Ep. 82 – DACA: Dems Dupe Dreamers & Soros Funds Global "Fight Against" Fake News (Podcast)

Liberals don’t care about the Dreamers, they care about keeping their base enraged at Trump. George Soros and the Ford Foundation are funding a worldwide effort to “fight fake news” that’s already shaping the reality we perceive. And we talk Trump’s Fake News awards and the competing Press Oppressor Awards. This and much more on this episode of the Propaganda Report Podcast.
Jim Acosta Calling a 9/11 First Responder Fake News (SUBSCRIBE TO MY YOUTUBE PAGE)
Calling My Congressman Using the Indivisible Call Script

Calling My Congressman Using the Indivisible Call Script Part 2

First Draft News
DACA Dreamers Call Script
Some of First Draft News Partners
About First Draft News Including Funding
Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking 34 Recommendations for fighting it.

Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking

Committee On Foreign Relations United States Senate Solutions for Fighting Fake News. “PUTIN’S ASYMMETRIC ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA AND EUROPE: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY.” (Brief Summary Third Store Down)
If you haven’t, Subscribe to the Propaganda Report podcast on iTunes. Rate and review us. We’d love to hear from you. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/t…
Or subscribe on your Android listening platform of choice. http://www.subscribeonandroid.com/pro…
If you want to donate out and help out the show, you can do so on Paypal at https://www.paypal.com/donate/?token=2TvY2zlEkKJXp_rkEgJs0B4QdCkt30MwOIxlp4vM4stbrgoTdmPqTfQ6wmEYFAkBcUgsDG&country.x=US&locale.x=  or better yet, you can become a Patron. https://www.patreon.com/propagandareport
Like the Propaganda Report Podcast on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/thepropagand…
And join the conversation with us on Twitter @MonicaPerezShow @freedomactradio Thank you for listening to Ep. 82 of the Propaganda Report Podcast with Monica Perez and Brad Binkley (Johnny Blastoff)

Infrastructure Atrocity Propaganda, The Perfect Dialectic, Bannon as PodPerson & More…Today's Twitter Trip #ReadMyTwips






Ep. 81 – Will Explosive New Book Bring Trump Down? No. Here's What It Will Do.

Social media was set ablaze this week by the release of a new book titled Fire and Fury that delusional Trump haters believe will finally bring the President down. Will It? No. But it will serve it’s propaganda purpose perfectly.
We talk about that, the Fake News awards, scary tech headlines, and how the media fractures society all on this episode of the Propaganda Report Podcast with Monica Perez and Brad Binkley.

Fake News Awards Nomination – CNN for Blatantly Biased Liberal Listicles (With 16 Examples!)


Tweet Storm 2018 – All Trump’s 2018 Tweets (Updated January 6th)

If you haven’t, Subscribe to the Propaganda Report podcast on iTunes. Rate and review us. We’d love to hear from you. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/t…
Or subscribe on your Android listening platform of choice. http://www.subscribeonandroid.com/pro…
If you want to donate out and help out the show, you can do so on Paypal at https://www.paypal.com/donate/?token=2TvY2zlEkKJXp_rkEgJs0B4QdCkt30MwOIxlp4vM4stbrgoTdmPqTfQ6wmEYFAkBcUgsDG&country.x=US&locale.x=  or better yet, you can become a Patron. https://www.patreon.com/propagandareport
Like the Propaganda Report Podcast on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/thepropagand…
And join the conversation with us on Twitter @MonicaPerezShow @freedomactradio Thank you for listening to Ep. 78 of the Propaganda Report Podcast with Monica Perez and Brad Binkley (Johnny Blastoff)

Ep. 77 – Is the Opioid Crisis A Government Created Plot?

