Last Post Date Politics Blogs (944)

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group
theswash.com ^ | 8/27/2012 11 | matchdoctor
Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

If you wanted to use a devious method to deceive people who are trying to differentiate between truth and lies on the Internet how would you do it? If you were extremely devious and had no conscience, you might set up a Web site with some official and unbiased sounding name that claims to be the encyclopedia of truth to be used as a tool for anyone who has the same biased view and wants to make believe to "back it up" with what they would like you to think is "indisputable fact."

That is exactly what Web sites like factcheck.org are. They are biased, politically motivated propaganda Web sites, manned and funded by biased political organizations who set up the sites for the sole purpose of deviously "backing up" the political arguments of those who hold the same views that they do. It's kind of like you have a friend who is in on your lie, and you use him to back up your story and don't tell anyone else he is your friend.

Just because they use a name that implies unbiased assessments, doesn't mean that they provide them. You can call your Web site anything you want. I can set up a web site called thetruth.org or realfacts.com or stopthelies.org and post any kind of biased political propaganda I want on it. The name means nothing. And in the case of sites like factcheck.org, the name is intentionally misleading and deceptive. But it isn't the only so called "fact check" site that is a fraud. There are others.

Think about it. Would you rely on any particular Web site to get the "truth?" Anyone honest would tell you that you should NOT rely solely on them to get your facts. You should get them by considering many different and sources, with different points of view and opinions and arrive at what you believe to be the truth by using your own God given senses. Only con artists purport to be the de facto source of truth.

If you look behind the scenes at these phony "fact check" sites, you find that they are funded by organizations with political biases. You must always ask yourself. Who is writing about this so-called "truth." Who funds the site and pays their expenses. What are the origins and history of the funders and who are they associated with. In the case of factcheck.org they receive their funding from the liberal Annenberg Foundation.

The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. How is factcheck.org associated with these people:
....
Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama.

Italians are fed up with government’s vaccine passport initiative, Covid lockdowns and restrictions, and mandatory vaccinations.
...

Footage out of Italy purports to show Italian police taking off their equipment to stand in solidarity with a group of lockdown protesters.

The viral video circulating on social media appears to show a line of cops policing a protest event, before removing their gear to raucous applause.


Heartwarming (if this is accurate).

Remember the closing days of East Germany? The dreaded Volkspolizei ("VOPOS"), doffing their helmets and standing aside to let others attack the Berlin Wall with sledgehammers, even joining in.

"Montags" from Fahrenheit 451.

I want to jump onto the bandwagon; I want to start ranting about the Orwellian tyranny we find ourselves living under. I want to, but I can’t figure out how to make it sound justifiable. I want to be seen as someone who is fearless in standing up to the establishment. A champion of the people, willing to put myself in personal danger to fight for their rights and freedoms. Others have achieved it, and I long to be among their ranks, but I just can’t seem to find anything to warrant making a big fuss about.

I thought my chance had arrived when it became a requirement to wear a mask in public places. Off I went to my local supermarket, fully intending to perform a proper song and dance about being forced to cover my mouth with this vile piece of cloth. Little did I suspect that they had measures in place to undermine my action. When I got there, I was confronted with a polite request to please wear my mask, and there was not a single armed guard to be seen. How in God’s name are you supposed to start a riot over that?

It’s not that I couldn’t think of anything to rant and rave about; I surely could. They were telling me to wear a mask in the interest of public safety; well what about my safety? Does it not matter about my glasses steaming up and putting me at risk of bumping into something? That argument sounded solid at the time of its conception, but when it came to the point of shouting it out publicly, it had somehow lost most of its potency, and I was left unable to speak, lest I might be seen as a big sissy.

What other denial of right or freedom could I demonstrate defiance over, I wondered. What about the restrictions on my freedom of movement? Even when our “lock down” was at its most severe, I found I could come and go pretty much as I pleased, without interference from anybody. So, again, the state had pulled the rug out from under me.

When they were ready to role out the vaccine programme, I thought I’ve finally got them this time. I waited until my call up for vaccination came, thinking that’s when I would make my stand, but when it did come, it was only a bloody invitation to have it. I could just not bother going if I didn’t want to. I think this is when I began to realise I had been defeated. I had been beaten by the lack of state heavy handedness.

There are Americans, and Free Citizens not in the USA, who are dumbfounded by the apparent illogic of some.

These types appear to be well described by KGB Defector, Lev Bezmanov, who explained that the indoctrination of such people is so complete that no amount of proof of facts would sway them from the Party Line. You could prove that Black was Black and White was White, it did not matter. Their minds, in the words of Bezmanov, were "contaminated," and thus impervious to the truth.


Where did this come from?

