Bombshell proof! Hillary paid Amnesty International to prepare coup d’état

Source: veteranstoday

By Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor, with a report from Thomas C. Mountain

As the American people slide deeper into bankruptcy, their government continues to spend billions to overthrow foreign governments and destabilize or destroy foreign nations. Victoria Nuland’s confession that US taxpayers had contributed 5 billion dollars to overthrow the democratically-elected Ukrainian government, and incite a civil war designed to destroy that country, was just the tip of the iceberg.

And it gets worse. We now have smoking-gun proof that the State Department under Hillary Clinton  corrupted the world’s biggest human rights organization, Amnesty International, by paying it to conduct ultra-secret CIA-style destabilization operations to pave the way for a coup d’état in Eritrea.

That means Amnesty International (AI), a self-styled “human rights” organization, is actually a covert arm of the New World Order effort to enslave the world and put an end to anything remotely resembling human rights. These people won’t be satisfied until every human is microchipped at birth and subjected to remote-control torture every time their thoughts even begin to turn against Big Brother.

Memo to AI: If you really support human rights, you should be waging an all-out war against the New World Order and its Euro-American bankster puppets, using every weapon at your disposal. And you should be willing to give your life to defend the independence of countries like Eritrea.

From now on, anyone working for AI should be assumed to be a covert NWO intelligence agent aimed at destroying whatever nation they’re operating in. And they should be treated as such.

Many Americans would be hard-pressed to find Eritrea on a map. But the small African country occupies a critically-important geostrategic location: the spot where the Red Sea meets the Indian Ocean. Even more important, Eritrea has set an example for other African countries by insisting on independence from the US-bankster empire.

Listen to me interviewing journalist André Vltchek on why the banksters want to overthrow Eritrea and install yet another US-puppet regime

So far, the people of Eritrea have successfully resisted the bankster empire’s efforts to enslave them.  Let’s hope and pray they continue to succeed in 2015!

-KB

---

Bombshell Linking Amnesty, HRW to US State Dept Regime Change in Africa

by Thomas C. Mountain

Secret internal correspondence from Amnesty International has been published detailing a plan to instigate regime change in the small East African country of Eritrea funded by a grant from the US State Department under then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

This is not a new charge, having first come to my attention in the fall of 2011 when a journalist in London called me one morning asking for my comments on a press conference by Amnesty International denying charges that the Eritrean government was supposed to have made that Amnesty and HRW had been involved in sending a secret mission to Eritrea in an attempt to destabilize the government.

The problem was the Eritrean government had not made any such charges, at least not that I had heard of. Operating on the maxim made immortal by Claude Cockburn, father of the Cockburn clan of intrepid journalists, that “Never believe anything until it has been officially denied” I set off in search for more on this story.

It wasn’t until that evening that Eritrean TV broke the story with excerpts from the Amnesty International document they claimed to have. The next night EriTV broadcast more highlights from the document and then the story just disappeared. It seemed that the curtain had dropped on another episode in the rancorous relations between the Eritrean government and the human rights corporations. Left with nothing hard to go on I could only file this one in the “hope to follow up on someday” file.

Now, three years later, the letter has been published and it really is a bombshell.

“Our intended goal is that by December of this year [2011] the regime of [Eritrean President] Issayas Aferwerki should be shaking and ready to fall”.

This was going to be done thanks to a “reasonable grant from the US State Department” to “bring about [regime] change…as has happened in other African and Arab countries”….

The letter is signed by one Catherine Price, Africa Special Programmes, Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street

Priority Status; Stricktly Confidential
Resonance; Urgent
To;  Mr. Adams Subi Waitara
Amnesty Tanzania Section.

The letter was to inform him that he had been “appointed to be part of a 4 man delegation to Eritrea beginning 6th to 16th September, 2011”. The letter lists the other members of this very secret group including an Amnesty staffer who was then working for Human Rights Watch (HRW).