President Trump recently declared the opioid epidemic a ‘public health emergency’ in the United States. While this focused national attention on America’s deadly drug addiction, the opioid crisis hasn’t spiraled out of control because of a lack of government intervention. It’s spiraled out of control largely BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Bad government policy like the war on drugs has lead to the creation of illegal black markets where the deadly narcotic drug fentanyl is being laced into the drug supply at an increasing rate. Drug addicted users who believe they’re buying painkillers, cocaine, heroin, or other opiates, are actually getting heroin laced with fentanyl, cocaine spliced with fentanyl, or fentanyl death pills (pain killers disguised to look like Oxycotin, Percocet or Xanax, but are actually made with fentanyl). The results of the dangerous drug combination has been deadly, In the past three years, the fentanyl death toll has risen by 540%.
If that’s not bad enough, government rehab programs offered through medicaid enables drug users to live a drug addicted lifestyle free of charge. Medicaid takes care of the bill. Not only will they provide free methadone, enabling users to substitute one dangerous addiction for another, in some states Medicaid will pay for the cab ride over to the methadone clinic. And if that’s not enough, in some cases, Medicaid gives known drug addicts a free card loaded with unlimited government funds and will even transfer the funds directly into the users bank account. This makes it easy for those suffering from heroin addiction or opiate addiction to fund their lifestyle without any income.
If the powers that be wanted to win the war on drugs they wouldn’t be talking about creating more poisonous policy, they’d be getting rid of bad policy that nurtures this opioid epidemic. But solving the drug problem would threaten the power and profits of those who thrive of off keeping Americans down, which makes you wonder if this opioid crisis we’re facing is not accident. With the problem spiraling out of control, it’s time that we seriously ask, is the opioid epidemic a government engineered crisis?
[amazon_link asins=’0970312598,193543926X,0806114576,0805067892′ template=’ProductGrid’ store=’propagandarep-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’e2e4be9f-c939-11e7-bcb5-917b258298f3′]On today’s episode of the Propaganda Report podcast, we explore that question, talk about how those in power exploit America’s drug problem for their own benefit, look at the problem through a libertarian lens, and we take calls from those who are currently struggling to overcome addiction, those who have lost loved ones to drug overdose, and those whose stories of survival remind us that even in the darkest of times, nothing is more powerful than hope.
If you haven’t subscribe to the podcast iTunes. Rate and review us. We’d love to hear from you. Or subscribe on your Android listening platform of choice. http://www.subscribeonandroid.com/propagandareport.libsyn.com/rss

Get on Google Play (Button via NiftyButtons.com)
Subscribe on Android
If you want to donate out and help out the show, you can do so on Paypal 
Or better yet, you can become a Patron.
And finally, subscribe to us on Youtube for weekly videos.
Monica’s Youtube Page
Brad’s Youtube Page
Thank you for listening!

Voila! Lessons from Trump & Brexit Scare Europe Straight

mending_europe__tjeerd_royaardsBinkley and I speculated from the beginning that the “true meaning of Trump” might be to spark a globalist backlash, for example in Episode 24 of the Propaganda Report from January 26, only a few days after the inauguration. We specifically, repeatedly discussed the impact this all would have in Europe as the reality of “the Nazi next door” sparked ingrained fears. Well, in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, we are told that’s exactly what happened…
European Populists Who Aped Brexit and Trump Rethink Their Approach
Many officials think their attempt to associate with the U.K. and the U.S. undermined what was supposed to be a banner year

CARPENTRAS, France—Europe’s populist politicians hoped this would be the year they rocked the Continent’s establishment. Instead, their assault on the European Union has brought election defeats, recriminations and self-doubt….
Many of Europe’s far-right politicians now believe their attempt to associate themselves with the antiestablishment uprisings behind the U.K.’s vote to leave the EU and Donald Trump’s U.S. presidential victory has backfired….Continental European voters, although hardly content with incumbents or the EU, viewed electoral shocks in the U.K. and U.S. as destabilizing….
Anti-EU nationalists “were so electrified after Brexit and Trump that they thought all of us would be president or prime minister of their country,” says Gerolf Annemans, a leading figure in Belgium’s Flemish-nationalist party and in a group of EU-skeptic parties in the European Parliament. Instead, he says, “to some extent the Trump election has frightened off parts of the center electorate in Europe.”…
[M]any European voters were unsettled by what was happening in the U.K. and U.S. The U.K. has struggled to figure out how to disentangle itself from the EU. Germans’ trust in the U.S. fell from 59% in Nov. 2016 to 21% in February, and has remained at low levels, according to opinion polls commissioned by public broadcaster ARD.
Support for the EU, battered by long crises over debt and migration, began to recover. The EU’s own latest Eurobarometer report on public opinion, published in August, found that trust in the EU has risen to 42%, from 36% a year ago and 32% in late 2015….
Peter Appelt, a 57-year-old worker in a train factory who lives in Germany’s east, told The Wall Street Journal last year he supported the anti-immigration AfD party because Europe “doesn’t work,” and because he was fearful of the large influx of immigrants. “The other parties need to be taught a lesson,” he said then.
Now, he says he has changed his mind. He doesn’t know yet who he will vote for in Germany’s Sept. 24 parliamentary elections, he says, but it won’t be the AfD. He says he finds the party too amateurish and extreme, and that watching events in the U.S. and U.K. has made him more skeptical.
He sees the AfD’s policies as similar to Mr. Trump’s. “He wants to wall off his country, and the AfD also wants to keep all foreigners from entering, and that doesn’t work either,” he says. Mr. Trump’s political struggles and the U.K. difficulties defining its future relationship with Europe have convinced him that isolationism makes for bad policy, he says. “In a globalized world, one can’t act like a small island,” he says.
Alexander Gauland, who co-heads the AfD ticket for the September election, says…if Mr. Trump had managed to start construction on his promised Mexican-border wall, the AfD could have used the new president’s success to trumpet the feasibility of its own demands to close Germany’s borders.
“Now that it’s become tangled up in details, people are no longer paying attention,” Mr. Gauland says.

