advocate.


According to the New Yorker, Wasserman Schultz and her aides touched base with Stoneman junior and NeverAgain leader-in-training Jaclyn Corin on February 15-one day after the shooting. “Conversations with state representatives followed, and preliminary arrangements were made to bus a hundred Douglas students and fifteen chaperones to Tallahassee to address the state legislature. Yesterday, I asked Corin if she had been politically active before the shooting. ‘Not even a little bit,’ she said.”

Corin appears especially astute having absolutely no previous experience in issue-oriented politics. “The action has been so quick,” the 17-year-old told the Naples Daily News. “And that’s necessary because this is a fresh and open wound and we can’t let it close up. We need to do something about it before it just disappears like it always has.”

4. Experts Speak Out. Those with military and school administrative experience have begun to step forward and question various troubling elements of the Stoneman Douglas shooting. For example, John Bouchell, a militarily trained weapons expert, security expert and school administrator based in Florida tweeted at length about how Parkland differed greatly from his own experiences defending his school during an active shooter event. 

5. Reports of Multiple Shooters. In numerous interviews, Stoneman Douglas students asserted there was more than one shooter in Building 12 as the event proceeded. Parkland student Jalen Martin claims the United States Secret Service visited the high school’s campus weeks before the incident, altering the active shooter response protocol. Is this why Douglas school resource officer and Sheriff’s Deputy Scot Peterson remained outside the classroom building as the carnage ensued? Another student claimed she saw and spoke to alleged shooter Nikolas Cruz in Building 12 during the event [and heard shots emanating from elsewhere.] A Stoneman Douglas teacher told MSNBC faculty were informed there would be an active shooter drill sometime during the spring semester, but were left in the dark as to the actual date or time of the exercise.

6. Crime Scene Demolition. Less than two days after the tragic shooting Broward County Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie proposed demolishing Building 12–the crime scene itself. The Florida State Legislature almost immediately agreed to help fund the teardown. One must ask why, just hours after the brutal deaths of 17 youths, plans for evidence destruction and a new memorial are even being pondered. “Just looking at that building and talking about it now, I have goosebumps out to my head [sic],” Runcie said. “I don’t know how teachers, students could get back in that building. I don’t even know how we’re going to open the whole campus, period.” Stoneman Douglas will join a long line of mass casualty event scenes, including Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook, that have been destroyed. 

7. Abandoned Law Enforcement Protocols. On the afternoon of February 14, Stoneman Douglas school resource officer and Broward Sheriff’s Deputy Scot Peterson heard gunshots in Building 12 and rushed there but waited outside for four minutes as the massacre ensued. Broward Sheriff Scott Israel, who could not explain Peterson’s behavior, acknowledged Peterson’s inaction was captured in campus surveillance video and suspended the deputy without pay. 

Israel thereafter told the press, “We’re not going to disclose the video at this time and we may never disclose the video.” Two additional deputies under Israel’s command Edward Eason and Guntis Treijs, were placed on administrative duties pending further investigation. Both deputies participated in 23 calls for service to Cruz’s home and may not have followed protocol….”I‘m completely disgusted,” said Broward County Commissioner Michael Udine, a former mayor of Parkland whose daughter attends Stoneman Douglas. “There is nobody in authority talking to each other and every organization that had a chance to stop this completely failed our children from top to bottom.”

8. Fight to Establish Official Narrative. There is a very well-defined struggle to establish and defend the official government/law enforcement narrative of the Stoneman Douglas mass shooting and prevent any questioning of this storyline. This campaign is being led in part by cable news giant and Time Warner subsidiary CNN. Alternative media have been banished from YouTube for sharing differing views and analyses of the Parkland shooting and earlier mass casualty events. A recent “Community Guidelines” policy change provides for the Google subsidiary to eliminate any videos it perceives as “targeting the victims of tragedies,” thus de facto censoring many important critical analyses of such events.

On February 23 CNN directly petitioned YouTube to shut down a channel run by libertarian commentator Alex Jones, claiming that its alternative reportage and commentary on the Parkland shooting runs afoul of YouTube’s policies….Such advocacy toward eliminating a media competitor and defending an official government narrative of such a controversial and still-unfolding event is especially concerning.

