Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Democrats In Total Denial About Blatant Election Rigging

The behavior of numerous Democrats in the leadership, acting as if there was not problem with the content of the E-mails that were leaked, is so absurd it boggles the mind. I can't help but wonder what they could possibly expect to accomplish with this, or if they're collectively insane or delusional enough to believe their own spin.

Or if they're so delusional that they could expect more than a small fraction of the public not to see right through it.

Efforts to blame the Russians are absurd and logically flawed especially when you consider a few fundamental basics that were available to the public before they even leaked, and these fundamentals aren't even secret, although there is an enormous amount of propaganda that has been distracting a shocking percentage of the public that hardly even thinks things through.

In order to have a viable chance to get elected president the first thing any candidate has to do is get name recognition; and since the media was consolidated into six oligarchies under the Clinton administration that means that only candidates covered by those oligarchies have a chance. This consolidation began under the Reagan administration and both the Bush and Obama administration attempted to increase consolidation but faced enormous grassroots opposition which was only covered widely through alternative media outlets or brief reports in the traditional media, that were quickly forgotten.

On top of that in the late eighties the debate process was taken away from grassroots organization including the League of Women Voters and handed to the Commission of Presidential Debates, which works with the DNC and RNC to exclude all other candidates when possible by requiring fifteen percent in polls controlled by the media that refuses to cover grassroots candidates.

This enables the six oligarchies controlling the media to work with the DNC, RNC and Commission of Presidential Debates to restrict the viable candidates to those they approve of. These efforts to limit choices enabled them to ensure that many other candidates including Jill Stein, Gary Johnson and almost certainly many that no one ever even heard of will have a chance.

If they really did want to rig the election against Donald Trump or for Hillary Clinton they've demonstrated that they could and would do just that. They ensure that only a small percentage of the public can ever be considered; and even if the Russians did do some manipulating they couldn't have come close to doing nearly as much damage as the establishments controlling the election process no matter what they do.

They certainly couldn't have arranged for Trump to win without help from the Mainstream media giving him obsessive coverage throughout the campaign while refusing to cover grassroots candidates.

The Russians certainly couldn't have forced the mainstream media to only cover candidates that were under criminal investigation and down play efforts to report epidemic levels of voter irregularities all over the country, which were reported at grassroots level throughout the primary.

The mainstream media began presenting Hillary Clinton as the inevitable front runner in 2013, if not in 2009; and never provided adequate coverage for many if any candidates to challenge her since. The entire political establishment endorsed her before any voters had their say even though she had enormous negative poll ratings due to her epidemic levels of scandals that go back decades. This enabled Trump to beat her; however there is no way that he could have done that if the media hadn't given him obsession coverage or abstained from giving other candidates fair coverage.

Bernie Sanders had much more support but clearly the entire system was rigged against him.

However that doesn't mean that the E-mails aren't relevant since they do confirm what well informed people already knew, and fills in some of the blanks about the discussions behind the scenes that helped rig elections, and prevent Bernie Sanders or any other candidate from getting a reasonable chance. Yet that doesn't stop them from lining up one pundit after another to come out and claim there is noting to the claims of election rigging, including Glen Caplin who said the following on the Rachel Maddow show:

The Rachel Maddow Show, Transcript 3/17/2017

CAPLIN: The coverage tended – was more about what was in the e-mails as opposed to why these e-mails existed, who is responsible for putting the e- mails into the public discourse and why and that was – that was frustrating. .....

CAPLIN: In the end, none of the e-mails themselves were particularly damaging but for the last 35 days of the election, it was a headwind that was constantly in the news. .... Complete article

This is amazing, both sides claim that the existence of leaks about their own wrong doing are the problem not their own crimes; yet both sides take the opposite position when it comes to the other side. The Podesta leak took place on the same day the Access Hollywood video was leaked and Trump claims that that leak along with more that have taken place since he took office is the problem and that no one should consider the content which he calls "locker room talk" even though it wasn't in a locker room and even if it was it would still be outrageous.

The leaks provided enormous amounts of information about psychological manipulation and collusion with the media and even attempts to incite violence for political reasons. I went into much more of this while the were happening and will provide links below for anyone that is starting to forget some of the details, which is understandable since there are so many things that were disclosed that I don't see how anyone can remember them all.

Donna Brazile has been even more audacious in her denials and outright lies sometimes mixed in with selective admissions accompanied by incredibly bad spin like the following statements:

Donna Brazile admits stealing debate questions for Hillary, but blames the Russians 03/18/2017

In October, a subsequent release of emails revealed that among the many things I did in my role as a Democratic operative and D.N.C. Vice Chair prior to assuming the interim D.N.C. Chair position was to share potential town hall topics with the Clinton campaign. I had been working behind the scenes to add more town hall events and debates to the primary calendar, and I helped ensure those events included diverse moderators and addressed topics vital to minority communities. My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen. But sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret.

By stealing all the DNC’s emails and then selectively releasing those few, the Russians made it look like I was in the tank for Secretary Clinton. Despite the strong, public support I received from top Sanders campaign aides in the wake of those leaks, the media narrative played out just as the Russians had hoped, leaving Sanders supporters understandably angry and sowing division in our ranks. In reality, not only was I not playing favorites, the more competitive and heated the primary got, the harder D.N.C. staff worked to be scrupulously fair and beyond reproach. In all the months the Russians monitored the D.N.C.’s email, they found just a handful of inappropriate emails, with no sign of anyone taking action to disadvantage the Sanders campaign.

But the damage was done. Politics has never been considered a clean sport, but 2016 marked a new low. The D.N.C., a political party committee dedicated in part to defending free and fair elections, was attacked by the Russians while the Republican nominee for president openly encouraged it. This was not a Hollywood movie about rogue spies and super agents. This was real life. Complete article

Donna Brazile: Passing potential town hall topics to Clinton camp 'a mistake I will forever regret' 03/18/2017

She of course, didn't mention the obvious and public efforts by the mainstream media and political establishment that I mentioned above; like the rest of the political establishment they're hoping that if they never mention it and repeat their bad spin over and over again the complacent majority will fall for their scams. Her claim that she was trying to make all candidates look good was a blatant lie, as indicated by the leaks and insults that were public when there was a scandal about them letting their firewall down and blaming Bernie supporters when they informed them about it. Threre were some uses by one Bernie staffer at that time but he was quickly dismissed and the leaks showed that the efforts to rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders were far worse than what that one staffer did.

The DNC and Podesta leaks exposed the fact that the establishment candidates were far more concerned with collecting money to pay their own salaries and come up with effective propaganda to deceive the public than to address the concerns of the voters, making the Democratic Party part of the corporate kleptocracy that enabled trump to get elected. Many people have argued that Trump is even worse, and he often seems that way, but a shockingly large percentage of the public has been falling for the Democratic propaganda and more recognized that something is wrong and voted against them, for Trump. The clear advantage of Trump is that he's no longer even doing a good job pretending to represent the public, nor for that matter is the Democratic Party; however with Trump as the greater evil they've accepted democrats as the resistance even though they obviously aren't.

At least it should be clear that anyone paying attention with reasonable thinking skills must know that the entire process is a sham with both Parties controlled by incredibly corrupt corporations.

Amazingly Tom Perez admitted, perhaps by accident that the election was rigged, before "walking it back" and coming up with a blatant denial that has no credibility if you look closely. However the media is hoping that no one will remember and aren't reporting it, after an initial low profile disclosure.

Fortunately the alternative media has kept a record of it including the following excerpts from an Intercept article by Glen Greenwald:

Tom Perez Apologizes for Telling the Truth, Showing Why Democrats’ Flaws Urgently Need Attention 02/09/2017

The more alarmed one is by the Trump administration, the more one should focus on how to fix the systemic, fundamental sickness of the Democratic Party. That Hillary Clinton won the meaningless popular vote on her way to losing to Donald Trump, and that the singular charisma of Barack Obama kept him popular, have enabled many to ignore just how broken and failed the Democrats are as a national political force.