In short, according to the Journal, Trump is seen as destabilizing and ineffective and the European Union, whose popularity was waning in the wake of their debt crisis, is rebounding: It seems that globalism is the answer after all.

Jon Ossoff – The Perception VS. The Reality


With early voting for Georgia’s 6th district special election beginning today, many in the district will cast their vote for someone the public knows next to nothing about, Jon Ossoff. For a candidate who’s only 30 years old, Ossoff’s campaign makes a lot of bold claims. His supporters should know that a number of these claims conflict with reality.

Personally, I don’t think the truth about Ossoff and his family will matter in the minds of his supporters. I believe most of them support Ossoff only because they hate Donald Trump. Their rabid hate is so strong that they won’t care that Jon Ossoff’s campaign is deceiving them by mis-representing the truth. With that said, here are some of Ossoff’s claims, followed by the reality.

CLAIM – Jon Ossoff is a small business owner, executive, and entrepreneur, an investigative documentary filmmaker who exposes political corruption. He knows what it means to grow a company, meet a payroll, and balance budgets. 

This creates the perception of a candidate who has endured the entrepreneurial struggle, who knows how to build and maintain a successful business.  

REALITY – Ossoff graduated from the London School of Economics in 2013. That same year he became CEO of Insight TWI, the documentary film company he “runs.” Ossoff didn’t endure the entrepreneurial struggle to build this company. He bought 50% ownership of an already established company using part of his inheritance. 

…..Ossoff comes from a wealthy Atlanta family, a fact that shouldn’t hurt him in the well-heeled Sixth. When his grandfather died, Jon Ossoff found himself with an inheritance……….“I thought [my grandfather] would be proud for me to use some of those resources to invest in growing a company whose work I believed in.”

To relate Ossoff’s family wealth to that of the average person in the 6th distract is misleading. The average family in the sixth district doesn’t pay the $20,000 – $23,000 tuition per year to send their kid to the Paideia School, nor do they ride around the world in their private yacht. The substantial Ossoff family wealth, which is more Donald Trump like than it is 6th district like, is another subject for another time.

To call Insight, the company Ossoff invested in, a “growing company” is also misleading. This makes it sound like Ossoff was taking a risk with an unknown company. The company had been around since 1991. It’s founder was Rob McCullagh, a well-known and award winning, BBC journalist. He still owns 50 percent of the company. Long before Ossoff ever got involved, the company had already produced a number of Emmy award winning documentaries. This wasn’t a risk for Ossoff. This was a well-established company, with a well-known founder, that had already achieved substantial success. Plus Ossoff is only 50 percent owner, so he only shoulders a portion of what little risk there might be.

Ossoff didn’t build this company. He threw some play money into a company that produces investigative documentaries that expose corruption. In other words, he made a low-risk investment in exchange for a title that looks good on his political resume.

This isn’t an example of someone who took risks and endured the entrepreneurial struggle. It’s an example of how the privileged child of an elite used old money to buy unearned credibility.

To present Ossoff as an entrepreneur who knows how to build a business is intentionally deceitful. Plus, you don’t suddenly become an investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker overnight despite having no education or experience with either.

CLAIM – His experience will help him create jobs and turn ATL into an economic powerhouse. Jon will work to level the playing field for small businesses so they can grow and create jobs that will empower Georgians. 

REALITY – The company Ossoff bought into is located in the United Kingdom. If he wanted to turn Atlanta into an economic powerhouse then why didn’t he invest his inheritance into an Atlanta based company? Why didn’t he stimulate Atlanta’s economy and help create jobs there? Why did he choose instead to stimulate the economy of the United Kingdom by buying a foreign company? Why should anyone believe that Jon Ossoff is going to do anything to help Atlanta’s economic system when he was already in a position to do so and instead, he choose to help a foreign country’s economic system?