In another instance, Isaac Green, a thoughtful and popular commentator running the Anti-School YouTube channel who proffered an array of unconventional perspectives on Stoneman Douglas and political controversies, had all of his videos removed by YouTube. Shortly thereafter Google locked Green out of his account entirely.

9. FBI Involvement. Ongoing internal investigations on law enforcement responses to the threats Cruz posed already reveal how the FBI alongside local law enforcement repeatedly failed to follow up on reports of the supposed assailant’s unusual behavior, weapons ownership, and disturbing online media posts. The FBI’s failure in this regard was condemned by Florida Governor Rick Scott and the US Justice Department. The bureau admitted an individual close to Cruz phoned the FBI’s Public Access Line on January 5 to report information concerning Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, unpredictable behavior and ominous social media posts. The party also stated that Cruz could likely carry out a mass shooting. The information was never forwarded to the FBI’s Miami office and investigated further.

boot-camp (1) (1).jpg

(Crisis actor boot camp) 

Or was it? According to investigative journalist Trevor Aaronson, throughout the so-called “War on Terror” the FBI has been directly involved in cultivating terrorists through its network of informants, and often encouraging their activities. “Our nation’s top law enforcement agency, traditionally focused on investigating crimes after they occur,” writes Aaronson, “now operates more as an intelligence organization that tries to preempt crimes before they occur. But how many of these would-be terrorists would have acted were it not for an FBI agent provocateur helping them?” Was Cruz manipulated to take up arms against his Stoneman Douglas peers? Or, was he somehow maneuvered to the scene, as the observations of one eyewitness suggests, while other more capable gunmen carried out the slaughter?

10. Antipsychotic Drugs. According to the Florida Department of Children and Families, Nikolas Cruz was receiving mental health services from Henderson Behavioral Health and accordingly “taking medication” for alleged psychiatric ailments. In 2016 Cruz’s adoptive mother Lynda Cruz stated that her son suffered from depression, ADHD, and autism, suggesting how Cruz was regularly consuming a cocktail of potent drugs that may have impacted his behavior and judgment prior to the shooting. The psychoactive drugs used to treat depression and ADHD have profoundly complex and potentially debilitating side effects when taken separately that are only compounded if administered in unison. These include agitation, hyperactivity, psychosis, and are further linked to suicidal and homicidal actions. 

Given the mass media’s heavy dependence on drug company advertising, the role that psychiatric drugs may play in mass shootings is almost always downplayed in reportage on such events. “The drugs aren’t the only causative factor,” journalist and author Jon Rappoport observes, “but they produce what I call the Johnny Appleseed effect throughout society. Sprinkle enough of the drugs among enough people and you get otherwise unexplainable violence popping up–in schools, in workplaces. The psychiatric plague eats out the country from the inside.”

Related – Makow- The Ghastly Truth Behind Terror 

“Victims” have no social media presence 

Two victims attended their own funeral

Another False Flag in Florida? 

Source Article from

Second Florida Survivor Family Now Alleging CNN Scripted Narrative to Push Gun Ban


In their alleged attempt to control the narrative on the tragic shooting in Parkland, Florida last week, CNN has been accused of scripting the very testimonies from survivors to propagate their agenda. While CNN denied doing this to Colton Haab yesterday, as TFTP reported, another survivor has come forward with similar claims.

Andrew Klein’s daughter survived last week’s deadly school shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School. Klein came forward Thursday accusing CNN of attempting to control the narrative in favor of gun control instead of an open uncensored town hall on how such tragedies could be prevented in the future.

Klein said a CNN producer told him the day after the shooting the network some have called the “Clinton News Network” of looking for only one type of person to speak out against guns. Klein told FNC’s Laura Ingraham the network was looking for survivors and their families who would, “espouse a certain narrative which was taking the tragedy and turning it into a policy debate.”