The letter goes on to say “Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch…have received a reasonable grant from the US State Department…” and that “the main aim therefore of this Mission to Eritrea is to provide funding and to help in setting up websites and computer centers…”

The letter warns about the need for absolute secrecy, “Do not operate, at any time in groups of more than two in the day time…” and “Do not take any photos with normal cameras, except the micro cameras that will be provided for you…”. It informs Mr. Adams that  “Mr. Georges Gagnoy, Human Rights Watch Africa Director, will be monitoring the events and activities online from Nairobi, [Kenya] and will offer any emergency assistance should it be needed.”

Deja Vu? Cuba and Venezuela watchers will be reminded of similar programs funded by the US State Department to destabilize the governments of those countries with the goal of “regime change”. The bombshell this letter drops is that for the first time Amnesty International and HRW are caught in writing accepting “a reasonable grant” from the US State Department to do its dirty work.

What makes this letter all the more believable are the links between HRW and the Hillary Clinton mafia that have been the subject of a protest letter signed by several Nobel Peace Laureates. In particular, one Tom Malinowski, who goes back and forth between being a speech writer for Hillary and a senior staff member at HRW.

Those of us in the Eritrean support community know Mr. Malinowski all too well for his history of vociferous slanders and other fabrications about Eritrea going back some 15 years or more. It would be all too easy for Malinowski to use his high level contacts in the Hillary Clinton State Department to arrange a “reasonable grant” for his cohorts in HRW and Amnesty International to carry out some undercover dirty work on behalf of Pax Americana.

Amnesty International and HRW are major corporations, with HRW being funded for several years now to the tune of $100 million a year by George Soros, who has a long history of working with the US intel community in former Soviet Union republics i.e. the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia. Neither organization is “democratic” or transparent. The Board of Directors of both organizations elect themselves and answer only to the handful of 1%ers that fund their enormous budgets.  No one can really tell you just how much and from where these human rights corporations get their funding from. Has anyone ever seen an in depth audit of either of these outfits multi million dollar operations budgets?

Hillary, Amnesty, HRW and regime change in Africa. It's about time such matters are being brought to the light of day.

What Facebook has done

Source: beforeitsnews.com

Facebook & the government doing what they do best:

Being shady as hell!

In the event you have not seen or read Facebook’s new 2015 SHADY PRIVACY AGREEMENT, it is worth noticing that in 2015, to use Facebook you must adhere to their privacy agreement. Within that agreement it states: Sometimes we GET DATA FROM OUR AFFILIATES or our advertising partners, customers and “OTHER THIRD PARTIES” that HELPS US (OR THEM) deliver ads, understand online activity, and GENERALLY make Facebook better.

IF YOU DON’T THINK “OTHER PARTIES” INCLUDES THE CIA, FBI, & NSA, KEEP READING!

IT’S NOT ON THE FIRST PAGE OF PRIVACY TERMS, YOU HAVE TO DIG FOR IT:

Other information we receive about you

We also receive other types of information about you:

We receive data about you whenever you use or are running Facebook, such as when you look at another person’s timeline, send or receive a message, search for a friend or a Page, click on, view or otherwise interact with things, use a Facebook mobile app, or make purchases through Facebook.

When you post things like photos or videos on Facebook, we may receive additional related data (or metadata), such as the time, date, and place you took the photo or video.

We receive data from or about the COMPUTER, MOBILE PHONE, or OTHER DEVICES you use to install Facebook apps or to access Facebook, including when multiple users log in from the same device.

This may include NETWORK and communication information, such as your IP ADDRESS or mobile PHONE NUMBER, and other information about things like your INTERNET SERVICE, OPERATING SYSTEM, LOCATION, the type (including identifiers) of the device or browser you use, or the pages you visit. 

For example, we may get your GPS or other location information so we can tell you if any of your friends are nearby, or we could request device information to improve how our apps work on your device.

Cheney Linked to Planning 9/11 By Able Danger Documents!

Source: journal-neo.org

Information received this week from the highest levels of US counter-terrorism sources have confirmed that the reputed “Queen of Al Qaeda,” Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, a CIA torture victim now serving 87 years in an American “super-max” prison, was a CIA agent when captured and was imprisoned to prevent releasing inf
First appeared:http://journal-neo.org/2015/01/04/cia-torture-report-incriminates-dick-cheney/ormation that could eventually lead to the arrest and conviction of then Vice President Dick Cheney.