Recall that the Soviets, before they were Soviets, were Russians, the home of Russian psychologist, Ivan Pavlov. During the 1890s, Pavlov led the field in psychological conditioning. It was Pavlov who came up with Stimulus-Response. Punishment / Reward, conditioning training.


This was later used to great effect by the Soviets, first against their own people, and later exported worldwide by the Soviet Communist International (COMINTERN), example: PSYCHO-POLITICS

Psychopolitics, at its very core, is the Soviet art of brainwashing. Since 1933, the United States has been subject to a far-reaching and comprehensive campaign of psychopolitical warfare aimed at subverting and destroying our Constitutional Republic, and according to the Lucille Miller case of 1950, to “recruit every agency of the nation marked for slaughter into a foaming hatred of religious healing.”
...
In a Capitalistic state, you are aided on all sides by the corruption of the philosophy of man and the times. You will discover that everything will aid you in your campaign to seize, control and use all ‘mental healing’ to spread our doctrine and rid us of our enemies within their own borders.

Use the courts, use the judges, use the Constitution of the country, use its medical societies and its laws to further our ends. Do not stint in your labor in this direction. And when you have succeeded you will discover that you can now effect your own legislation at will and you can, by careful organization of healing societies, by constant campaign about the terrors of society, by pretense as to your effectiveness make you Capitalist himself, by his own appropriations, finance a large portion of the quiet Communist conquest of the nation.

By psychopolitics, create chaos. Leave a nation leaderless. Kill our enemies. And bring to Earth, through Communism, the greatest peace [absence of opposition] Man has ever known... Thank You.”


The Manual on Psychopolitics can be found HERE:


Look, particularly, at the section called: CHAPTER V: An Examination of Loyalties


In a demonic fashion, it explains how any society can be brought low by a constant process of defamation, destroying all that which is good and noble and beautiful, and to destroy the bonds of loyalty at the atomic level: between man and woman, husband and wife, parent and child, church and penitent, employer and employee, citizen and state.

The perversion of psychology and drugs was honed to a high and evil science. In the USSR, notably at the infamous SERBSKY INSTITUTE, where dissidents would be falsely labeled as insane and then subjected to endless mental and physical torture.


In the USA, the CIA echoed the Soviet effort in secret operations under various names, such as MK-ULTRA.

Good time to have a trial , in the spring before the midterm election Special Counsel John Durham plans to call former FBI General Counsel James Baker to testify in the case against former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann, who was recently indicted for making false statements to the FBI.
During a virtual status hearing Tuesday, government prosecutors on Durham's team signaled their intention to call Baker to testify as part of the Sussmann case. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty to one count of making a false statement to a federal agent.

Durham's indictment alleges that Sussmann told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016 that he was not doing work "for any client" when he requested and held a meeting in which he presented data and evidence of a purported secret communications channel between then-candidate Donald Trump and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.
The indictment against Sussmann says he lied to Baker when he presented data linking the Trump Organization to a secret server that communicated with Alfa Bank. The indictment indicates Durham may be expanding his investigation to bring separate charges again Sussmann or additional defendants.
Michael Sussmann attends the Washington Post’s sixth annual cybersecurity summit on Oct. 6, 2016.

Michael Sussmann attends the Washington Post’s sixth annual cybersecurity summit on Oct. 6, 2016.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper on Tuesday asked both the government and Sussmann's defense to continue moving forward in their discovery process, which could take months, due to the thousands of pages of classified material involved.
During the hearing, government prosecutors said, at this point, that they had provided Sussmann's attorneys with 6,000 documents – amounting to up to some 80,000 pages.
Cooper said he understood that the process would be cumbersome but urged both the prosecution and the defense to come up with a target date for a trial later this year or early next.
DECLASSIFIED TRUMP-RUSSIA PROBE DOCS TO DATE: WHAT TO KNOW
Both the prosecution and the defense signaled they are aiming for a trial to begin in the spring of 2022.
The next court date in the matter is set for a status hearing on Dec. 8 at 2 p.m.
Baker, who serves as deputy counsel at Twitter, left the FBI in May 2018 after serving as a top lawyer at the FBI. Baker was also a confidante of former FBI Director James Comey.
Baker told House investigators in 2019 that he was personally involved in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application to surveil then-Trump campaign aide Carter Page. The FISA warrant relied largely on the unverified anti-Trump dossier, compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign through law firm Perkins Coie.
James Baker, who served as FBI general counsel, left the bureau in 2018.
James Baker, who served as FBI general counsel, left the bureau in 2018.
Sussmann's indictment is the second prosecution to come out of the Durham's probe.
In 2020, Durham charged former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith with making a false statement – the first criminal case arising from his probe. Clinesmith was referred for potential prosecution by the Justice Department's inspector general's office, which conducted its own review of the Russia investigation.
Former FBI lawyer avoids jail time after guilty plea in Durham probe Video
Specifically, the inspector general accused Clinesmith, though not by name, of altering an email about Page to say that he was "not a source" for another government agency. Page has said he was a source for the CIA. The DOJ relied on that assertion as it submitted a third and final renewal application in 2017 to eavesdrop on Page under FISA.