I read that as being a gun control debate…I’m a Responsible gun owner. when we talk about gun control it’s not about taking guns away from  people like me, it’s about keeping them out of the hands of the people who should not have them, who are irresponsible who are a threat to society (such as Cruz)

But Klein said CNN’s debate was not about how the government can help to keep guns from insane people. “When Ted Deutch kept repeating his mantra that he wants to eliminate any gun that can fire 150 rounds in 6 minutes, that’s almost every gun out there. So this supposed assault weapons ban isn’t going to accomplish anything.”

Ingraham picked up on the fact the CNN producer was attempting to control the narrative and asked Klein to explain. Klein said the CNN producer did not specifically mention guns in her conversation with Klein but said the producer was, “looking for people who want to talk about the policy implications”.

As TFTP reported on Thursday, CNN was not only caught red-handed using scripted questions for its contentious town hall meeting with Senator Marco Rubio (R) and NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch but allowed members of the audience to call the guests “murderers” and other derogatory names for taking a stand in support of the Second Amendment.

Klein is the second person this week who has come forward to accuse the Cable News Network of attempting to politicize the shootings, turning the debate into an anti-gun one.

Although CNN denied it, Haab was equally vocal in his criticism of CNN’s attempts to turn the tragedy into an attack on the Second Amendment. Haab was asked to write an essay about the shooting and he complied only to find out CNN took his essay and in return, handed him a scripted question. He refused to attend the town hall saying if he couldn’t ask his own unscripted question “it would be a total waste of (his) time”.

They had taken what I had wrote and what I had briefed on and talked about, and they actually wrote the question for me.

Haab did not attend CNN’s town hall as a result but did go to his local news station where he was allowed to speak freely about what he thought could have prevented the school shooting. He also spoke with Tucker Carlson and said if his coach had his gun on him he would have been able to engage the school shooter in a firefight and possibly prevent the tragedy. That’s not the message CNN wanted Haab to deliver, evidenced by its alleged striking of all of his essay’s position substituted by the scripted question he says he was given.

CNN denied Haab’s accusation in a tweet.

It is not the first time CNN has been caught supplying scripted questions. As TFTP has reported and Wikileaks confirmed, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) primaries were rigged against candidate Bernie Sanders. Not only did the highest ranking members of the DNC work against Sanders bid to become the Democratic nominee but CNN worked hand in hand with the DNC to ensure Hillary Clinton won the nomination.

After DNC chair Donna Brazille resigned from her post following Wikileaks publication of DNC emails showing DNC staff attempting to discredit Sanders by attacking his faith, she found a new home at CNN. While working as a paid staffer for CNN, she was caught passing primary debate questions to Clinton’s staff, giving Clinton’s team an edge in what should have been a free and open debate.

Clinton went on to win the primary and the nomination for the Democratic Party to run for president. But several Sanders supporters sued the DNC in court alleging bias on the part of the DNC against their candidate. The DNC was not supposed to show favoritism for one candidate over another and the plaintiffs allege fraud took place in the election.

Now it seems the DNC is at it again, except this time they’re using CNN to control the narrative following the latest school shooting massacre. Conveniently absent from the narrative is any discussion of psychotropic medicines something TFTP has long contended is the common denominator in nearly all school shootings.

Not only are nearly each and every one of the school shooters medicated on psychotropics but no one is calling for a discussion about them. Instead, politicians are guiding citizens’ anger toward the object used for killing instead of the potential cause for the callous murdering of one’s classmates.

Source Article from

Re: A $1 billion proposal will exploit Gaza for the benefit of Israel’s security narrative

When considering Gaza’s dire humanitarian conditions, it is impossible not to remember what Israeli government adviser Dov Weisglass said in 2006 when the Israeli siege started: “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” How much of that callous, initial calculation remains valid today is debatable, as Palestinians in Gaza suffer health issues which are a direct consequence of Israel’s restrictions on the food available for the population, the illegal blockade on the enclave and the disaster wrought by the periodic bombardments of Gaza, the latest major offensive being “Operation Protective Edge” in 2014.

The international community has repeatedly echoed a statement that Gaza will be “unliveable” by 2020. It appears that the deadline might need an extension as Israel will be submitting a $1 billion aid request to the international community because, according to the colonial power, it is Gaza itself that has brought the population to the verge of implosion.