An endless array of stunning statistics can be marshaled to demonstrate the extent of that collapse. But perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence is that even one of the U.S. media’s most stalwart Democratic loyalists, writing in an outlet that is as much of a reliable party organ as the DNC itself, has acknowledged the severity of the destruction. “The Obama years have created a Democratic Party that’s essentially a smoking pile of rubble,” wrote Vox’s Matthew Yglesias after the 2016 debacle, adding that “the story of the 21st-century Democratic Party looks to be overwhelmingly the story of failure.”

A failed, collapsed party cannot form an effective resistance. Trump did not become president and the Republicans do not dominate virtually all levels of government because there is some sort of massive surge in enthusiasm for right-wing extremism. Quite the contrary: This all happened because the Democrats are perceived — with good reason — to be out of touch, artificial, talking points-spouting automatons who serve Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the agenda of endless war, led by millionaires and funded by oligarchs to do the least amount possible for ordinary, powerless citizens while still keeping their votes.

What drove Bernie Sanders’s remarkably potent challenge to Hillary Clinton was the extreme animosity of huge numbers of Democrats — led by its youngest voters — to the values, practices, and corporatist loyalties of the party’s establishment. Unlike the 2008 Democratic primary war — which was far more vicious and nasty but devoid of any real ideological conflict — the 2016 primary was grounded in important and substantive disputes about what the Democratic Party should be, what principles should guide it, and, most important of all, whose interests it should serve. ....

An even more illustrative episode occurred late Wednesday. Perez was in Kansas campaigning for votes from county leaders and was asked about the need for the party to retain the support of the Sanders contingent. Perez unexpectedly blurted out a truth that party functionaries to this day steadfastly bury and deny even in the face of the mountain of evidence proving it. This is what Perez said:

"We heard loudly and clearly yesterday from Bernie supporters that the process was rigged and it was. And you’ve got to be honest about it. That’s why we need a chair who is transparent."

That’s quite an admission from the party establishment’s own candidate: “The process was rigged.” And he commendably acknowledged how important it is to admit this — “to be honest about it” — because “we need a chair who is transparent.”

But Perez’s commitment to “transparency” and “being honest” had a very short life-span. After his admission predictably caused controversy — with furious Clinton supporters protesting the truth — Perez demonstrated the same leadership qualities that were so evident when Zaid Jilani asked him about Israeli human rights abuses.

He quickly slinked onto Twitter with a series of tweets to retract what he said, claim that he “misspoke” (does anyone know what that word means?), apologize for it, and proclaim Hillary Clinton the fair and rightful winner: Complete article

The entire political establishment is coming up with excuses so pathetic that only the most complacent would believe it. And they seem to know it, which seems to be why they're relying on an extreme lesser of two evils argument and pretending to be the Resistance against Trump even though they've had plenty of chances to implement a progressive agenda supported by the grassroots. Nancy Pelosi even claims that she wants Single Payer now and has mentioned it at least a couple times before, briefly; however this is an obvious lie for political reasons, like her jumping up and kicking off her heals recently. She's been in power for decades, and the reason that they elect her to lead the Democrats is because she does the best job collecting money for corporations that want preferential treatment from them. If she wanted Single Payer as she now claims she could have been speaking out in favor of it for well over a decade educating the public about the deceptive propaganda given by the political establishment.

However instead of doing that she's been joining in on the propaganda and even famously told us that we had to pass the supposedly Affordable care Act, which was written with help from insurance companies donating to the Democratic Party, before we could know what was in it.

She now claims that it is outrageous for the Republicans to pass their bill in secrecy and rush it through; but she obviously had no such qualms when she did the same thing for her campaign donors.

How many people are going to give her the credit for standing up to the Republican's without remembering she did the same thing?

We would have to be complete idiots to believe that she wanted Single Payer after that.

Sadly there are a shocking percentage of the public that are jumping on the pseudo-resistance movement being led by rhetoric from the Democrats pretending to stand up to the corporations financing them; however the Indivisible protests have turned against them as well in at least a couple cases including protests against both Dianne Feinstein (This article opens up making Feinstein look happy with the protests; however it is clear shortly after that they aren't so happy with her. People that glance at headlines might miss this and believe they support her.) and Debbie Stabenow.

If enough people wake up and educate each other then there's a chance they can get real grassroots reform but if the political establishment has their way then they'll make things even worse than they are and continue destroying the economic and political system until it even starts destroying them selves before they act.

How much damage can they do before there are riots in the streets? Actually occasionally there already are, although they're usually only local; but it can get much worse if the political establishment doesn't stop behaving so extreme.

Edit 03/29/2017: While I was finishing this article Hillary Clinton was already speaking out again demonstrating even more blatant denial of the problems within the Democratic Party and within hours of that Debbie Wasserman Schultz made it even worse when she said, “Respectfully, to Senator Sanders, we are already a grassroots party. I mean, if we were not, we would not have been able to help bring down the absolutely abhorrent health care repeal bill… It’s actually more like semantics. We all agree that we should be and we are a grassroots party that focuses on making sure that we can help people reach the middle class.”

This was in response to Sanders statement, “The Democratic Party today, programmatically, in terms of how it does business, has failed. I mean, the evidence is obvious. It’s not just that we’ve lost the White House and the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House. We’ve lost 900 legislative seats in the last 8 or 9 years.” Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Sanders’s Criticisms of Democrats: We’re Already a Grassroots Party 03/2/2017 However she doesn't even address his comments about losing so many elections nor does she address many of the other problems including her support of Pay Day lenders and many other issues over opposition to Grassroots. Nor does she mention that there was an enormous grassroots opposition to the Republicans that aren't necessarily supportive of her or Hillary.

Hillary Clinton's statements, Hillary Clinton Says She's Back: 'I Will Never Stop Speaking Out' 03/28/2017 were also just as phony and staged; she appeared before a friendly audience which were routinely staged during the campaign and they cheered her on; however it is virtually guaranteed that this was as phony as her campaign events; and if this applause was remotely sincere either at this speech or during the campaign there would have been no way she could have ever lost to Donald Trump.

I did not scream at the TV when I first saw this, since I've become so accustomed to it after watching for way to damn long but I can guarantee that there were almost certainly people all over the country doing just that.

I did not follow one of Elvis's old habits and pull out a shot gun and shoot the TV because it was so full of shit; but I can't rule out the possibility that someone might have done so or at least felt like it they were so outraged.

The outrage was instant on Twitter and other social media outlets which was so predictable.

How could they possibly not know this latest speech and total denial would only inspire even more denial?

If they wanted to know it would happen they could have and would have.

For some tweets to links about Podesta and DNC E-Mails or other election articles see, Blatant election rigging was public long before #PodestaLeaks or #DNCLeaks Blaming Russia for that is insane!

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Immigration Policy And Outsourcing Are Virtual Slavery

The debate over illegal aliens, or undocumented immigrants, like all other debates in the mainstream media ignores some of the most basic fundamentals including the fact, yes fact, that this is part of class warfare that leads to virtual slavery and that a large portion of immigration policy is designed to enable rich people to profit by suppressing wages for workers both in the USA and abroad.

The alternative media outlets often catch some of the most important aspects of this much better but they often either miss some of it as well or fail to repeat it very often although they trying to do a much better job.

First of all, for all practical purposes, laws are created by the rich primarily for the benefit of the rich and so-called democracy has been turned into a farce, largely because the media has consolidated into six oligarchies that control over ninety percent of the news nationwide. That means that these oligarchies can rig elections by refusing to cover grassroots candidates and only covering those that cater to their interests. Since one of the leading requirements to getting elected is name recognition this simple method is enough to rig elections so only corporate puppets have a chance.

