Puppet MastersS


Bullseye

How Iran decided to bomb US bases; how Trump avoided all-out war

Elijah J. Magnier
ejmagnier.com
Sat, 01 Feb 2020 00:00 UTC
Solei money
© Unknown
On the third of January, after midnight, news about the assassination of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, Brigadier General Hussein pour Jaafari, Colonel Shahroud Muzaffari Nia, Major Hadi Tameri and Captain Wahid Zamaniam reached the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad. Officers at the embassy were in contact with the convoy, and suddenly the communication was interrupted. Sardar Soleimani had diplomatic immunity and had been officially asked by the Iraqi government to help in defeating ISIS. Moreover, the convoy was attacked just before an Iraqi checkpoint that knew the Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes was in convoy along with his protection team. The news was communicated to Tehran and from it to the house of the Iranian leader of the revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei.

"We belong to Allah and to Him we shall return". These verses of the Qoran a believer would pronounce when the death of someone he knows is announced, whether close to him or not. It is a reminder that all humans are mortal. That was the first reaction of Sayyed Khamenei when the news reached him of the death of "a son". That was Sardar Soleimani's closeness to Sayyed Khamenei. Soleimani earned the title of "living martyr" due to the many occasions his life was in danger while fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria.
Read More...
Eye 2

Is delusional Killary scheming to be vice president?

Douglas MacKinnon
The Hill
Sun, 02 Feb 2020 12:00 UTC
Hillary
© Rebrn.com/KJN
A number of people in politics, the media and elsewhere are openly speculating that if Democrats wind up with a "brokered convention," with no strong or viable nominee evident, Hillary Clinton might enter the arena as the "savior" who could unite the delegates and go on to defeat President Donald Trump.

Clinton herself seemed to throw shade at that theory during an interview with Variety at the Sundance Film Festival. When asked about the "urge" to beat Trump, the former Democratic nominee said,
"Yeah. I certainly feel the urge because I feel the 2016 election was a really odd time and an odd outcome. And the more we learn, the more that seems to be the case. But I'm going to support the people who are running now and do everything I can to help elect the Democratic nominee."
Several politically savvy Democrats have told me that "everything" may be a much more plausible and powerful scenario.

Comment: Are we done yet or do Americans need another trot through the muck just to be sure?

Read More...
Propaganda

The 'NY Times' editorial on the Netanyahu/Trump annexation plan is 'a dishonest embarrassment'

James North
Mondoweiss
Sun, 02 Feb 2020 19:11 UTC
new york times nyt opinion pages logo
© New York Times
The New York Times Editorial Board should be ashamed of their cowardly full-page opinion in today's paper. In the past, Times editors have occasionally shown some spine on Israel/Palestine, but this editorial is a dishonest embarrassment.

Some of the editorial sounds reasonably harmless, a tedious recitation of the details of the Trump/Netanyahu "peace plan" that will already be familiar to anyone following the story. But the Times mostly refuses to give the "plan's" features the contempt or even the skepticism they deserve, so overall the implication is that we should at least take it seriously.

Comment:

Read More...
Lemon

The Democratic impeachment face plant media puffery can't hide

Patricia McCarthy
American Thinker
Sat, 01 Feb 2020 00:00 UTC
Jeffries
© YouTube screen grabRep. Jeffries claims paying foreigners to interfere in our elections makes it OK.
Late on Thursday night after the impeachment hearings had ended, the headline column at Politico was "How Trump's impeachment created two Democratic Superstars" by Jake Sherman and Heather Caygle. They authors waxed rhapsodic about Adam Schiff and Hakeem Jeffries! The column, dated 1/30, then disappeared into the nether regions of the site. Maybe someone at Politico thought better of heralding the continued fawning over the two men who made the biggest fools of themselves over the past week.

Schiff cannot utter a sentence that doesn't contain a lie. Jeffries' most hilarious assertion was that the Steele dossier, the entirety of which has been proven to be all lies, was just fine because it was "purchased"! They are trying to impeach the President for allegedly asking the new President of Ukraine to look into the known corruption of the Biden family and the proven interference by some in Ukraine in our 2016 election to help Hillary, and Jeffries is dismissing the Clinton campaign's actual solicitation of dirt from a foreign source because she paid for it! You can't make this stuff up.
Read More...
Snakes in Suits

George Soros demands Mark Zuckerberg be kicked out as Facebook CEO

John Gage
Washington Examiner
Fri, 31 Jan 2020 01:08 UTC
Zuckerberg/Soros
© thecut.com/UnknownFacebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg • Billionaire George Soros
Left-wing billionaire George Soros argued that control of Facebook should be wrested from Mark Zuckerberg because he believes the CEO wants President Trump reelected.