Siddiqui worked directly for Valerie Plame, a CIA agent purposefully “outed” when her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, disproved White House claims of “yellowcake uranium” smuggling by Iraq.

White House Security Chief, Scooter “Libby” Leibowitz was convicted of the Plame leak, although sources now confirm that the “outing” of Plame was done at the orders of Cheney and was passed on to the media by retired General Paul Vallely, a Fox News employee who has recently been filmed meeting with leaders of the ISIS/Al Qaeda terror group in Turkey and reputedly Syria as well.

When Plame was “burned,” her assistant, Dr. Aafia, was then listed as part of the now debunked yellowcake “network” and fled to Pakistan, where she was kidnapped and taken to Bagram Air Force Base, as outlined in CIA torture records.

UK TELEGRAPH GETS IT VERY WRONG

This week, the UK Telegraph published a lengthy article describing “convicted terrorist” Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s process of radicalization and, quite frankly, defending her rendition kidnapping, her 5 years of rape and torture, and the murder of her children by CIA paid contractors.

If only this were the whole story, a cover up of torture as part of a war on terror. It is not. The Telegraph has a long reputation of being a cover story “drop box” for MI-6, so the story was passed around quickly among those who take a special interest in such things.

This week a source within the Able Danger investigation, working directly with the Department of Defense and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and part of the original team that brought down rogue FBI agent Robert Hansen as well, tells of a different story regarding Dr. Aafia Siddiqui.

She was a CIA agent targeted by the Bush administration because her operational unit, headed by Valerie Plame, one involved in NNP (nuclear non-proliferation) was ready to order the arrest of Vice President Dick Cheney and top officials of the US Department of Energy, the organization that, with the Department of Defense, maintains America’s nuclear weapons inventories.

Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger of the Reagan era, was arrested at his home one morning by a similar operational unit for crimes committed in the Iran-Contra Affair and was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.

After the 2000 US presidential election where George Bush (43) won by a nose, compliments of a Supreme Court ruling, loyal elements in defense and security became convinced the election began a coup, as some of the principals being investigated for their involvement in illegally acquiring and distributing stolen US nuclear weapon pits were placed in top positions to block any attempts of their being exposed by the ongoing investigations.

BACKGROUND

After 9/11, the US set out to create what appeared to be a worldwide terror organization, in order to justify both a political crackdown within the US and, as had been made public on many occasions by former NATO head General Wesley Clark… the long planned military takeover of the Middle East and Central Asia.

Part of this plot involved creating a cover story involving 500 tons of “yellowcake uranium”, supposedly bought by Al Qaeda and transported to Iraq to supply a nuclear program later found to never have existed. The Bush White House, at the orders of Vice President Dick Cheney, went to a terrorist group within the Italian intelligence agency, SISMI, part of the group responsible for the Gladio terror bombings and the kidnapping and murder of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro.

They created documents outlining imaginary transactions and sent them to CIA headquarters in Rome. SISMI chief Nicolo Pollari took the reports directly to the White House, where Cheney asked friends within the CIA and Department of Energy — part of a covert working team that included arms smuggler Victor Bout — to prepare reports citing the severity of the threat posed by these known forged reports.

DEEP BACKGROUND

A US Army intelligence group working within Israel, headed by Colonel James Hanke, had discovered that the nuclear weapons facility at Dimona had suffered a catastrophic accident between 1988 and 1990. Israel’s nuclear weapons inventory could no longer be maintained and expanded from domestically-produced weapons grade nuclear material.

Israel’s complicity was proven when, according to sources within the IAEA and Able Danger team, a combined operation between the US Department of Defense and Department of Justice, initially headed by FBI Agent John O’Neill, had discovered discrepancies in the US nuclear weapons inventory.

It was not just 350 missing nuclear pits, but fully one third of America’s post SALT II (Strategic Arms Limitations Talks) inventory. The records of our nuclear weapons inventory had been systematically sabotaged to hide this attack on America’s weapons inventory, or so they thought.

Able Danger established the presence of an espionage organization answerable personally to Benjamin Netanyahu. The organization included the then head of the Dept. of Energy, the AIPAC Lobby, the Anti-Defamation League, key commanders of America’s nuclear forces, the Joint Special Operations command under VP Dick Cheney, and members of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN organization.