Our caste system usually doesn't seem quite as blatant as the Indian caste system, which until recently they openly admitted existed, and now only pretend they're trying to get rid of; but it doesn't take much research to realize that it is almost as blatant and that different classes of people that aren't quite as clearly defined exist for different purposes and that the vast majority of benefits for our economic system is designed to go to the rich in a state of virtual slavery that seem almost like a democracy assuming people are complacent and don't read alternative media outlets.

This may not be an intentional well planned conspiracy; but when less than one percent of the population controls all the most powerful institutions the results are the same; and there are smaller conspiracies within these institutions that are exposed on a routine basis. However if you don't check alternative media outlets they'll be quickly forgotten if they're reported at all.

Donald Trump is, of course, one of the most obvious and hypocritical people on this issue, and it doesn't take much research to learn that Hillary Clinton isn't much better, assuming your not a cult follower of one of these plutocrats. They both came up with rhetoric that sounds good to the voters that they were trying to attract during the election; but there were many times, including polish construction workers, Mar-a-Lago guest workers, illegal models and more additional examples than most researcher can come close to reporting on where Trump was doing exactly what he was campaigning against. Hillary Clinton is no better; she supported the coup in Honduras when she was secretary of state, which lead to the assassination of an environmental activists; opposed an increase in the minimum wage in Haiti from thirty one cents an hour to sixty one cents an hour, said that immigrants from these countries "had to go back" while pretending to defend human rights; and voted for the fence and some of the other policies Trump supports as Senator. She is also involved in more scandals than many if any researchers can keep track of.

The media only covers corrupt candidates guaranteeing that we only get corrupt politicians!

Allowing illegal immigrants into this country so that they can hire them at low wages and ensure that they have little or no rights to complain is routine. This enables the rich to get low wages in this country both from these suppressed wages and by using competition to force legal workers to settle for less. If illegal aliens complain they can be deported. They're intentionally creating a class of people who have no rights and using them as scapegoats for their own crimes.

Cabinet members have been repeatedly derailed because they've been caught hiring illegal aliens as housekeepers and nanny's and on some occasions they've created scandals but approved them any way or withdrew them for other reasons like Puzder who was exposed for this but didn't withdraw until it was also reported that he abused his wife as well. This is routine; I wouldn't even know where to hire an illegal alien to clean my house but rich people seem to have no problem whether they set up a network to find them or not.

They passed a law in the eighties giving aliens amnesty on the condition that in the future all employees would be required to check their status; so these people should legally have known they were hiring people here illegally, even though they had no option, yet the people that had influence in the government aren't held accountable for anything while those that have been criminalized take all the blame.

This is justified because they pretend these laws are created by a democracy. In a democracy the people impacted by decisions have a right to the information they need to participate in the decision making policies and then they can vote on it. Immigrants have no such rights and many of them come from countries that are being oppressed by allies of the United States government. Even when they're in their own country and the United States government decides to sell weapons to tyrants that are used to oppress their own people they're not involved in the decision making process.

When the United States supported coups or attempted coups in Chile, Guatemala, Panama, Cuba, El-Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Vietnam and many other places they never allowed the people of these countries to vote on their efforts to oppress them!

Is this what we should call democracy?

If we're the defender of the free world shouldn't we be trying to ensure that as many people as possible that are impacted by policies, both foreign and domestic are informed accurately about these policies and their concerns should be addressed to the best of our ability? We might not be able to accomplish all of this overnight but the political establishment isn't even trying; instead of improving things they're relentlessly pushing voter suppression laws that infringe on the rights of immigrants, poor people, minorities, the working class and anyone that challenges the rights of the oligarchy.

Outsourcing is, of course another aspect of this. We grow subsidized cotton here in the United States ship it overseas, sometimes as far as Pakistan, pay guards, abusive managers, and union busters in those countries who oppress the people that actually make products without paying the workers and local workers have to compete with that so their wages are suppressed as well. As Bob Ortega reported Kathie Lee Gifford got three percent of the revenue of her clothing line for sponsoring it but the workers who produced the quality were abused on only got less than one percent. We're supposed to believe that she's a good person because she gives ten percent of the money she stole from workers and consumers to charity. Yes I say, stole because for a all practical purposes that is what she did although they create propaganda that makes it seem justifiable. When they send advertising expenses through the roof while cutting manufacturing expenses to the bone the people that create deceptive ads aren't providing benefits to consumers they're committing fraud, or at least this would be clear if the scam artists weren't controlling the propaganda!

Sometimes they hardly even pretend it isn't slavery as bad as it was before the Civil War; and amazingly the government claims they can do nothing according to several reports including the following:

The New American Slavery: Invited To The U.S., Foreign Workers Find A Nightmare 07/21/2015

The H-2 visa program invites foreign workers to do some of the most menial labor in America. Then it leaves them at the mercy of their employers. Thousands of these workers have been abused — deprived of their fair pay, imprisoned, starved, beaten, raped, and threatened with deportation if they dare complain. And the government says it can do little to help. A BuzzFeed News investigation. MAMOU, Louisiana — Travis Manuel and his twin brother, Trey, were shopping at Walmart near this rural town when they met two Mexican women who struck them as sweet. Using a few words of Spanish he had picked up from his Navy days, Travis asked the two women out on a double date. .....

The man in the truck was the women’s boss, Craig West, a prominent farmer in the heart of Cajun country. As Sgt. Robert McGee later wrote in a police report, West said that Valdez and Gonzalez were “two of his girls,” and he asked the cops to haul the women in and “scare the girls.”

The police brought the women, who were both in their twenties, to the station house. McGee told them they couldn’t leave West’s farm without permission, warning that they could wind up dead. To drive home the point, an officer later testified, McGee stood over Valdez and Gonzalez and pantomimed cutting his throat. He also brandished a Taser at them and said they could be deported if they ever left West’s property without his permission.

A little after 2 in the morning, they released the women to West for the 15-minute drive through the steamy night to his compound — a place where, the women and the Mexican government say, workers were stripped of their passports and assigned to sleep in a filthy, foul-smelling trailer infested with insects and mice. Valdez and Gonzalez also claimed that they and other women were imprisoned, forced to work for little pay, and frequently harassed by West, who demanded to see their breasts and insisted that having sex with him was their only way out of poverty.

These women were not undocumented immigrants working off the books. They were in the United States legally, as part of a government program that allows employers to import foreign labor for jobs they say Americans won’t take — but that also allows those companies to control almost every aspect of their employees’ lives.

Each year, more than 100,000 people from countries such as Mexico, Guatemala, the Philippines, and South Africa come to America on what is known as an H-2 visa to perform all kinds of menial labor across a wide spectrum of industries: cleaning rooms at luxury resorts and national parks, picking fruit, cutting lawns and manicuring golf courses, setting up carnival rides, trimming and planting trees, herding sheep, or, in the case of Valdez, Gonzalez, and about 20 other Mexican women in 2011, peeling crawfish at L.T. West Inc. Complete article

For one reason or another these stories are rarely if ever reported in the mainstream media but once you suspect that this might be happening it doesn't take much searching to find more stories that are similar including the following couple of additional stories that are just as bad:

Virtual Slavery Indian workers in Tulsa, Oklahoma, were packed into cramped dormitories and forced to work 16-hours, six days a week, for less than minimum wage. When they complained, they were patrolled by armed guards. 06/11/2002

Despite U.S. laws, thousands still virtual slaves in America 12/13/2009

Both the Obama and Bush administrations allegedly claim that there's nothing they can do about it in these reports, and even the media outlets that report on it keep their reporting to a minimum and allow the stories to be quickly forgotten so it is hard to believe they're doing as much as they can although we should be thankfully for them for providing the reports and giving grassroots organizations a chance to pressure the government. We certainly can't expect the Trump administration to even pretend to care about it but there's no doubt that if any of these presidencies wanted to do something they could. The problem isn't that they can't do anything it is that they don't wast to!

The government routinely behaves like a fully owned subsidiary of campaign contributors!

Our government isn't accountable to voters; they're only accountable to donors, and the media that protects them by refusing to cover grassroots candidates that might actually try to do a good job!