Here’s another interesting fact about the company Ossoff partially owns. A month after Ossoff bought Insight News in 2013, his dad founded a non-profit in Atlanta called The World Investigates. Insight News was then renamed to Insight TWI (The World Investigates). This is interesting for a few reasons. One is that it associates Insight with an Atlanta address. This enables Ossoff and his campaign to create the false perception that he’s an Atlanta business owner. Another is that Stafford Publications, the company Ossoff’s dad runs, teaches corporations and non-profits how to master the tax code. His dad, Richard Ossoff, has founded a long list of corporations and non-profits in Georgia and around the country.

Donald Trump famously spoke about being able to, within legal bounds, game the tax system. The Ossoff family appears to at the very minimum have the skills, knowledge, and resources to do this better than even Trump.

CLAIMJon will work in Congress to reduce the tax burden on small businesses and simplify small business tax filing.

REALITY – As previously mentioned, his dad’s company, Strafford Publications teaches seminars to help corporations and non-profits “master the tax code.” If Jon Ossoff simplified the tax code, he’d undermine one of the core income drivers of his dad’s company.

CLAIM – “I’ve got 5 years of experience as a national security staffer in the U.S Congress. I held a National Security clearance.” 

REALITY – Ossoff held the security clearance for only five months. He obtained the clearance because he was otherwise prevented from attending briefings with Hank Johnson, his boss. In other words, he wasn’t granted clearance to fight corruption like his ads claim.

This is a classic case of lying by omission. When Ossoff makes this claim the way that he makes it, he is well aware of the false perception that it creates in the minds of those who hear it. This is no accident. This is what politicians do so that when they are accused of lying, they can claim that they didn’t lie. These lies of omission are the most insidious kind. 

CLAIM – The Washington Post Debunked Allegations that Ossoff inflated his resume in regards to his statements about his national security clearance. In the linked video, starting at the 3:24 mark, Ossoff is asked about accusations that he inflated his resume. Ossoff responds by saying that the claims have been debunked by the Washington Post.

REALITY – Ossoff is either knowingly lying, or someone misinformed him as to what the Washington Post concluded because they did not debunk this claim. The Post clearly wanted to debunk the claim…but they couldn’t. Here’s what they ultimately concluded.

“Would an ordinary viewer understand that Ossoff’s clearance was for less than half a year? Not very likely. Moreover, declaring himself a “senior national security staffer” is also bit too much résumé puffery. Technically, Ossoff walks a very careful line. But the overall impression is misleading enough to merit a Pinocchio. One Pinocchio.”

That’s hardly a debunking.

CLAIM – Jon will introduce legislation to reform campaign finance laws and reduce the toxic and corrupt impact of money in politics. He is opposed to the Citizens United decision allowing unchecked, anonymous money in politics.

REALITY – His mom is president of NewPowerPAC, a super pac.

What are the odds that Jon Ossoff is going to implement policy that goes against the interests of an organization his mom is president of? Are we to believe that Ossoff is going to implement policy that undermines not only his dad’s company, but also his mom’s company?

If you buy that, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.

To find out more about Ossoff and his mysterious father,

CLICK HERE To Listen To Episode 42 of the Propaganda Report Podcast, titled, “Jon Ossoff (Millennial Obama), His Deep State Ties, & His Mysterious Father.”

CLICK HERE, To Listen To Episode 46 of The Propaganda Report Podcast, titled “The Real Jon Ossoff Embodies Everything Liberals Hate About Trump.”

Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes or Google Play

And Be sure to check out this Jon Ossoff Parody Campaign Ad

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR154RROW0k&w=560&h=315]

Say what you want about Jeff Sessions…

170111_pol_sessions-hearing-jpg-crop-promo-xlarge2Start at 3:13 – you can speed it up too…I remembered this back-and-forth but I had forgotten that Sessions actually acknowledges Congress’s role in war-making. What Panetta is saying-without-saying-it is that he considers treaties to trump the Constitution. This can be argued given what seems to be ambiguity in the language in the Constitution, but I would argue that our government has no authority to enter into treaties that violate our foundational law or that commit our government to actions beyond the scope of their authority as granted by the Constitution. Here is the language in Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution* or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

*This could be ambiguous, saying that Judges must hold to Treaties, the Constitution notwithstanding, but it actually means state Constitutions and state laws notwithstanding.
The Tenth Amendment Center says even this interpretation goes too far: Do Treaties Trump the Constitution. (In that post they make the great point that the Constitution is a contract requiring a meeting of the minds, so the understanding of those who ratified it is what really governs interpretation.)
I think Panetta et al are operating under entirely different assumptions, and as I read in PEACE, from the wonderful people who brought you Korea and Viet Nam, our silence on this distinction is tantamount to consent.

