“Details of a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration program that feeds tips to federal agents and then instructs them to alter the investigative trail were published in a manual used by agents of the Internal Revenue Service for two years,” begins a piece in British news this morning.
This is the latest to illustrate how deceptive agencies of our government are in using intelligence against the American people.
To show how little the Israeli government cares about the much-hyped peace talks encouraged by Secretary of State John Kerry, Reuters reports this morning “Israel has given preliminary approval for the construction of more than 800 new homes in Jewish settlements on occupied West Bank land where Palestinians seek statehood, an Israeli official said on Thursday.”
And what does Kerry have to say about this? Last month, while Kerry was in the region, the Israeli Civil Administration granted initial approval for construction of 732 new homes in Modiin Ilit, a settlement midway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
It should be obvious that Kerry is not serious about peace talks, they are floated to influence public opinion that the USA actually cares. If the US government said stop the settlements or we cut off political and economic aid, they would stop.
“Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), one of key figures of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, said National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden was ‘appealing to a higher law,’ and likened him to other proponents of nonviolent protest, begins a piece at The Hill this morning. This is a courageous statement for a Member of Congress to make, in light of the demonization of Snowden by the Obama regime and mainstream media.
Many years ago I ran a piece in LUV News and was informed that a key bit of information, the time of day, was wrong in the story, so I emailed the writer and asked him what he’d used for a source. The writer told me he got it from page one of the Washington Post. I told him we didn’t use the Post for LUV News stories and I never went back to the writer again for another story. Credibility is all we have at LUV News, and this story fell apart when the time reported was a half day off.
The long time owners of the Post, the Grahams, are establishment ideologues, from Katherine (who said, at CIA HQ “We live in a dirty and dangerous world…There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows), to her daughter, Lally Waymouth, who is currently senior associate editor of the Post. During the Reagan/Bush years I hyperbolized about her stories on Latin American death squads that Waymouth never saw a death squad with whom she did not want to make passionate love. There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Postviewpoint and the CIA viewpoint, that of the State Department, or, to go right to the top, the ruling Forces of Greed.
Do not expect things to change at the Post with the new owner, Jeff Bezos, who is a libertarian, a member of the Bilderberg Group, and a member of the Executive Committee of the Business Council, although mainstream media are not reporting these essential facts –Jack Balkwill
by Peter Hart
So what does Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ decision to buy the Washington Post mean?
That was the question NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik tackled on Morning Edition (8/6/13). It was good to hear Folkenflik note that there is an “enormous constellation of issues” that affect Amazon’s bottom line in Washington–which should raise some concerns about conflicts of interest on issues like internet sales taxes and copyright/intellectual property.
And he added that the company is becoming a “major vendor” to the U.S. government, particularly in the realm of web storage. The most prominent example: The CIA recently reached a $600 million deal with Amazon to build its cloud storage system.
So what happens if, say, the Washington Post wants to report on something that CIA or other intelligence agencies might not like? Folkenflik commented:
I suspect Bezos doesn’t intend to interfere in things like that, but we don’t know how he’s going to do it yet. We haven’t seen him operate in this realm.
It’s correct that we can’t be sure, but we do have at least one lesson to consider: Amazon’s relationship with WikiLeaks.
After the publication of the State Department cables, WikiLeaks was booted from Amazon’s web hosting service AWS (Guardian, 12/1/10). So at the height of public interest in what WikiLeaks was publishing, readers were unable to access the WikiLeaks website. The decision came right after politicians like Senator Joe Lieberman called for action to retaliate against WikiLeaks. Amazon denied it had anything to do with politics. The company’s statement stressed that the decision was theirs alone–WikiLeaks had violated the terms of service agreement, since “WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content.”
Amazon’s decision is troubling. But would it suggest a real shift? Former Post publisher Katharine Graham gave a speech in 1988 at the CIA headquarters where she reportedly said this:
We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things that the general public does not need to know and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.
or join our Facebook group here: https://www.facebook.com/