Amazingly the members of the ruling class that are robbing everyone blind have the gall to claim that illegal immigrants are the ones responsible for all the crime in America!

Statistics can easily be misrepresented, and politicians routinely do just that but The Southern Poverty Law Center pointed out a much more reliable report by The Sentencing Project (PDF) that I'm sure will stand up to scrutiny much better than the propaganda repeated over and over by the Trump administration and the mainstream media which pretends to do a good job debunking some of the lies from Trump. This report points out that, "1. Immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens; 2. Higher levels of immigration in recent decades may have contributed to the historic drop in crime rates; 3. Police chiefs believe that intensifying immigration law enforcement undermines public safety; 4. Immigrants are under-represented in U.S. prisons."

This report indicates that the biggest crime illegal immigrants commit wouldn't even be a crime at all if they were allowed to participate in the decision making process like it is supposed to be in a real democracy! We call it a democracy when one group of people votes to make another group of people illegal just because they were born on the wrong side of the line and these illegal aren't offered any opportunity to defend themselves or participate in the democratic process. How much better would this be than if the most racist Nazi's voted in the forties to exterminate the Jews without letting the Jews vote? How much better would this be than if the most racists Jews vote to take away land from Palestinians without letting the Palestinians vote?

There can be no justification for this in a sincere Democracy!

Statistically foreign born people are significantly less likely to commit crimes than citizens and first generation immigrants are slightly less likely to commit crimes than US citizens! If we used reasonable justification it would be clear that the billionaires that control the government are much more likely to commit much bigger crimes yet a large portion of these crimes are considered legal; and even when they aren't legal they're rarely if ever prosecuted.

Does anyone really earn a billion dollars? Or even a hundred million dollars? Of course not, they use their connection with the government to help steal this money from the vast majority of the public and the people who pay the greatest price are the ones with the least amount of political power including immigrants!

How much is it even possible for a single person to reasonably earn? Not an easy question to answer but with this corrupt system no one is even trying to figure it out!

We live in a Corporate Kleptocracy not a Democracy! The government is controlled by a white collar crime syndicate!

The following are some additional sources and details:

Undocumented families adjust to living under the constant threat of being torn apart 03/16/2017

What Donald Trump Knew About Undocumented Workers at His Signature Tower 08/25/2016

The Story Behind Donald Trump’s Undocumented Polish Workers 02/25/2016

Andrew Puzder is just the latest Cabinet nominee with a 'nanny' problem 02/07/2017

How to Bring Down a Cabinet Nominee 01/10/2017 Four out of The latest 10 Cabinet appointees to fail failed because of hiring illegal aliens

If someone tips ICE off that I’m illegally in the U.S., will I be deported?

According to ICE, worksite immigration busts have increased tenfold over the past five years. 05/23/2009

Immigration Status Discrimination

A Few Times Donald Trump Has Allegedly Profited From Illegal Immigration 08/30/2016

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Betrayed Veterans Including Tammy Duckworth Fought For Lies

It's been a long time since I've heard anyone in the traditional media repeat the old saying that, "The first casualty of war is the truth."

Now the media and political establishment have turned emotional appeals to intimidate anyone that dares question the reasons why veterans, who are routinely betrayed by politicians, died, into an art form, with well researched propaganda!

T. Becket Adams, who is a pundit for the Washington Examiner, made this clear when he deleted the following tweets after facing outrage from others on twitter, “Moment with SEAL's widow was moving. Also, politically brilliant. Trump insulates himself from Yemen criticism. Good luck challenging raid.” And “After that 2-minute standing ovation, who wants to be the person to state publicly that the Yemen raid yielded no benefit? Have fun with that.”

Whether you consider this tactful or not, it's reasonably accurate, and ironically, when he chose to delete his own tweets, under pressure, he helped make his own point.

(Edit after a tweet to notify T. Becket Adams he responded to inform me about an article he wrote elaborating on this incident About that moment last night with Carryn Owens, the widow of the slain Navy SEAL, 03/01/2017 which addressing the issue far better than most mainstream pundits; however it still doesn't address the many lies cited in this article and others that the traditional media rarely ever mentions.)

This is just one of the examples where high profile people were forced to delete their tweets under intimidation for questioning the narrative of this speech and similar incidents have been taking place for years including both conventions where family members of veterans who died were used for political reasons, willingly or not.

When politicians and the media use their propaganda to deceive the public into believing war is justified we're all victims of their deceit including the veterans who they betray with their propaganda who often sacrifice their lives for all the wrong reason! However preserving the lies to preserve the glory of veterans only means that more civilians and veterans will die based on lies!

The sad truth is that the political establishment has developed an indoctrination process to intimidate anyone that challenges their claims about fighting to defend our freedom. The military has also developed indoctrination methods that teach cadets to blindly believe what they're told to believe and obey orders.

I've gone into details of how most of our wars have been fought based on lies and that the claim that our veterans are "fighting for our freedom" is simply false may times; and so have numerous other people that have little or no access to the traditional media including Jacob G. Hornberger who wrote, American Soldiers Did Not Die Defending Our Freedom. Messages like this are completely absent from the traditional media; if they did manage to get onto the television they would be demonized by almost the entire political establishment. It is unlikely that they could or would use a rational argument since a close look at the history of warfare will expose many lies used to fight one war after another. This intimidation tactic successfully prevents rational review of the crimes of our political leaders; even when some of them argue against one war they routinely defend the myth that our military is being routinely used to defend freedom.

Even though I follow what I consider more progressive news outlets on the internet I rarely ever find any articles that come out and say it there either; unless I look for them specifically like Googling something like, "The myth of fighting to defend our freedom" and find numerous stories like US Troops Do Not Fight ‘To Keep Us Free’ 01/29/2014 pointing out that this is simply not true and that when Barack Obama uses veterans in his speech that were injured during the wars that he ordered on based on lies he's using his own victims to glorify his presidency, and not only are most veterans indoctrinated not to challenge this but so are almost all people.

I don't mean any disrespect to the vast majority of veterans and their families, but most if not all wars that we've been fighting for decades have been at least partially based on lies and could have been avoided. Even World War Two might have been avoided if the business community, including Henry Ford who was sympathetic to Hitler and former King Edward VIII who also supported Hitler and many others in power who appeased Hitler long before Neville Chamberlain was accused of appeasing him might have been avoided if they hadn't given him tacit approval at least, because they thought he was less of a threat than the communists.

Amazingly one of Hillary Clinton's former volunteers, or employees, Dan Grilo didn't seem to understand how this was such a propaganda master stroke which Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton Barack Obama and many presidents before him routinely use and called it out, even though his own party and allies use the same tactic in a manner that was incredibly crude when he said, “Sorry, Owens’ wife, you’re not helping yourself of your husband’s memory by standing there and clapping like an idiot. Trump just used you.” Becket Adams was much more polite and accurate and his comment was still demonized so badly that he felt he had to delete it. Dan Grilo was so hypocritical and rude that the response to him was even worse, at least partially justified in this case; and he was fired from his job and deleted his Twitter account and doesn't seem to be accessible on line anymore, except for the outraged comments about him.

First of all there's no guarantee that Carryn Owens was doing this for the reasons that Grilo clearly indicated although, regrettably she was being used by Donald Trump, even if that isn't what she intended. She may well have believed in the claim that he was fighting for our freedom. The military is much more caught up in this propaganda than the rest of the population; and in most cases, when they realize they've been used many of them leave the military, at least and in some cases, they join organizations like Veterans for Peace to expose the lies of our politicians.

These should be considered the real heroes that try to prevent future warts based on lies!

Another thing that most people overlook is that there is a strong possibility that this propaganda is causing a lot of conflict within the families that they use for propaganda as well as those where some of them see through the propaganda and challenge the lies and others emotionally defend veterans by refusing to consider possibility that they might have been betrayed by their leaders; in some cases this even leads to violence or even murder.