Touchstones Trump Conspiracies

scratching-gold-to-test-purityThe Trump election is the most significant thing that’s happened in the world since 9/11, in my opinion. I think even the first black president pales in comparison because it didn’t actually change our course. Trump’s presidency might.
The interesting question in my opinion, however, is not, “How did he get elected?” but rather “Why did he get selected?” I’m not at all interested in discussions of “populism” or “nationalism” or “racism” or any of the blowhard psycho-social analysis of why people voted the way they did. What I want to know is, what does it mean that power brokers from the left like Jeff Zucker at CNN all way to the neo-con team on the right at National Review played into Trump’s claims of being an outsider who scared the crap out of the establishment, whcover_20160215_tocile at the same time giving him billions in free advertising to drive that point home. (To wit, The National Review‘s gilded issue gives the impression Trump is already king–the “against” in the title notwithstanding.) Trump actually got more media coverage than any candidate ever and spent the least.
I don’t believe for a minute it was simply about ratings. Yes, the elite love money, and Zucker surely cared about that while crafting Trump & his show the Apprentice at NBC, but anyone who’s been watching mainstream media in this country over the past decades knows darn well there’s a bigger picture at work. I’m sure the government-media continuum is downright giddy that we fund our own brainwashing by actually paying for cable news on top of sitting through the commercials, but there is much more at stake for these players in the long term agenda these outlets push. They wouldn’t (and didn’t) give that kind of coverage to Ron Paul no matter how well he could drive ratings, nor did they ever harp on the fact that Dr. Paul really did scare the crap out of the establishment. Trump was another story.
Furthermore, nothing has changed my simple observation that the only thing arguing for free and fair elections in this country is faith in the governments that count the votes and faith in the media that are supposed to keep them honest. I have faith in neither. I do think it’s tricky to steal elections, but it gets done and it has for awhile. I believe the push from both sides to make a federally administered popular vote system is an attempt by the power elite to take the headache out of fixing the vote, but that’s just streamlining the process not initiating it.
So here I am, scratching my head as to what is really happening and why. The wall talk, the ban talk, the identity-centered protesters all smack of deliberate diversions. There is an agenda at work, that is for sure, but what it is I’m not so sure. My money is on just two possibilities:

  1. There is a cabal that sits above the two-party system that works for world government, centralization of power, a manageable population and, in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s words, “a highly controlled society.” They want to control all the assets and resources, which they do by working to get every individual, corporation and country into debt, which they own (rather than savings, which we would own). And they want to control all the people. To do this they must keep the population down (that’s why so many agenda items for them are designed to disconnect sex from procreation: from birth control to abortion to premarital sex to homosexuality to sex robots to porn to…well, you get the idea! and it’s why they want to control all the land and the food and the jobs or better yet institute basic income for total dependence); they also must have all the information they can on every individual, and they must control the ideas, thoughts and behaviors of individuals (through a combination of information overload and censorship) because ultimately the consent of the governed is the linchpin of those in power…. Perhaps this is the Aldous Huxley crowd with a Brave New World style where everyone takes prozac soma and is blissfully ignorant of their loss of humanity.
  2. That first possibility has been my working theory for years, but now I have to entertain another possibility: that there are two factions competing to shape and control the world. The alternate faction might be the Orwellian elite who believe the only way to truly control the masses is for a boot to step on the human face forever. Perhaps it’s as simple as a disagreement at the top over the answers to the questions posed in The Report from Iron Mountain: is peace possible and is it desirable? Is there an alternative to war for keeping the masses in line? The answers were unclear in the report. One proposal was a giant environmental hoax that would cause the people to be loyal to a world government. Another proposal was to create an enemy of despised people so the mainstream population would feel dependent on the government through fear…. Perhaps my original observation that there’s one cabal and this second manifestation of an alternate paradigm don’t actually reveal two distinct power centers, but merely reveal two paths of what is ultimately still a single power base–that is, two social experiments by the same cabal to test out how truly to control the entire world’s population for the first time. Or perhaps they are putting forth Trump as the crisis that will give rise to the solution: World Government…I really don’t know the answer, which is why I’m going to get back to basics….