Their investigation had tied corrupt officials at the highest levels of the US Department of Energy to the leak of classified nuclear “pit” configuration data and altering records of decommissioned nuclear weapons. Three hundred fifty W54 nuclear warheads were missing from inventories at the Pantex nuclear facility in Amarillo, Texas.

An investigation team led by Roland Carnaby, the CIA agent killed in a mysterious shooting in 2005, discovered that the missing “pits” had been stolen and taken to a nearby meat packing facility, where they were sorted using leaked DOE data in order to allow them to be safely melted down and reconfigured to replace the depleted Israeli stockpile.

Investigators from the DOE and IAEA confirm that weapons from this stolen stockpile were used in the demolition of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 — nuclear “pits” originally produced at the Hanford DOE facility in Washington. This information was part of the highly classified 2003 9/11 report given to congressional and White House leaders only, and later leaked by Russian Naval Intelligence, believed to have been among a trove of documents received from Edward Snowden.

In March 2013, a group of business executives meeting in Tulsa, Oklahoma, received a briefing on the 2003 “Nuclear 9/11” report as part of a “Threat Assessment Conference” where Veterans Today staff were among the presenters. The briefing also included a version of the now famous “Shrimpton nuclear scare” story, confirming the recovery of a missing nuclear weapon somewhere in the EU in 2012.

9/11 AND AFTERMATH

Leaked documents on the Able Danger investigation, received in September 2014 revealed that most investigation functions had ended in 1998 at the request of President Clinton, then under impeachment threat tied to his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, in a reputed Mossad “honey trap.”

Investigative chief and FBI Special Agent John O’Neill left government service and pursued leads until his untimely death during the 9/11 “event”. According to a 2005 report, thirty-five of the Able Danger investigators were also killed on 9/11, when the Pentagon office they were called to for an emergency briefing by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myer, (who did not show up for the meeting and did not die, a lucky day for him) was demolished by an airliner, though little or no physical evidence of such a happenstance exists.

After 1998, the FBI investigation team was divided into two units under the supervision of Special Agent Mike Dick; one team was tracking arms dealer Victor Bout, and was coordinated with IAEA investigators. The second unit investigated the theft of the “pit matching” documents and centered on the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, eventually leading to the arrest of the leaders of that group.

Charges were later dropped when the White House refused to turn over required evidence, and Attorney General John Ashcroft, one of the key planners of the CIA torture program, ordered an end to the investigation. Witness statements included testimony indicating White House officials had passed key nuclear secrets to Israeli embassy representatives at a Washington cocktail party in the presence of both Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice.

The second unit, assisted by CIA agent Roland Carnaby, followed the theft of nuclear weapons from the sorting facility near Amarillo to a fertilizer plant outside Waco, Texas. On April 2014, as Snowden reputedly handed Able Danger documents to Russian intelligence, the plant where the nuclear weapons were stored, the West Fertilizer Plant, was destroyed in a massive explosion, killing 15.

The entire operation was run by Victor Bout, working directly for the office of the Vice President of the United States, according to private sources with access to the Plame/Siddiqui investigation.

The nuclear pits had been moved by truck to the Port of Houston, where they had been placed on ships and transferred to the Canary Islands and later to Mauritania. The weapons were, according to Able Danger documents, stored at a mine controlled by former South African Prime Minister De Klerk inside a region controlled by the rebel Polisario Front. From there, weapons were sold to Taiwan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and other nations, along with restocking Israel.

Other weapons were set aside for use by intelligence agencies. IAEA sources report weapons from Hanford/Pantex were used for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001, and the Bali bombing in 2005. The IAEA confirms up to 50 nuclear weapons have been used surreptitiously since 1945, often in configurations that minimize blast and radiation.

THE CIA’S FORGOTTEN CHILDREN

There are strange parallels in the story of two accused “Al Qaeda” operatives. While the general public thinks of Al Qaeda as a terror group, in truth, according to Able Danger documents, Al Qaeda is a joint operational sector of Saudi, Israeli and US intelligence. This dirty little secret has compromised American security greatly, due to the blackmailing position both of these countries have had over the US.