The Owens family clearly has some disagreements, and I hope they work them out among themselves, but this may only make things worse since William Owens clearly disagreed with this mission when he said, "Why at this time did there have to be this stupid mission when it wasn't even barely a week into his administration? Why? For two years prior, there were no boots on the ground in Yemen — everything was missiles and drones — because there was not a target worth one American life. Now, all of a sudden we had to make this grand display?"

Did the Trump administration think about whether he was antagonizing arguments within this family or not? It appears as if his own reputation and the propaganda he used to at least try to glorify it is more important than additional damage that could be done; possibly because he doesn't think of how it could impact them any more than he seems to worry about if this raid was necessary; or if it was appropriate to do it the day after announcing the ban on seven countries possibly antagonizing allies he was relying on.

Whether or not politicians think about the damage they do their propaganda is incredibly successful and even though the evidence, assuming people are willing to look at it raises major doubts about whether or not many if any of these conflicts are worthwhile or not many of the people hurt the most by it often refuse to consider the possibility that they've been betrayed by their leaders because that would mean that they sacrificed for all the wrong reasons, not to defend freedom.

One Vietnam veteran nurse, Lynda Van Devanter, who wrote her biography seemed to have virtual admitted that she might have been in denial. At one point in her book, if I remember correctly she said that she had to believe that the war was for a good cause, because otherwise it would have meant that she sacrificed for all the wrong reasons.

Tammy Duckworth isn’t the worst when it comes to denial about the reasons for war and she’s not the strongest proponent for war, claiming that she wants to remind people “what the true costs of war are” when they “start beating the drums of war,” and she opposes air strikes in Syria; however a closer look may raise doubts about how strong her opposition to war is and if she really is questioning all the reasons for past wars or the activities that might st the stage for the next war and more after that.

What makes her more worth reviewing is that she does a much better job making it seem as if the glorification of war is justified and that all veterans are heroes that should be commended for “fighting for freedom,” even when this isn’t what they’re always doing.

It doesn’t look good to question the political positions of a double amputee when it comes to war propaganda; but that could be all the more reason why someone should if her opposition to some war could make it seem as if others that she might speak out for are worthwhile. Also Rep. Duckworth was one of the first congressmen to join the 'Ready for Hillary' movement in November of 2013 even though Hillary Clinton is one of the most outrageous among Democrats when it comes to supporting unjustified wars and her record as Secretary of State is outrageous from the point of view of anyone that opposes unjustified wars.

This is a strong and common sign that many progressives in congress may not be nearly as progressive as they pretend to be. How can you claim that your against unjustified wars or any other progressive position then turn around and endorse the worst candidate when it comes to those issues and often even fund raise for those candidates?

The congress is full of phony progressives that do exactly this; which enables them to come up with an enormous amount of propaganda indicating that they’re for progressive causes that inevitably fail partly because of the candidates they support opposing it!

Like many other phony progressives, her sounds much better than her actions and a closer look at her record raises even more doubts, even if she is a double amputee. I can’t rule out the possibility that she believes a lot of her own claims; she has been raised in the military and lived with this propaganda all her life judging by her own account. However, the glorification of veterans doesn’t change the fact that they’ve been betrayed by their leaders and they fight one war after another for lies not to “defend freedom.”

She describes her own beliefs in the following excerpts:

What I Learned at War ‘When my colleagues start beating the drums of war, I want to remind them what the true costs of war are.’ July/August 2015

.... What I didn’t expect was to fall in love with the camaraderie and sense of purpose that the military instills in you and even with the misery of training. The thing is, when we were exhausted and miserable, my fellow cadets and I were exhausted and miserable together. When the instructor yelled, he wasn’t singling anyone out, but yelling at all of us, together. It took all of us working as a team to succeed. .....

That day, and so many others when I served, illustrated the two most important lessons the military taught me: Never leave anyone behind—not on the battlefield and not in our country. And never put a service member in harm’s way without understanding the cost—the very real and very human cost—of war. ....

..... We will serve and serve proudly. We will go wherever the country needs us. I am not a dove. I believe strongly that if the country’s national security interests dictate that we put boots on the ground, then let’s do it and be aware of the true costs, both economic and human. I’m also not a reckless hawk, with scant appreciation for what the men and women in uniform—and their families—sacrifice every single day to keep the rest of us safe. Complete article

Her reference to “the misery of training” is a clear reference to boot camp where cadets are typically hazed and intimidated with rigorous training designed to teach them to blindly obey orders and, as she indicated develop a sense of loyalty among cadets; however this loyalty is often based on an environment of intimidation. Strict obedience to authority is routine in the military and they’re taught to believe what they’re told and not to challenge the claims from superiors. This is what enables political leaders and generals to lead us into war based on lies one time after another.

The claim that they “never leave anyone behind” sounds good; but it has never been true. Nor should it necessarily, if it means losing even more men than they might be able to retrieve; which brings us to her claim that they should “never put a service member in harm’s way without understanding the cost,” which not only sounds good but it is good, regrettably this doesn’t happen either.

Recently she said that she was opposed to the Iraq war; however this clearly didn’t go so far as to refuse to serve in it, which would have saved her legs. Apparently she was “working towards a Ph.D. in political science at Northern Illinois University,” when she was deployed to Iraq in 2004. If she already had political ambitions at this time it might explain why she wouldn’t want to refuse to fight in a war that she now claims that she opposed. By that time both Scott Ritter and Mohamed ElBaradei had reported that there were no weapons of mass destruction which was the justification for fighting this war, and they turned out to be right.

They had plenty of reason to believe that the war wasn’t worth the cost and refuse to go, since it was based on lies; but she didn’t do that. Nor did she have any doubts about Hillary Clinton later when she was among the first to endorse her. During the same interview, I think it was All In With Chris Hayes March 1st, she also said, or implied, that there should never be any doubt about veterans who sacrificed for their country like William “Ryan” Owens, or that they were fighting for freedom. It's not their fault that their leaders lied to them but regrettably when one war after another is based on lies they're simply not "fighting for our freedom!"

Her alleged opposition to the Iraq war, to the best of my knowledge, like Trump's opposition, wasn't made public until after even the mainstream media had to admit that the premise for the war was false. When it was going on she obeyed orders without question, and when it suited her propaganda purposes, including at the Democratic convention said she "started that day doing what I loved" which helps support the glorious image of camaraderie that the military often tries to portray as part of their effort to glorify the troops; and after her accident "surviving only because my buddies refused to leave me," which also supports the military image. However if she hadn't been fighting a war based on lies there never would have been a reason to lose her legs in the first place!

None of this propaganda ever mentions that the image of camaraderie isn't unconditional at all, as they might imply; it is based on intimidation and the assumption that everyone goes along with the program of their leaders which is a practice drilled into their heads during boot camp and continues throughout their military career! When people question the reasons for these wars it often escalates until either they go along with the program or face some form of retaliation.

Questioning this might have weakened the image of the military in some people eyes but it would save lots of lives; and ensure that we really did only fight wars to protect our freedom!

The claim that they're defending freedom could be put in more doubt when considering the comments of Rep. Ruben Gallego at the same convention who said "When we were kicking in doors looking for insurgents in Iraq...." without considering the many stories about kicking in doors of civilians and how this almost certainly led to more anger against the United States.

Just because it's easy for those who want to forget that the war is based on lies doesn't mean the victims of the bombing done by the United States will be so quick to forgot and if Americans considered that they would understand why many of them hate us and how wars based on lies does more to incite terrorism than prevent it!

The problem is of course just because the entire political establishment puts doubts about fighting for freedom off limits doesn’t change the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction and; more than that the United States routinely conducts activities that helped set the stage for these wars based on lies. In this case they armed Saddam Hussein in the eighties, when he was getting ready to invade Iraq the first time in the Spring of 1990 they remained silent and even when April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein she said, “We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960′s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)” (As reported in Gulf War Documents: Meeting between Saddam Hussein and US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie and WikiLeaks, April Glaspie, and Saddam Hussein by Stephen M. Walt) And there’s an incredibly long list of additional blunders including their arming of the mujahedin which later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda and arming of both sides of the Iran/Iraq and Syrian wars and many others that no traditional politician, including Tammy Duckworth ever mentions.