Which of these words do you like to say the most? They are both very popular words, as can be seen by the number of threads with at least one in its title. But if you could only choose one, which would it be? Which one could you simply not live without. Is it more satisfying to call someone who thinks your views are insane a leftist or a liberal? Which one causes the most offence?

But I want them both, Mommy.

Not everything from the MSM can be trusted, and even less of what the government says can be trusted, I readily admit that. Apart from the odd instance though, they tend not to go beyond certain boundaries. They are accountable, and liable to embarrassment, discredit and judicial sanction when they are found out. And they often get found out. So, yes, some scepticism is called for when it comes to the media and the government, but it needs to be kept in proportion. Any government that depends on the democratic process to put or keep it in power simply cannot afford the risk of being discredited to the point of making itself unelectable.

Independent political movements and influencers are not subject to the same accountability. They can say pretty much what they like without fear of punishment, and it has to be said that this lack of restraint has emboldened some of them to come out with some very bizarre claims. The trouble is, the implausibility of these claims seems to go unquestioned by the very same people who seem to find even the most reasonable information that comes from the MSM unbelievable.

Just because you don't trust the establishment does not mean that every crackpot who comes out with an alternative narrative is telling you the truth.

The BBC might not be the paragon of truth and impartiality that I would like to think it is, but it's probably as close as we can expect to get to those ideals. And I'm sure it values them a damn sight more than the likes of Alex Jones and David Icke do.

Evil, evil, evil, everywhere you look. It's all around us, everywhere. I can't walk down the street without tripping over Satanists and homosexual predators. Where did they all come from? I thought we had enough on our plate with the leftie Liberal commie snowflakes baying at the door, but now somebody's opened the gates of Hell, and not a godamned exorcist in sight.

October 23, 2021|

12:38 pm
Rod Dreher

To mark the anniversary of the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary, I’m publishing in this space an essay from Stephen Sholl, an American academic living in Budapest, and a friend I made this summer:

Today will mark the 65-year anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. For many Americans, this anniversary will go unnoticed, yet the lessons that this episode holds are important ones for Americans to understand.

The Hungarian Revolution was the most serious challenge to Soviet Rule in the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. In late October 1956, demonstrations, often beginning at universities, erupted throughout Hungary. Within a week, these demonstrations had evolved into an outright popular revolt, with the revolutionaries demanding major reforms and calling for the Soviet Army to leave Hungary.
Initially it appeared to be successful, with previous Prime Minister and reformer Imre Nagy being reinstated and the Russians withdrawing from Budapest. Once Nagy, however, declared his intention to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact, the Soviets quickly returned and crushed the Revolution in Budapest and in Hungary’s other major cities after intense street fighting. By November 10, the Soviets had decisively squashed the Revolution. More than 2,000 Hungarians died in the fighting, and hundreds of thousands fled to the West in the aftermath.

The lesson for Americans, lies not with the defeat of the Hungarian freedom fighters — though their bravery and courage in the face of insurmountable odds is a trait worth emulating — but rather the path that led Hungary to 1956.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, Hungary, while war-ravaged, was not decisively on the path to dictatorship. The Soviets appeared to follow through on their promise to establish democracies in their occupied areas, and introduced parliamentary democracy into Hungary. While the Soviet Army intimidated opposing parties and falsified ballots, other parties were allowed to compete, and their votes were recognized. In Hungary’s first election in 1946, the Communists were defeated by an overwhelming number of votes, only earning around 17 percent.

The Independent Smallholders Party, which represented the center-right, secured an outright majority, and was even allowed to form a government. The Communist Party asked only to be allowed into the governing coalition, and was granted the Ministry of the Interior. Unfortunately for the young Hungarian Republic, the ruling party accepted the coalition. Granting the Communists control over the Interior ministry meant they controlled the country’s police.

Using the martial power of police authority, Communists began a systematic takeover of Hungarian institutions — this, despite the fact that a formally “non-Communist” government was in power. The police intimidated political opponents and local leaders into joining the Communist Party; those who refused were labeled ‘fascists’ and forced out of the public sphere. In institutions such as courtrooms, schools, universities, churches, and unions, those expelled would be replaced by loyal Communists, slowly turning these bodies into extensions of the Communist Party. This institutional dominance, by a people and ideology that were not held by the vast majority of Hungarians, eroded any notion of real democracy in Hungary (at the time, the CIA estimated only 10 percent of Hungarians were Communist).

more at the link

Imagine that, history repeats,