Haaretz has reported comments that attest to Israel’s attempt to deflect its own responsibility and accountability. According to Israeli President Reuven Rivlin: “The entire world must know and understand that the ones preventing reconstruction are Hamas. Israel is the only party in the region that, under any conditions, supplies the residents’ minimal needs so that body and soul can survive.”

Read: No electricity at 7 more Gaza medical centres

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed Rivlin’s words: “It’s absurd that Israel has to take care of the most basic necessities of life which the Hamas government ignores.” Major General Yoav Mordechai was more forthright in amalgamating the proposed projects to Israel’s security narrative, albeit while misrepresenting legitimate resistance as “terror”. Exonerating Israel of all blame for Gaza’s “failed economy”, he added that investing in the enclave is “an additional element of the IDF’s security doctrine.”

There is nothing new about this Israeli tactic. As part of its colonial expansion, it embarks upon destruction, displacement and deprivation; in compensation, it draws up projects for the international community to fund. Although Israeli officials eliminate culpability and timeframes in their rhetoric, it is obvious that, if there was no colonial presence in Palestine, it is likely that Palestinians would not have experienced the humiliation of aid dependency and having their needs classified according to what Israel decides the international community should focus upon.

Taking their cues from the misguided and erroneously depicted narrative about Gaza, the international community will likely acquiesce to Israel’s latest demand and thus, as a result, fund both colonialism and Israel’s security narrative which is integral to the development which Israel is allegedly envisaging for the territory. Considering that Israel’s focus on Gaza comes after US cuts in financial aid to Palestinians, it should prompt some close scrutiny. It may applaud what officials define as combating the purported bias against Israel, yet the vacuum left by the US withholding aid to Palestinians, although meagre when compared to the accumulation of needs, exposes colonial violence yet further.

Read: Gazans cannot cope with ‘unprecedented’ economic crisis

The Israeli plan for Gaza’s infrastructure, therefore, is a step towards alienation. Ushering in a new form of dependency upon Palestinians in Gaza is not a step towards economic opportunity. This time there are many opportunities for Israel, which can extend its warped concept of humanitarian aid and development to a population which it has coldly and deliberately terrorised, murdered and maimed over many decades. Approval by the international community, including finance for the proposed projects, will allow Israel to push the limits in collaboration further. In the event that Israel decides to raze Gaza again with another brutal military offensive, the financial hits will be incurred by its international accomplices, following the established pattern of Israel’s demolition of EU-funded structures, only more severely. It is clear that Israel is seeking to inflict similar repercussions on the remaining fragments of Palestinian territory and there is no swifter way to achieve this than by inviting the international community to participate.

Source Article from

ABC: Immigration Talks Were Just Trump Fighting ‘Dim-Witted’ Narrative

World News Tonight
January 9, 2018
6:30:40 PM Eastern

[Opening Tease]

DAVID MUIR: President Trump just days after the book Fire and Fury, the author claiming White House insiders told him the President does not read, does not listen. Today, the President spending 55 minutes on live television, negotiating on immigration, the dreamers and his wall.


6:34:59 PM Eastern

MUIR: Now, to major developments from the White House. Just days after the release of that bombshell book Fire and Fury that claimed some closest to the President have questioned the President’s fitness to lead. An extremely rare event playing out on television today. Reporters and cameras invited into a bipartisan meeting on immigration, playing out for 55 minutes on television. Showing America, the President at work. ABC’s Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl was in the room.

[Cuts to video]

JON KARL: Today, the President, still dealing with fallout over a book portraying him as dim-witted and unstable, made a dramatic effort to show the opposite. Leading a free-wheeling negotiation between Democrats and Republicans on immigration. And, in a White House first, letting it all play out before the television cameras.

DONALD TRUMP: This should be a bill of love, truly, should be a bill of love.

KARL: At issue, the looming March 5th deadline for the so-called Dreamers. Undocumented immigrants who were brought into the country as children and now could soon face deportation.


KARL: Everybody in the room seemed to agree on providing legal status to the dreamers, but Republicans insisted that more border security had to be part of the deal. Democrats tried to convince the President to deal with the dreamers first, and at times, he seemed to agree.