What I’ve decided to do is to put on the back burner (if I can!) puzzling over what’s really going on and who’s really pulling the strings. Instead, I’m simply going to hold up events, policies, laws, etc., to the touchstones* of principle. I criticized the left when they failed to do it to Obama and frankly, I don’t think the who or why et al are actually very important if we just stick to principles. America’s founding principles were, after all, designed to restrain government, and if we stick to them we can all be safe–left, right and center–without placing blame or trying to one-up the other side’s power plays.
I have found that I may never be able to stay a step ahead of those who are able to manipulate major events, but I don’t have to if we always insist on principles. They are, after all, either given to us by a God who wants the best for us, or they have emerged over millennia as the enduring principles that immutable human nature requires to maintain stable societies. Either way, they are our only hope for liberty and justice for all–not to mention true human dignity.
Here are the touchstones…

  1. There is only one fundamental civil law: Don’t touch me or my stuff. All other “laws” simply tease this out when it’s not crystal clear. (For example, can you build a dam and deprive down river settlers of water? Developed law is useful for this. “The government owns all the water” is not a legitimate law according to this principle–or to me.)
  2. The Ten Commandments. Whether you’re religious or not, this is a good place to start. Christ’s Two Commandments are surely perfect, but the Ten Commandments never get old, especially Thou Shalt Not Kill and Thou Shalt Not Steal (Taxation is Theft!)
  3. The foundational documents of the United States of America. Frankly, I prefer the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution (The latter enshrines federal taxation, the former does not, and after all, Taxation is Theft!) I actually think the American Experiment was betrayed when the Articles of Confederation were illegal overturned, but I do accept (and defend) the Constitution because of how it was sold to the people and that is the standard to which it should be (but is not) held. The Bill of Rights, I love. If we just restored the Bill of Rights we would win this thing. And the Declaration of Independence. While not a law per se, it lays out the founding principles of the nation and is a touchstone for understanding what we the governed consented to (if anything).
  4. We must also remember that our founding documents contain declarations of rights we inherently possess, they are not gifts from government. That means everyone in the world should be fighting for all of these same rights and principles, and we should acknowledge and support their right to pursue liberty and justice within the confines of their own sovereign nations rather than interfering in their politics for “American interests abroad” which has no basis in our founding principles (nor in the Law of Nations upon which our founding relied and from which “American Exceptionalism” falsely claims a pass). And most of all, we have a moral obligation to limit violence committed by our agents in government to true self-defense according to the principles of just war at the very least, but ideally according to our own individual and fully informed consciences. (The Constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war and the difficulty presidents find when they try to get such declarations is an example of how merely sticking to our own laws will keep us out of moral trouble and physical danger without the brain damage of sussing through all the BS and false flags they throw at us to bypass these safeguards.)

These are the touchstones. I hope we can all have a mind to use them to tease out the rights and wrongs of what’s going on. These basic principles apply not only to personal liberty but to economic liberty. For example, there would be no immigration issue if government policy didn’t deliberately and drastically distort labor markets (in violation of the Tenth Amendment). Applying these principles to specifics the way gold is rubbed on a touchstone to distinguish it from pyrite (fool’s gold) is what I think will be desperately needed over the next months and years. I hope you will join me in my efforts!
*I love the term “touchstone,” which I first fully appreciated watching the great series “Connections” by James Burke. In that series, Burke discusses a handful of simple inventions which changed the direction of civilization. One of them was the touchstone. It was a stone which only gold would mark up in just such a way so that rubbing gold on the touchstone would prove it was gold. According to Burke, this facilitated commerce by allowing an easily verifiable medium of exchange and changed the course of history.

Who Are "They?" A Shortlist

john_rarick_council_on_foreign_relationsIf you believe power exists and is used, and that its machinations are not always fully vetted on Fox News, you believe in conspiracies. They happen in your work, they happen in your home, they happen in the world. At work, it happens when the bosses get together to set bonuses, at home it happens when parents get together and agree on what information not to share with their children (especially around Christmastime!), and in the world it happens when people of influence set goals and coordinate to achieve them without putting out a detailed press release. So who are these people and what are their goals?
The classic organizations for the coordination of goals, strategies and tactics are the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, but there’s also the Royal Institute of International Affairs (a.k.a., the Chatham House), the Club of Rome, the Brookings Institution, the World Economic Forum and many, many more think tanks and foundations that bring prominent members of academia, government, the corporate world and media together in an overlapping web of influential organizations to discuss mutual goals and how to achieve them.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for example, called the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, “the mothership” and explained that this group tells her and her team what they should be doing and how they should be thinking about the world.

I have put the latest headlines from a few of these organizations along the right column of www.propagandareportdaily.com (at the bottom) so we can keep up on what they’re thinking, and I also took a look at the membership rosters of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations and jotted down all the names I recognized. There were certainly a few surprises! Here are the names I recognized. Do any of these surprise you? (I put in boldface some interesting names from media or related fields–I question whether they put objective reporting or their group’s agenda first.)