Mentioning these inconvenient facts are relegated to what the mainstream media tries to portray as fringe, even when the research is far more credible and consistent than the propaganda used to promote wars based on lies. There’s little or no chance that she could get any support from the political establishment if she challenged this anymore than any other candidate that speaks out about these things; and Duckworth had plenty of support from the traditional establishment including Gov. Rod Blagojevich who she endorsed in 2006 even though she knew he was under criminal investigation; and, with or without a Quid Pro Quo after losing her first run for office she was appointed Director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs by Governor Rod Blagojevich.

She began her campaign for Congress less than two years after losing her legs, which presumably helped her image thanks to the belief that veterans who sacrificed should never be questioned about whether they were really fighting for freedom. I don’t like criticizing her after this loss but her political career clearly indicates that she had high political ambitions starting before losing her legs and catered to the political establishment when it advanced her career even if it didn’t agree with the beliefs that she was campaigning on, like typical politicians.

Her performance at the VA both in Illinois and at the federal level weren’t nearly as distinguished as her campaign claims indicate. She was sued for intimidating or wrongfully firing two employees in a case that dragged on for seven years and was settled against the wishes of the plaintiffs during the 2016 election season when she was running for Senate; and another whistle blower also expressed outrage that she wouldn’t read the report when she tried to expose additional problems at the VA; and she was also responsible when a contract for over five million dollars was exposed as fraudulent.

Her record at the VA hardly seems to agree with her rhetoric or the image that is given to the vast majority of the public. Apparently “she was credited with starting a program to help veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and veterans with brain injury.” However trying to address PTSD without acknowledging the problems often created by the intimidating environment in the military especially during boot camp training is not likely to address the full problems. Several veteran shootings after returning have been attributed to PTSD including Ivan Lopez and Eddie Ray Routh both involved in high profile shootings and never saw combat; but they did have arguments with other veterans, which may have been related to the culture of intimidation in the military.

There's an enormous amount of denial about this subject as well reporting the majority of these shootings briefly and often only at the local level so that the vast majority of the public doesn't know how often they occur. There are also several studies indicating that veterans have greater problems with domestic violence as well including abusing both their wives and often their children too.

The government provides enormous profits for corporations that profit off of war; and they don't seem to have a problem paying those corporations, many that donate an enormous amount of money to campaigns; but the veterans run into problems pone time after another when it comes to getting treatment for PTSD or many other things.

Like many other politicians Tammy Duckworth's rhetoric and the fact that she's a disabled war veteran sound great but if you look at the history behind it it's not hard to find that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Regrettably few if any politicians that get the support of the political establishment of the consolidated media ever do stand up to scrutiny and potential candidates from the grass roots almost never get any coverage from the media.

The Constitution doesn't say that elected officials shall be required to collect campaign contributions from oligarchies before the media will be required to provide them the coverage they need to get name recognition; however that is exactly the system we have; without full understanding or informed consent by most of the public.

We have a massive political establishment that spends an enormous amount of money and research to study how to manipulate and control the public instead of addressing their concerns as a true democracy would.

I don't like criticizing a double amputee anymore than anyone else; and before she was elected she was betrayed by the politicians that led us into war based on lies and she paid for that with her legs.

But now, for one reason or another, she's using this for political reasons, and appears as concerned about her own political career if not more than about taking care of veterans. She may have started out as a victim but she's now part of the "politically brilliant" propaganda effort; and glorifying wars based on lies indirectly, by glorifying the veterans, and demonizing anyone that points out that they weren't "fighting for freedom," will only help with the propaganda for more wars based on lies.

Her defense of Hillary Clinton, Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Niranjan Shah and other members of the political establishment is far more reliable than her defense of veterans or the vast majority of the public!

At least when it counts!

Edit 04/08/2017: Tammy Duckworth issued the following statement following Trump's launching of Tomahawk missiles on Syria, which may seem balanced to some but continues to ignore some of the most important root causes of war:

Without reliable information which is often extremely difficult to come by with the consolidated corporate media I can’t completely rule out the possibility that Assad may have launched these chemical attacks or the ones in 2013 and that the people of Syria are entitled to protection. However with the incredibly long record of selling weapons to both sides including efforts by Hillary Clinton, who Duckworth continues to support despite her outrageous record and there continue to be new and old reports exposing her bad record, that are often contradictory it is reasonable to be skeptical.

However even if some form of action is justified she should have spoken out against arms sales that she remained silent about; and with stories like Tomahawk maker's stock up after U.S. launch on Syria 04/07/2017 many members of congress should be speaking out about potential profit motives from campaign contributors that might have an impact on Decisions about war.

When there is even the potential of a conflict about interests that should outrage everyone yet the people we’re always told are so “honorable” routinely remain silent about it even when large corporation increase profits when strikes potentially killing thousands or millions or leading to escalation that could get out of control that kills these high numbers are routine.

If these politicians are honorable, either they don’t know what the word honorable means, or I don’t!

Rep. Ruben Gallego does seem to be speaking out against these strikes as well, and thankfully he does not seem to agree that it is a “clear and measured message” that he agrees with; but he also remains silent about the routine conflict of interests with corporations profiting off war.

The following are additional sources for some of the conclusions pointed out here:

Wikipedia: Tammy Duckworth

U.S. Investigators criticize Veterans Affairs, Senator Dick Durbin and Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth over scandal 03/07/2016

Regarding Duckworth, who is now running for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, Clarno said, “Well, you know that’s the frustration. I went to her because I am one of her constituents. I went to her numerous times, emailed many times, trying to elicit her help on what was going on at Hines. I never felt that she wanted to hear exactly what was going on, and I don’t know why.”

Clarno also said of Duckworth, ” You know, we had the facts, we had the data, Doctor Nee and I met with her back, last fall, so I brought Dr. Nee and we had piles of evidence to share with her. It was disheartening when we were at the meeting and we were talking about the O-I-G report that was done in cardiology and she had not read the report. So it was really upsetting….. I really thought going to Tammy Duckworth, that she would be the one who would stand up and say ‘this has gotta stop’.”​ (For Duckworth's response or additional details see article

BREAKING: Hines VA Whistleblower On Duckworth: "I Went To Her Numerous Times" 03/07/2016

Sound familiar? Illinois Rep. Tammy Duckworth accused of retaliation at VA 06/24/2016

Duckworth Lawsuit to Continue After Plaintiffs Reject Settlement 07/27/2017

Illinois AG: Duckworth lawsuit settlement final 07/28/2016

Dem Senate Candidate Tammy Duckworth Blasted For Wasting $5 Million As A VA Official 06/22/2016

What I Learned at War Summer 2015

Rep. Duckworth is 'Ready for Hillary' 11/11/2013

Wikileaks emails bring back Tammy Duckworth’s old political friends — Shah and Blagojevich 08/03/2016

The recent document dump that forced the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and some of her top assistants includes some interesting nuggets about Niranjan Shah – who, like Duckworth, has deep ties to Illinois’ king of corruption, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Shah, CEO of Globetrotters Engineering, was a big-time Illinois campaign donor to Democratic Party causes. He fell out of favor, however, after resigning as University of Illinois board chairman following a Chicago Tribune series exposed an admissions scandal at the university.

Influential politicians and appointees, including Shah, used their political connections to gain favorable treatment for family members and friends, according to the Tribune. Shah’s son-in-law got a job at the university thanks to Shah’s political sway.

Leaked emails show DNC officials blacklisting Shah from events at the White House. ....

“Companies associated with Shah received more than $30 million in state contracts over a five-year period while giving $53,000 to Blagojevich… Shah also hosted a fundraiser at his home for Blagojevich,” according to a story last month in the newspaper. Shah has donated $11,600 to Duckworth’s campaign, most of it going toward the U.S. representative’s House election efforts. The donor most recently wrote a check for $1,000 to Duckworth’s Senate campaign last September, according to the Federal Election Commission.