Two of the major “terror figures” of Al Qaeda, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and Osama bin Laden, have been confirmed, at the highest levels, to be CIA operatives. After 9/11 both fled… Dr. Aafia to Karachi and bin Laden, who had recently received kidney treatments at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, where members of congress and top VIPs receive their care, to Tora Bora.

Bin Laden died of complications from advanced kidney disease on December 13, 2001, after denying any involvement in 9/11 and advising those concerned to “look closer to home” (CIA FOIA Press Release dated 24 September, 2001.)

The curious story of Bin Laden and his second “death” in Pakistan is similar to that of Aafia Siddiqui with her reputed murderous attack on her CIA captors during a waterboarding session at Bagram Air Force Base.

Prior to the release of the recent and highly controversial CIA torture report, the reputed actual “re-killer” of bin Laden came forward. The story, as we are told, has an aging bin Laden in the upper floor of a home in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Bin Laden is said to have leapt to his feet, grasping an AK47 in one hand while holding a hostage in another. While standing on a bed, bin Laden is brought down in a hail of gunfire, like something out of a cowboy film.

The Aafia story is, if anything, worse.

We are told Dr. Aafia, confined to a wheelchair, in this case “literally” held down by handcuff “tie wraps”, was brought in for a waterboarding session. The US Air Force facility had been hosting summary execution and torture sessions for Aafia and other prisoners for years. Aafia had been raped repeatedly. She was down to 80 pounds and unable to walk.

There the story, an analog of the bin Laden tale, gets more bizarre. Dr. Aafia is said to have broken her tie wraps, listed as “ISO 527-1:2012 standard,” in a fit of rage. There were five men in the room, most over 200 pounds, four of whom were “special operations trained”, including one US Navy Seal, one CIA agent and two FBI agents. The fifth member was a “translator,” please pay attention as this will be an important point.

The crippled 80-pound torture and rape victim is reputed to have knocked all four men to the ground, seizing an M4 carbine from one of them. According to transcripts, in order to save the lives of the four “terror war-fighters”, the “translator”, using his weapon shot Dr. Aafia in the abdomen.

This is the crime Dr. Aafia was convicted of, not terrorism, but resisting torture. Now here comes the most curious part of all. Dr. Aafia lived in the United States for 11 years, the wife of a Boston anesthesiologist. Aafia taught at MIT, where she received her doctorate in microbiology before joining the CIA.

Aafia had spoken English all her life, published in English and taught in English at one of the most prestigious universities in the world. Why did she need a translator? You just can’t make this stuff up… or can you?

Climate And Truth: A Tale Of Immorality?

Source: wattsupwiththat.com

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The most recent aberration of climate science is the apparent cherry picking of ocean temperature data by government scientists, Richard Feely and Christopher Sabine. The objective is not to determine what is happening, but why it is happening, and then link it to a human cause. This, cart before the horse approach, was the raison d’etre of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from the start. In order to emphasize why it is happening, it helps to detail, for politicians, the damaging effects. In this case, it is the deleterious impact of human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere that is not only causing warming, but, they claim, also changing the acidity level of the oceans (ocean acidification). All this challenges the claim that humans are distinctive as the “moral ape” a concept explored over 2000 years ago in Aesop’s fable of, “The Apes and Two Travellers”.

Kudos goes to Marita Noon for bringing this story to our attention. Disturbing, beyond what they did, is that they see nothing wrong with their actions. Worse, they reject the explanation. This behavior in climate science appears to reflect the mentality developed in western society, and is summarized beautifully in the cartoon.

These aberrations are part of a wider trend, ironically identified by Osama Bin Laden when he said the west has lost its moral direction. The fact we don’t want his moral direction either, doesn’t make it any less true.

The problem is multiple in its forms, but simple in its trend and essentially summarized by two modern dictums.

• You only broke the law, or the rules, if you got caught. Even if you get caught, you brazen it out with the help of a lawyer and/or a public relations person.
• If you are not with me, you must be against me. Only listening to or associating with like-minded people reinforces this. A recent WUWT article underlined the degree to which this occurs, when the author opened by saying he did something unusual, he read the “alarmists” web site RealClimate.