Trilateral Commission, Selected Members

Martin Feldstein
Henry Kissinger
Michael Bloomberg
Madeline Albright
Mariano Rajoy
Austen Goolsby
David Gergen
John Negroponte
Adam Posen
David Rockefeller
Eric Schmidt
Gerald Seib
Olympia Snowe
Larry Summers
Strobe Talbot
Paul Volcker
Daniel Yergen
Mort Zuckerman
Robert Zoellick
Stanley Fischer

Council on Foreign Relations, Selected Members

Abrams, Elliott
Albright, Madeleine K.
Baker, James
Barbour, Haley
Bartiromo, Maria S.
Bayh, Evan
Beatty, Warren
Bewkes, Jeffrey
Black, Leon D.
Blankfein, Lloyd C.
Blinder, Alan S.
Bloomberg, Michael R.
Blumenthal, Sidney S.
Bolton, John R.
Boorstin, Robert O.
Bowles, Erskine B.
Bradley, Bill
Breyer, Stephen G.
Brokaw, Tom
Bronfman, Edgar Jr.
Brzezinski, Mark F.
Brzezinski, Mika
Brzezinski, Zbigniew
Buffett, Howard Warren
Burch, Tory
Carlucci, Frank C.
Carter, Ashton B.
Carter, James Earl
Carter, James H.
Casper, Gerhard
Cheney, Richard B.
Clark, Wesley K.
Clinton, Chelsea
Clinton, William Jefferson
Clooney, George
Cohen, Abby Joseph
Crovitz, L. Gordon
Crowley, Monica Elizabeth
D’Amato, Alfonse M.
de Rothschild, Lynn
De Vos, Christian Michael
Didion, Joan
Dimon, Jamie
Dinkins, David N.
Dodd, Christopher J.
Dreyfuss, Richard S.
Eikenberry, Karl W.
Ellison, Keith
Feinstein, Dianne
Feith, Douglas J.
Feldstein, Martin S.
Fischer, Stanley
Foggo, James G. III
Fukuyama, Francis
Garcetti, Eric
Gates, Henry Louis Jr.
Gates, Robert M.
Geithner, Timothy F.
Gephardt, Richard A.
Gergen, David R.
Gill, Bates
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader
Gompert, David C.
Greenberg, Glenn H.
Greenspan, Alan
Haass, Richard N.
Hagel, Chuck
Ham, Carter F.
Hart, Gary
Heinz Kerry, Teresa
Helprin, Mark
Herbst, Jeffrey I.
Ikenberry, G. John
Isaacson, Walter S.
Jackson, Jesse L. Sr.
Jackson, Shirley Ann
Johnson, Jeh Charles
Jolie, Angelina
Jordan, Vernon E. Jr.
Kaminsky, Howard
Keene, Tom
Kerr, Ann Zwicker
Kerrey, Bob
Khrushcheva, Nina L.
Kissinger, Henry A.
Krauthammer, Charles
Kravis, Henry R.
Lehrer, Jim
Leverett, Flynt L.
Lew, Jacob J.
Lewis, Bernard
Lieberman, Joseph I.
Lipsky, Seth
Lodge, George Cabot
Lorimer, Linda Koch
Lu, Li
McCain, John S. III
McChrystal, Stanley A.
McGurn, William
McLaughlin, John E.
McNamer, Bruce W.
Mearsheimer, John J.
Meeker, Mary
Miller, Judith
Mitchell, Andrea
Mondale, Walter F.
Morris, Charles R.
Negroponte, John D.
Noonan, Peggy
Norquist, Grover Glenn
Nunn, Sam
Nye, Joseph S. Jr.
Oliver, John L. III
Orr, Robert C.
Orszag, Peter R.
Ovitz, Michael S.
Patricof, Alan Joel
Patterson, Richard North
Paulson, Henry M. Jr.
Paulson, John Alfred
Peña, Federico F.
Peterson, Peter G.
Petraeus, David H.
Podhoretz, John
Powell, Colin L.
Psaki, Jennifer R.†
Rather, Dan
Rattner, Steven L.
Reilly, William K.
Rice, Condoleezza
Rice, Susan E.
Richardson, William B.
Rockefeller, David
Rockefeller, David Jr.
Rockefeller, John D. IV
Rockefeller, Mark L.
Rockefeller, Nicholas
Rockefeller, Steven C.
Rogoff, Kenneth S.
Roosevelt, Theodore IV
Roubini, Nouriel
Rubin, Robert E.
Sachs, Jeffrey D.
Sandberg, Sheryl K.
Satcher, David
Satloff, Robert B.
Sawyer, Diane
Schieffer, Bob L.
Schmidt, Eric
Schramm, Carl J.
Scowcroft, Brent
Seib, Gerald F.
Shah, Raj
Shalala, Donna E.
Shultz, George P.
Snowe, Olympia J.
Soros, George
Soros, Jonathan
Spence, A. Michael
Stahl, Lesley R.
Stephanopoulos, George R.
Stern, David J.
Stern, Fritz
Summers, Lawrence H.
Sununu, John E.
Taft, William H. IV
Tagliabue, Paul
Talbott, Strobe
Tapper, Jake
Tenet, George J.
Volcker, Paul A.
Walters, Barbara
Weill, Sanford I.
Weld, William F.
White, Mary Jo
Whitman, Christine Todd
Wiesel, Elie
Willkie, Wendell Lewis II
Wolfensohn, James D.
Wolfowitz, Paul D.
Woodruff, Judy C.
Woolsey, R. James
Wright, Robin
Yellen, Janet Louise
Yergin, Daniel H.
Zahn, Paula A.
Zakaria, Fareed
Zelikow, Philip D.
Zoellick, Robert B.
Zogby, James J.