The 89-year-old made the argument in a Friday column in the New York Times titled "Mark Zuckerberg Should Not Be in Control of Facebook."
"Facebook should be judged by what it does, not what it says. I repeat and reaffirm my accusation against Facebook under the leadership of Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg. They follow only one guiding principle: maximize profits irrespective of the consequences."
The billionaire also pointed to Zuckerberg's meetings with Trump as raising "serious questions." Soros concluded his article by stating that Zuckerberg "should not be left in control of Facebook." He did not specify how control should be taken away from the company's founder.

Comment: More from Washington Examiner, 23/1/2020: Soros says Facebook trying to reelect Trump
Soros has been mostly critical of Trump but touted the president's efforts on China, a compliment framed as "the greatest — and perhaps only — foreign policy accomplishment" of the administration, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

"I think there is a kind of informal mutual assistance operation or agreement developing between Trump and Facebook," he said. "Facebook will work together to reelect Trump, and Trump will work to protect Facebook so that this situation cannot be changed, and it makes me very concerned about the outcome for 2020."

A Soros-linked liberal advocacy group spent a record $48 million in 2019, $40 million more than the combined 14 years prior. Soros is a major funder of Democratic Party politics and advocacy work.

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg ignited controversy after she asked staff to look into whether Soros had a financial incentive to criticize the company.

Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani is a pronounced Soros critic, claiming Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was "controlled" by the liberal billionaire.
The New York Times, 31/1/2020: Zuckerberg should not control Facebook
Author: George Soros
I believe that Mr. Trump and Facebook's chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, realize that their interests are aligned — the president's in winning elections, Mr. Zuckerberg's in making money.

Let's look at the evidence: In 2016, Facebook provided the Trump campaign with embedded staff who helped to optimize its advertising program. Brad Parscale, the digital director of Mr. Trump's 2016 campaign and now his campaign manager for 2020, said that Facebook helped Mr. Trump and gave him the edge. This seems to have marked the beginning of a special relationship.

More recently, direct contact between the two men has raised serious questions. Mr. Zuckerberg met with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office on Sept. 19, 2019. We don't know what was said.

Mr. Trump apparently had no problem with Facebook's decision not to fact-check political ads. Facebook's decision not to require fact-checking for political candidates' advertising in 2020 has flung open the door for false, manipulated, extreme and incendiary statements.

What's more, Facebook's design tends to obscure the sources of inflammatory and false content, and fails to adequately punish those who spread false information. Nor does the company effectively warn those who are exposed to lies.


In other words, free speech?


I expressed my fear that with Facebook's help, Mr. Trump will win the 2020 election. The recent hiring of a right-wing figure to help manage its news tab has reinforced those fears.

Facebook has introduced new features on its mobile app that actually intensify the fire of incendiary political attacks — making them easier and quicker to propagate. The system is cost-free to the poster and revenue-generating for Facebook. Good for Facebook, bad for democracy.
See also:

Read More...
Stop

DNC members want to change the rules to stop Sanders at the convention

David Siders
Politico
Fri, 31 Jan 2020 05:31 UTC
Sen. BS
© Sen. Bernie SandersJohn Locher/AP PhotoSen. Bernie Sanders
A small group of Democratic National Committee members has privately begun gauging support for a plan to potentially weaken Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign and head off a brokered convention.

In conversations on the sidelines of a DNC executive committee meeting and in telephone calls and texts in recent days, about a half-dozen members have discussed the possibility of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called superdelegates can vote on the first ballot at the party's national convention. Such a move would increase the influence of DNC members, members of Congress and other top party officials, who now must wait until the second ballot to have their say if the convention is contested.

"I do believe we should re-open the rules. I hear it from others as well," one DNC member said in a text message last week to William Owen, a DNC member from Tennessee who does not support re-opening the rules. Owen, who declined to identify the member, said the member added in a text that "It would be hard though. We could force a meeting or on the floor."

Comment: Apparently the DNC's boat won't float until all the sails are 'rigged'.

Read More...
No Entry

What's up with the blatant, bizarre CNN snub campaign to sideline Tulsi Gabbard?

Joe Concha
The Hill
Fri, 31 Jan 2020 11:30 UTC
Gabbard
© Getty ImagesRepresentative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)
CNN has held more town hall events than any of the three cable news networks over the past few years and continues that programming strategy as we head into the meat of the 2020 campaign.

For the most part, the network has made an effort to provide every candidate on the Democratic side during the primary season with an hourlong stage to answer questions from moderators and voters alike. And that's what makes CNN's decision to snub Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) from a series of town halls just days before the New Hampshire primary not only odd but optically nonsensical.