As usual, the response by Sabine was more an attempted cover-up. It, and the original article, reveals another example of the climate scientist’s art of cherry picking and believing that the end justifies the means. Roseanne D’Arrigo was the first to put this on the public record as reported by Steve McIntyre.

“D’Arrigo put up a slide about “cherry picking” and then she explained to the panel that that’s what you have to do if you want to make cherry pie.”

D’Arrigo was preceded by the first major exposure of cherry picking in the IPCC climate science by Benjamin Santer in the 1995 Report. Only a few, including Fred Singer, Fredrick Seitz and John Daly, knew what was done. The cover-up was relatively easy, especially when the big guns of the New York Times and the Guardian were fired.

Santer’s changes were spotted early, but Nature, a journal that was freindly to the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) gang, didn’t publish the rebuttals until 5 months later (12 Dec 1996). One identified the cherry picking, the other a natural explanation for the pattern. By then the PR cover up was under way. On July 25, 1996 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) sent a letter of defense to Santer. The letter is evidence of CRU influence and a PR masterpiece. It narrowed the focus to two questions, the science, and society’s reaction. They said the only relevant science was in “peer-reviewed scientific publications – not the media. This challenged who controlled information. The Internet is the final stage of democracy, because it took information out of the hands of a few and into the hands of everybody. The AMS argued for their retention of control of information and thereby the debate.

“What is important scientific information and how it is interpreted in the policy debates is an important part of our jobs.” “That is, after all, the very reasons for the mix of science and policy in the IPCC.”

John Daly correctly called this “Scientism”.

Exposure of Santer’s cherry picking by Singer and Seitz, led to the public relations inspired use of the link with tobacco. Singer had published a well-documented analysis of an article on second-hand smoke. It was, as he identified, a terrible piece of scientific research; a fact since confirmed by others, but explained to me by a doctor, who specialized in lung cancer, when the article was first released. This paper was used to say the tobacco lobby paid Singer and then, by inference, that all “deniers” since are akin to those who deny the link between smoking and cancer. In fact, Singer has long and actively opposed smoking. He simply pointed out that bad research, when exposed, would likely give more credibility to the tobacco lobby.

I understand the dilemma that incorrect science creates, because for years I was charged with “comforting polluters”. I was not deterred, because I realized that the greater problem was in deceiving people with falsified science. When the deception is exposed, the polluters are more comforted, because they can say they lied to you. Aesop also identified this “cry wolf” problem. My greater concern over the last several years is the lost momentum and misdirection on environmental issues and declining scientific credibility.

A classic example of the climate science mentality at the CRU was exposed in a leaked email from February 2, 2005.

Mike (Mann), I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it!

This is important because people at the CRU were effectively the IPCC, beginning with Tom Wigley, the Director who preceded Jones. They controlled critical chapters. All along, Wigley was the person they went to for direction as this email reveals. Wigley is revealed in the 1990 documentary, “The Greenhouse Conspiracy”,which is remarkably relevant today. The email appears to manifest a person who has lost a moral direction.

The other “go to person” from the start was the late Stephen Schneider. He set the tone and actively influenced the direction of the climate science and the IPCC with his 1989 infamous quote in Discovery magazine.

On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Many people only quote the underlined portion, but the entire passage is revealing, especially the penultimate sentence. Schneider didn’t realize that there is no balance between being effective and being honest. Anything less is a deception. You can leave things out, but you must explain why. Schneider is apparently trying to rationalize and thus justify immoral actions. It is a feeble attempt to say, the end justifies the means. When they were in trouble after the CRU email leak, they called on Schneider to help with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

The active pursuit of data and use of methods to create the desired scientific, and thereby political outcome was morally and scientifically wrong. This was bolstered by what was left out, the cherry picking. It variously involved,

• Leaving out data, as in Sabine and Feely,
• Selecting start and stop points on graphs, to provide a desired trend, as in Santer,
• Omitting entire sectors of causes of climate change, such as omission of the Milankovitch Effect, or the Cosmic Theory.
• Omission began with the deliberately narrow definition of climate change that restricted the IPCC to only human causes.
• Omitting all the severe limitations of the science and computer models identified in the Working Group I Report, The Physical Science Basis from the SPM.