Nasties v Deplorables

a8d2303bbf2a33f449ca0e3c1bf9460eI hate Hitler analogies & any reference to World War II as being the perfect example of everything that could ever go right or wrong in the world, but I also believe that right now some deliberate parallels with history are being orchestrated or at least attempted, from “populism” to “fascism.” Specifically, I can’t help but wonder if the focus on race and immigration are a distraction from the implementation of The Total Corporate State. If there is a parallel with fascism to be made, it’s this endgame that is the real goal rather than actual “hate.” But the “hater” thing is what’s got people screaming at each other right now, and it’s no accident. Both sides of this dialectic have agitation as a major goal seems to me. I call it Nasties v Deplorables, with examples Ashley Judd and Milo Yiannopoulos, respectively. These guys and many others are getting people to scream at each other and use language that was absolutely off limits not very long ago. Why? I have a theory.

I had an epiphany when I heard an alt-right blogger say he used to get total flak for the edgy things he said and now everyone’s saying them! And I realized I noticed the same thing. I used to really worry about offending people, not because I said objectively offensive things, but because merely trying to dig into the truth of certain identity-based political hot-buttons are in themselves offensive to some people.
(This is actually a device used to stifle debate. A parallel example occurred today in a Sean Spicer press conference [starting at around 26:40–it’s already teed up below] where someone asked what we were doing in Yemen and he responded repeatedly that to ask such a question disrespected the death of Chief Owens who Spicer said gave his life on a mission in Yemen protecting us from terrorism.)
(As if that aside weren’t off topic enough, you must take a moment to watch Melissa McCarthy do Sean Spicer…she really nails it….)

As did the alt-right blogger, I noticed that what I say is not in the slightest bit edgy anymore and honestly, I was relieved–I started to think maybe I could let my guard down a bit and not worry so much about the occasional misunderstanding–then it hit me!
The Deplorables are being egged on by the Nasties and they are letting their guards down–actually they all are, the Nasties and the Deplorables. Every nasty thing folks say on twitter, facebook, and gab.ai (the Deplorable-friendly answer to twitter which may actually be a honeypot if this is the real game), is being uploaded to the Fusion Centers. (Think I’m kidding? Go to Utah.) Every nasty (or deplorable!) comment is being recorded and catalogued. (Every single tweet is destined for the Library of Congress also, by the way.) Perhaps you think that the overwhelming amount of this data or the extremes to which people like Milo go make us safe by making us look mild. Or that the Nasties are worse so we can always use that as a defense. What I fear, however, is that the pendulum will swing back, the Nasties will be back in charge and just like what actual state-agent Nazis in Germany said and thought, what seemed totally normal, even de rigueur to them in the context of the time, what Deplorables say in the context of this time will be ex post facto criminal speech. (An ex post facto law is an after the fact law and it is against the fundamental principles of just law, but I see fundamental standards such as these slipping away.) I’m not saying what Deplorables say is tantamount to Nazi-talk, I’m just saying, the Nazis and even ordinary citizens actually thought what they were saying was just fine, even cool, in the context of the time, especially since Nazis were the ones in power. (I recall a movie in which a young woman went to a small German town to root out citizens who abided the Nazis. It was actually called The Nasty Girl, if you can believe it.)
I hesitate to even speculate about this–not because I hate Nazi comparisons (which I do)–but because I don’t want to contribute to the Panopticon, which is surely part of the plan (unrolled by what I deem to be a limited hangout, Edward Snowden). That is, by chilling ourselves for fear the watchers are watching, the watchers don’t even have to watch! We will curb ourselves from exercising the First Amendment without them having to lift a finger.
The psyops within psyops, like the disinformation within disinformation, would be enough to make this libertarian go the Full Rothbard (that is, if she hadn’t already)!