Duckworth cashed Shah’s campaign check, readily accepting the donation of a man with a checkered political past. The congresswoman, too, stood by Blagojevich, even as he was being investigated for “epidemic hiring fraud.” .... For additional details see article.

‘American Sniper’ Widow Demands Apology From John McCain For Undermining Efforts Of Fallen Navy Seal William Ryan Owens 03/0/2017

Monday, March 6, 2017

Mika Accidentally Tells Truth About Indoctrination

Mika Brzezinski seems to have told the truth about her efforts, along with the consolidated corporate media controlled by only six oligarchies, to control what the public thinks with their propaganda. When she quickly corrected this claim saying it was obviously not what she meant many well informed people didn't fall for it, as the following article points out; and there is a growing amount of evidence including newly declassified documents (farther below) that prove the viewers that didn't fall for her weak denials were right:

MSNBC's Brzezinski: Trump Thinks He Can "Control Exactly What People Think," But That's "Our Job" 02/22/2017

The hosts of MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' comment on President Trump's efforts to "undermine the media."

Co-host Mika Brzezinski commented Wednesday morning that she is upset to see President Trump has moved in on the media's turf when it comes to the area of mind control.

"He is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts," she said about Trump. "And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think."

"And that, that is our job," she noted, referring to the media.

She tweeted later that she "said the media's job was to keep President Trump from making up his own facts, NOT that it's our job to control what people think."

"Of course, that is obvious from the transcript but some people want to make up their own facts. SAD!" she tweeted next, mimicking the president.

Some of her Twitter followers disagreed: Complete article

Only the most credulous and complacent people might be inclined to believe that it is so "obvious" that they're not trying to control what people think if they can get away with it. If they hadn't been steadily increasing hype for decades while cutting away at the most relevant reporting then they might be able to fool many more people; but now anyone that is paying a little bit of attention must realize that something is wrong with the media.

The strongest evidence for this isn't even secret; so it is virtually impossible to dismiss it as fringe conspiracy theory; although the traditional media rarely ever discusses it. Well over ninety percent of national media is now controlled by six oligarchies. This means that a small fraction of one percent of the richest people control almost all the media in the country; this is exactly what the First Amendment was supposed to protect.

This is not hard to confirm and I did so in previous articles including Tracking the elite ruling class and The existence of a ruling class is undeniable! based on public information that can be easily confirmed, although the media routinely ignores it. This blatantly contradicts the intention of the First Amendment and the core principles of democracy, since the public needs access to diverse ideas and they have to hear from candidates that represent many points of view in order for democracy to be successful.

In order to get elected to any higher office the first thing any candidate needs is name recognition, then they need to convince the public that they represent their views best. With a consolidated media in the hands of six oligarchies they can prevent any candidate they disapprove of from getting the name recognition to become a viable candidate, at least for national and statewide elections in large states. They can also give the candidates they approve of in smaller local elections major advantages even if they can't completely rig all of them.

This gives them an opportunity to rig or virtually rig most elections, effectively making a mockery of the democratic process.

The only reason a large portion of the public isn't aware of it is that they're either highly complacent or not well educated and highly susceptible to propaganda. A lie repeated often enough often seems like the truth and the media, advertising industry, and political establishment is aware of this and many other manipulation tactics, which they routinely use, as indicated by pundits like Frank Luntz who virtually confesses to sabotaging democratic process for clients.

Another one of the most blatant examples of how they've been misusing this consolidation of the traditional media is how they report on how the United States is the "leader of the free world," and that they're always fighting to "defend democracy," as they often put it, but even a close look at a simple list of all the interventions that they've had since WWII or back even further, raises doubts about that; and if people look into the details of these wars it is clear that they rarely if ever fight to defend democracy but instead fight to serve the interests of many of the riches people in the world.

Regrettably many people want to believe that they're fighting to defend democracy, so they believe the propaganda that is handed to them by their government and the commercial media unwittingly help with the crimes of their leaders, that are betraying them.

A small sample of the blatantly undemocratic activities by the United States include coups in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile, the War in Vietnam after they declared independence from France, writing their own Declaration of Independence that adopted some of the principles from the United States Declaration of Independence along with similar declarations from France and much more. That war was never about Communism, which was only an excuse published in American news but the Vietnamese weren't as committed to it as local propaganda indicated. They were never inclined to invade the United States and the government we were fighting against had far more popular support from their own people than they tyrants starting with Ngo Dinh Diem an later with generals that the Vietnamese never supported because they terrorized their own people to serve the interests of US corporations.

There were major problems with most if not all the other confrontations with countries that the United States routinely demonizes including both Cuba and Iran. In both these cases their leaders do have major problems but they overthrew tyrants that were supported by the United States; and instead of trying to address their legitimate grievances the US tried to restore the same tyrannical regimes or close allies so they could continue doing the interests of US corporations. In both cases the United States was involved in more atrocities against them than they were against the US. Neither of them ever tried to invade and most if not all of the activities against the United States by them were in retaliation for attempted coups or for inspiring the invasion of Iran by Iraq. The United States supplied weapons to both sides of the Iran/Iraq War and made numerous attempts to assassinate Castro.

These have been admitted to by the United States government, although they repeat their propaganda much more often and remain silent when some of the most extreme right wingers contradict the truth with their claims accompanied by emotional appeals.

They could never do this if they didn't have a consolidated media trying to control what the public thinks.

Here are a couple lists of the interventions along with an estimate of the people that have been killed by the United States government; if anyone that is accustomed to United States Propaganda doubts this they're welcome to check the details of any given conflict with their own research, then their beliefs will be based on the quality of their own research not just US propaganda or my own claims to the contrary along with alternative media outlets.

List of countries the USA has bombed since the end of World War II as of 2011.

History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890 up to 2014

US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II 01/29/2017

If anyone doubts the reliability of alternative media outlets that the mainstream media is now trying to portray as "Russian propaganda" they should keep in mind that many of the best ones often cite the traditional media reports that are often reported at a relatively low profile manner and declassified documents from the US government that are also often buried where most people never look at them. so in many cases they're citing actual admission from the United States government that often contradicts their propaganda.

On top of that there has been an enormous amount of additional evidence for this for decades and it continues to grow including with recently declassified documents reported by Washington's Blog, that show that even before the media consolidated into six oligarchies they were heavily influenced by the CIA. Unless people are accustomed to checking with alternative media outlets they're not likely to hear about this report and many more. Some of them might be exaggerations but I suspect that if you do your own confirmation and research you might find, as I did that a large portion of it is very reliable, often including the most important parts, while other portions are not quite so certain and some exaggeration are used to stereotype criticism and dismiss the most reliable research along with the worst.

Newly-Declassified Documents Show that a Senior CIA Agent and Deputy Director of the Directorate of Intelligence Worked Closely with Owners and Journalists with Many of the Largest Media Outlets 02/27/2017

Newly-declassified documents show that a senior CIA agent and Deputy Director of the Directorate of Intelligence worked closely with the owners and journalists of many of the largest media outlets:

The United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities found in 1975 that the CIA submitted stories to the American press:

(For video from Church Committee see complete article at Washington's Blob below.)

Wikipedia adds details:

After 1953, the network was overseen by Allen W. Dulles, director of the CIA. By this time, Operation Mockingbird had a major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. The usual methodology was placing reports developed from intelligence provided by the CIA to witting or unwitting reporters. Those reports would then be repeated or cited by the preceding reporters which in turn would then be cited throughout the media wire services.

The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was funded by siphoning off funds intended for the Marshall Plan [i.e. the rebuilding of Europe by the U.S. after WWII]. Some of this money was used to bribe journalists and publishers.