Note: Gabbard is currently polling at 4.8 percent in the RealClearPolitics index of polls in New Hampshire. That puts her ahead of tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang (4.0 percent), businessman Tom Steyer (1.8 percent) and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (no polling available).

So what do these low-polling candidates all have in common? They all received invites to the CNN New Hampshire town hall.

Comment: As part of the MSM's broad news control system, CNN can't afford Gabbard educating the public with truth and facts, nor exposing the false narratives of her co-candidates. The fact that she is rising in the poles is a testament to her persistence as a force de jour. The fact that CNN is sidelining her campaign shows its level of vulnerability.

See also: 'We received no explanation!' Tulsi Gabbard not included in CNN's Vermont town hall series

Read More...
Attention

History of World War II re-written before our very eyes


The Strategic Culture Foundation
Fri, 31 Jan 2020 18:42 UTC
Red Square
© Kapuk Dodds / Getty ImagesSt Basil’s Cathedral and GUM shopping centre at twilight.
It is astounding and deeply disturbing that 75 years after the end of World World Two the history of that event is being re-written before our very eyes.

That war resulted in over 50 million dead with more than half of the victims from the Soviet Union. It incorporated the worst crimes against humanity, including the systematic mass murder of millions carried out by Nazi Germany, known as the Holocaust. The victims included Jews, Slavs, Roma, Soviet prisoners-of-war and others whom the fascist Nazis deemed to be "Untermensch" ("Subhumans").

The Soviet Red Army fought back the Nazi forces all the way from Russia through Eastern Europe, eventually defeating the Third Reich in Berlin. Nearly 90 per cent of all Wehrmacht casualties incurred during the entire war were suffered on the Eastern Front against the Red Army. That alone testifies how it was the Soviet Union among the allied nations which primarily accomplished the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Seventy-five years ago, on January 27, 1945, it was Red Army soldiers who liberated the notorious Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp. It was during the Vistula-Oder Offensive which drove the Nazis out of Poland paving the way for the eventual final victorious battle in Berlin some three months later.

It is incredible that within living memory, these objective facts of history about the most cataclysmic war ever waged are being falsified or insidiously distorted.
Read More...
Snakes in Suits

Pompeo visits Belarus to discuss oil as Minsk's ties with Moscow fray

Andrei Makhovsky
Reuters
Sat, 01 Feb 2020 11:04 UTC
pompeo belarus
President Alexander Lukashenko meets U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo traveled to Belarus on Saturday, seeking to "normalize" ties at a time when relations between Minsk and its traditional ally Russia are under strain.

The United States and the European Union have been frequent critics of authoritarian rule and the human rights record in Belarus, where President Alexander Lukashenko has been in office since 1994.

But Western powers have lifted most sanctions on Belarus since Lukashenko released political prisoners and showed more tolerance for political opposition.
Read More...
Bandaid

US tells stories about 'brain injuries' to cover up dead troops at Iraqi base - IRGC spokesman


RT
Sat, 01 Feb 2020 14:45 UTC
soleimani
© Reuters / Nazanin TabatabaeeA picture of Qassem Soleimani is hanged at a display of symbolic empty coffins of American and Israeli soldiers at the former US embassy in Tehran
A spokesman for Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has accused the US of covering up deaths at a base in Iraq after a ballistic missile attack. The US insists nobody was killed, and that its troops suffered brain injuries.

Dozens of American troops have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries following Iranian strikes on two US bases in Iraq earlier this month, according to the Pentagon. Iran struck the bases in retaliation for the Trump administration's assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani by airstrike at Baghdad Airport several days earlier.

Though President Donald Trump proudly declared that no Americans were killed in the strikes - thanks to a tip-off from the Iraqi military and the bases' early-warning systems, at least 50 US troops have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury since.

However, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) spokesman Brigadier General Ramezan Sharif claimed on Saturday that those troops the US says are injured, are actually dead.

"I believe that that the term 'brain trauma,' whether mild, moderate or severe, reflects the number of dead, which they hesitate to formally announce," Sharif wrote in Iran's Vatan-e-Emrooz daily newspaper.

He accused Washington of covering up the true toll of the strikes to save face, and project strength ahead of this year's election.

"Surely as we approach the US presidential election, more numbers and names related to the dead will be leaked along with the competition among the parties," he added.

Sharif's accusation is likely untrue, and intended for domestic consumption. In the immediate aftermath of the missile attack, IRGC sources told Iranian state news outlet Mehr News that more than 80 American troops were killed and 200 injured. However, no senior Iranian government officials have repeated the claim, and none of the state-run outlets running the story have managed to back it up.
Read More...