KARL: The President also seemed to push for comprehensive immigration reform, something most conservatives and Trump supporters have been dead set against for years.


KARL: But the President said it is up to Congress to work out the details, signaling he wants a deal even if it’s not a perfect one.


MUIR: What’s the White House trying to accomplish here?

KARL: Well, first of all, David, this was the President’s decision. He told his staff that he was going to do it just as they were going into the meeting. It’s an effort to show a president that is in charge and able to work with Democrats, something, David, that he simply has to do now that the Republican majority in the Senate is down to one seat.


Source Article from

Hillary’s campaign manager admits Russia narrative ‘is not a winning message’

Hillary Clinton


It’s officially 2018, which means the midterm elections are right around the corner. When a successful Republican tax reform package kicks in next month, Democrats will have to reach even deeper to find a winning argument for November.

In 2017, Russia was used as a political hammer by Democrats against President Trump and Republicans closely associated with him. As the Special Counsel investigation drags on, with multiple investigations on Capitol Hill failing to turn up evidence of collusion, it’s still being used as a talking point against the White House.

But according to former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, using the Russia narrative to win elections and take back red seats just isn’t going to cut it.

I don’t think the Russia investigation is a winning message. You know, voters watch and they look to see what your priorities seem to be,” Mook said during a recent interview on CNN. “This is actually why the Republicans are looking to have a fight over immigration because they want to send a signal to voters that Democrats are not focused on the voters but on immigration and that sort of thing. Obviously it’s an important issue but the Republicans see that as a helpful wedge for their base. I think Democrats need to run on what everybody always needs to run on which is, what are you doing for the voters? What’s in it for them?”

(relevant portion is at minute mark 5:23)

Will Democrats drop Russia in 2018? Highly unlikely, but there is a chance their push for impeachment takes precedent.

Polling on the issue continues to show Americans split.

CBS News poll Russiagate


Source Article from

NBC’s Chuck Todd: Wolff’s Book ‘Reinforces’ Anti-Trump Narrative from ‘Entire Media’

Meet the Press
January 7, 2018
10:36:02 AM Eastern


CHUCK TODD: All right. Let me just start with this. You talk about “fly on the wall” access. Explain to me what that was like. Walk me through how you were a fly on the wall in the West Wing.

MICHAEL WOLFF: You know, I literally kind of knocked on the door and said, “Can I come in?” and they said “Okay.” And I came in. I sat on the couch and that’s the point of view that I’ve written this book from. I mean, in the real intention of this book, is to have readers sit with me on the couch and watch what’s going on in the West Wing. I went into this with absolutely no agenda whatsoever. I have no particular politics when it comes to Donald Trump. This is really all about human nature.


TODD: You were pretty tough on the coverage of Donald Trump early in 2017. Here’s something you wrote in 2017, in January, so: “To the media, it is a given that Trump is largely out of control and that the people around him are struggling at all times to save him from himself–and largely failing. This view persists … despite Trump’s victory flattening almost every media assumption about his supposed haplessness and lack of strategy.”

And you were just- you thought that the media was too one-sided or that was the impression you were giving. I have to say, when you read this book, you almost seem to reinforce the entire media narrative you were criticizing.

WOLFF: You know, I think that in the beginning, the media took this point of view without having had this experience. You know, I went into this, a decent part of the country went into this, his entire staff went into this thinking maybe this can work. It’s different, even peculiar, but who knows what can happen here. And that was exactly my, my frame of reference. I would have been delighted to have written a contrarian account here. Donald Trump, this unexpected president, is actually going to succeed. OK, that’s not the story. He is not going to succeed. This is worse than everybody thought.


WOLFF: It’s that bad. I mean, it’s an extraordinary moment in time. And the last several days focused on my book I think are proof of this. This is what happened here, what’s going on here. This is, you know, I think not an exaggeration and not unreasonable. It’s not unreasonable to say this is 25th Amendment kind of stuff.

TODD: Did anybody say that in the West Wing to you?

WOLFF: All the time.

TODD: 25th Amendment? They would bring up the 25th Amendment?