In 2008, the New York Times wrote:

During the early years of the cold war, [prominent writers and artists, from Arthur Schlesinger Jr. to Jackson Pollock] were supported, sometimes lavishly, always secretly, by the C.I.A. as part of its propaganda war against the Soviet Union. It was perhaps the most successful use of “soft power” in American history.

A CIA operative told Washington Post owner Philip Graham … in a conversation about the willingness of journalists to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories:

You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.

Famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein wrote in 1977:

More than 400 American journalists … in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters.

Complete article

If there wasn't a significant amount of truth to these disclosures then why haven't more diverse media reported on the many lies justifying war before they happen? Actually they have but they're only alternative media outlets considered fringe, but one time after another, they're proven to be right, after the fact, when it is to late to change it.

One of the most obvious and partially disclosed operative for the CIA working with the CIA is Anderson Cooper as disclosed in numerous relatively low profile articles including, CNN’s Anderson Cooper confronted about his CIA connections… his response may surprise you! (transcript) 11/05/2015 (video) Anderson Cooper responded to this with ridicule and acted as if something as old as the fifties is no longer relevant. If anyone that a decent reporter was interviewing responded that way they would consider it evasive and it would raise suspicions; even Anderson Cooper would have been skeptical unless he was involved in something he wanted to hide.

Anderson Cooper also responded to these claims in 2006 when he wrote about My summer job ... nearly 20 years ago 09/06/2006 in a similar way that dealt with it through ridicule and didn’t address many of the most important issues. He dismisses his internship at the CIA as just a trivial irrelevant job; however it is the only training he had before he got his first job at Channel One which should also be considered with suspicion since as I’ll explain is targeting children with indoctrination.

This article also has an enormous amount of support from the comments section complementing him. These comments came in almost immediately and if there are any critical ones a reader would have to sort through a lot of mindless fluff.

If you click on the “Add a Comment,” it says, “Comments are moderated by CNN, in accordance with the CNN Comment Policy, and may not appear on this blog until they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting. Also, due to the volume of comments we receive, not all comments will be posted.” It seems too positive to me, and I although I have no evidence, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that these comments were staged to distract, one way or another. Now it is over ten years later and if you click on the “Continue to the comment form.” After receiving that message you get an error indicating that comments are closed but they don’t seem to have any beyond the first night. For all I know it may have been posted at a time when they knew that positive feedback from friendly responders could come quickly; and, I can’t even rule out the possibility that they might have censored truly critical comments. Anyone that has looked closely at the history of the CIA might understand why I can’t rule out the possibility that this is staged; but even if it isn’t it doesn’t address any of the most important issues about the problems with either the media or the CIA.

Discussion about this subject almost never makes it onto the mainstream media.

Nor do they discuss whether they ever sign non-disclosure agreements when they conduct interviews with corporations, or even with their own employers, or at least not in a high profile manner. One of the exceptions was posted at Quora, where most people are highly unlikely to find it, When should journalists sign or decline a Non-Disclosure Agreement? 2011 This discussion indicates that it isn’t entirely disclosed and that many journalists don’t follow the same practices, indicating that the issue is inconclusive at best. It is generally agreed that this is a bad idea but some of the respondents have admitted to doing so. One thing they don’t come out and say is that a Non-Disclosure Agreement is clearly a contract that requires the participants to participate in a conspiracy, although they practically never call it that, nor do they discuss the definition often, instead repeating the propaganda about it over and over again creating misleading stereotypes. A conspiracy is when more than one people conduct secret discussions or activities that impact the public and the Non-Disclosure Agreement’s clearly fit that definition. However by avoiding much if any discussion of the definition of a conspiracy they can repeat propaganda making it seem justifiable to keep many activities that impact the public secret and they can, and do, ridicule anyone that says otherwise

Many of the most important research about this is done in alternative media outlets where few people read or watch, which should raise doubts about whether the media is trying their best to report the news, especially when people who check alternative media outlets routinely find better reporting, once they learn to sort out the most reliable sources.

Also both Mika Brzezinski and Anderson Cooper come from well connected and rich families along with most of the other high profile media pundits and anchors. When the vast majority of the media is controlled by the rich and they often give preferential treatment to coverage that preserves their control of the political and economic systems that raises major doubts about the traditional media.

It is easy to dismiss this as fringe conspiracy theories, especially after looking at some of the least reliable alternative media outlets; however, even if the worst include a lot of exaggerations, and even outright lies, many of them come up with much more thorough reporting and, at times, if you sort through the exaggerations it is clear that the traditional media isn't reporting all the news.

Sometimes even the least reliable fringe conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, who I rarely read or watch comes closer to the truth than the traditional media; however when that happens it is advisable to find corroboration through a more reliable source when possible, or maintain a reasonable amount of skepticism.

For one reason or another most conspiracy theorists overlook one of the most important aspects of Anderson Cooper's career that indicates that with or without a CIA connection, he's got his start providing propaganda to children working for Channel One as his Wikipedia article indicates. Roy Fox did a thorough research into this in the nineties and found that the advertising to kids is heavily influencing their education in a negative way as I reported in Roy Fox Harvesting Minds, Channel One Indoctrination of Kids and Roy F Fox on unethical targeting of children by marketers where he explained why he thought that this should be fully disclosed.

This subject has also received very little attention and the research backing it up comes from some academics that are usually much better than most conspiracy theorists and do an excellent job showing the work that lead them to their conclusions. Additional authors who have exposed how advertising to children at an early age interferes with their ability to develop critical thinking skills include child psychologist Susan Linn author of Consuming Kids and Economist and Sociologist Juliet Schor author of Born to Buy. They demonstrated that indoctrination of children starting at an early age, through advertising in school or at home, may be as important, if not more important than indoctrination of adults through a consolidated corporate media.

Most of the coverage about school reform is about the increased use of Charter Schools which are increasingly becoming dominated by for profit corporations that often put money ahead of education. This is as important as well; and once again the best criticism of it happens at the grassroots level. There is an overwhelming opposition to this when people are well informed, or in many cases after they try it and see how disastrous it is but the mainstream media still gives preferential treatment to those that keep pushing a failed experiment.

Mika Brzezinski's own father, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who apparently came from Polish nobility (or "szlachta" in Polish), has been involved in propaganda much longer than she has, and some of the hardest to believe quotes from him aren't that hard to confirm by searching the internet. Apparently over the years one way or another many of his activities have been exposed; but like most other controversial news or history that challenges the establishment ideology and attempts to control the public it hardly ever gets reported.

As I said when searching through some of these conspiracy theories some of them might turn out to be exaggerations or outright lies, so don't take my word for it; do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

However you might, find, as I did that mixed in with the exaggerations and outright lies is often more credible research exposing additional details about how the ruling class, whether it's through the CIA, mainstream media, control of education systems or large corporations is trying to control what the public think.

The most effective way to prevent this is to learn as much as possible about their indoctrination tactics and to get news from more diverse sources with better peer review.

The following are some related articles or sources:

Wikipedia: Manuscript Society

Wikipedia: Operation Mockingbird

Wikipedia: Anderson Cooper: Channel One

Anderson Cooper's CIA Secret 10/27/2008

My summer job ... nearly 20 years ago 09/06/2006

CNN's Anderson Cooper Admits Working for the CIA - Operation Mockingbird Asset Exposed! Mark Dice 09/20/2014

When should journalists sign or decline a Non-Disclosure Agreement? 2011

“Shortly, the public will be unable to reason or think for themselves. They’ll only be able to parrot the information they’ve been given on the previous night’s news.“ Zbigniew Brzezinski

“Speaking of a future at most only decades away, an experimenter in intelligence control asserted, ‘I foresee a time when we shall when we shall have the means and therefore, inevitably, the temptation to manipulate the behavior and intellectual functioning of all the people through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the brain.’” Zbigniew Brzezinski

"It used to be easier to control a million people than to kill them, but today it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to kill them!" Zbigniew Brzezinski

VIDEO: Brzezinski’s Feared “Global Awakening” Has Arrived 01/29/2011