WOLFF: Yes, actually, they would say, sort of in the mid-period, “We’re not at a 25th Amendment level yet.” Or they would-

TODD: That’s alarming.

WOLFF: This is alarming in every way. And then this went on, “Okay, this is a little 25th Amendment.” So the 25th Amendment is a concept that is alive every day in the White House.


TODD: One final question. You said something in a BBC interview: that you thought this presidency was going to hit a wall. What did that mean? Hit a wall by 2020 or before then?

WOLFF: Um, I think – I don’t know when the train is going to finally hit the wall. I think the entire narrative of this presidency and this candidacy and then presidency has been it’s going to hit a wall. And the thing that keeps everybody’s attention absolutely riveted – this global attention – is that the train keeps going, but the wall is still there. I mean one of the things, I think, about this book and why it’s hit such a chord and become this cultural moment is it’s given everybody this focused opportunity to say, “Holy crap.”


Source Article from

Desperate scientists push bizarre narrative, claim ancestral immigration to America caused by climate change (long before fossil fuels)

Image: Desperate scientists push bizarre narrative, claim ancestral immigration to America caused by climate change (long before fossil fuels)

(Natural News)
America is often called a melting pot because of the wide variety of cultures that can be found here, and it’s one of the things that makes it such a great nation. Many of us with family members in our lineage who hailed from other countries – particularly in Europe – have heard stories about their arduous boat journey across the ocean to the land of opportunity. We’ve heard their reasons for leaving their homeland, and there are typically multiple factors that drove their big decision. One that most of us haven’t heard as a reason for immigration, however, is climate change, yet that is exactly what a group of scientists would like us to believe prompted our ancestors to head overseas long before fossil fuels ever came into the equation.

That’s right: A team of German researchers has published a paper in Climate of the Past that links migration from Germany to North America in the 19th century to climate change. During this period, more than five million Germans headed to the North American continent. They say it wasn’t the wars, revolutions, and difficult life that many of the immigrants faced that sent them in search of greener pastures; it was disagreeable weather.

According to their calculations, climate can explain as much as 30 percent of the migration from Southwest Germany during this time period. They cite low crop yields and increasing cereal prices caused by unfavorable climate conditions. They looked at population data, harvest figures, weather data, migration statistics and cereal price records to reach their conclusions.

They say the first immigration wave during this time came after the Indonesian Tambora volcano erupted in 1815, spewing gases and ash into the atmosphere and leading to falling temperatures and famine.

In 1846, however, it was extremely dry and hot weather and the associated bad harvests and rising food prices that sent Germans packing. Researcher Annette Bosmeier said: “These two years of high migration numbers appear to be quite strongly influenced by climate changes, while for other migration waves other circumstances appeared to be more important.”

Climate refugees?

This finding will undoubtedly help stoke fears about the concept of climate refugees, which is something that many climate change alarmists try to use to promote their agenda. Sea levels will rise and droughts, floods and hurricanes will be regular occurrences, they claim, causing mass migration in the form of “climate refugees” who will converge on unsuspecting populations and lead to unforeseen problems.

Some experts have claimed that hundreds of millions of people will be displaced due to environmental problems that are exacerbated by climate change by the year 2050. The numbers will far exceed those fleeing the conflict in Syria, according to a study carried out by the Environmental Justice Foundation, creating a giant challenge for European nations.

Stephen Cheney, a retired U.S. Military Corps Brigadier General, said: “If Europe thinks they have a problem with migration today … wait 20 years. See what happens when climate change drives people out of Africa – the Sahel [sub-Saharan area] especially – and we’re talking now not just one or two million, but 10 or 20 [million].”

Not surprisingly, that study takes the opportunity to call on governments to do more to reach the Paris climate agreement targets. Environmental Justice Foundation director Steve Trent said that when climate change is added to existing political tensions, it can ignite conflict and violence that will have “disastrous consequences.”

In other words, climate change – even in the absence of fossil fuels – is the real reason people have and will continue to immigrate to other countries. All of this leads one to wonder what kind of insane climate change theories they will come up with next.

Sources include:



Source Article from