There are lies of commission and omission, and both fit the political and PR practices of IPCC climate science. Humans learn both types of lies as children. In fact, one of the classifications chosen by anthropologists to distinguish humans from all other animals is the ability to lie. The designation, Homo sapiens, supposedly separated us because we could think conceptually, that is we could take disparate information and link it. Then we discovered other animals making similar conceptual connections, so they decided that we were different because we could lie. This requires a double conceptual understanding. You have to know the truth and then figure out how to circumvent it, hence the current designation of humans as, Homo sapiens sapiens. How is that for a moral distinction to be proud of? Of course, the recent support of IPCC climate science by Pope Francis puts the cat amongst the moral pigeons.

Sins of omission are an important part of advertising and public relations. They justify the sin as emphasizing the positive, but it is really avoiding the negative. It is manifest in various forms in the environmental and global warming war. Identifying only benefits, instead of a balanced and realistic cost/benefit study, was used to promote alternate energy. Proponents of the human production of CO2 (AGW) hypothesis only examined what they claimed were the negative impacts. The IPCC did not look at the benefits of global warming. Equally effective in their deception was avoidance of positive benefits of CO2, not least the sustenance of all life through the production of oxygen. A measure of the inanity that results from the IPCC deceptions is the push, by activists like Al Gore and Bill McKibben, to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. This, despite the scientific research and empirical evidence, that plants function best between 1000 -1200 parts per million (ppm), so are malnourished at the current levels of 400 ppm. All this is a result of the aberrations created by the IPCC and manifest in Sabine and Feely’s latest example. It is time to establish power of attorney for the plants and vote on their behalf against any immoral measure to reduce CO2 levels.

Murdoch, Scaife and CIA Propaganda

Source: informationclearinghouse

Special Report: The rapid expansion of America’s right-wing media began in the 1980s as the Reagan administration coordinated foreign policy initiatives with conservative media executives, including Rupert Murdoch, and then cleared away regulatory hurdles.

By Robert Parry
December 31, 2014 "ICH" - "Consortium News" - The Reagan administration pulled right-wing media executives Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife into a CIA-organized “perception management” operation which aimed Cold War-style propaganda at the American people in the 1980s, according to declassified U.S. government records.

Although some records relating to Murdoch remain classified, several documents that have been released indicate that he and billionaire Scaife were considered sources of financial and other support for President Ronald Reagan’s hard-line Central American policies, including the CIA’s covert war in Nicaragua.

A driving force behind the creation of Reagan’s extraordinary propaganda bureaucracy was CIA Director William Casey, who dispatched the CIA’s top covert action specialist, Walter Raymond Jr., to the National Security Council to oversee the project. According to the documents, Murdoch was brought into the operation in 1983 – when he was still an Australian citizen and his media empire was much smaller than it is today.

Charles Wick, director of the U.S. Information Agency, arranged at least two face-to-face meetings between Murdoch and Reagan, the first on Jan. 18, 1983, when the administration was lining up private financing for its propaganda campaign, according to records at the Reagan presidential library in Simi Valley, California. That meeting also included lawyer and political operative Roy Cohn and his law partner Thomas Bolan.

The Oval Office meeting between Reagan and Murdoch came just five days after NSC Advisor William Clark noted in a Jan. 13, 1983 memo to Reagan the need for non-governmental money to advance the project. “We will develop a scenario for obtaining private funding,” Clark wrote, as cited in an unpublished draft chapter of the congressional Iran-Contra investigation.

Clark then told the President that “Charlie Wick has offered to take the lead. We may have to call on you to meet with a group of potential donors.”

The documents suggest that Murdoch was soon viewed as a source for that funding. In an Aug. 9, 1983 memo summing up the results of a Casey-organized meeting with five leading ad executives regarding how to “sell” Reagan’s aggressive policies in Central America, Raymond referred to Murdoch as if he already were helping out.

In a memo to Clark, entitled “Private Sector Support for Central American Program,” Raymond criticized a more traditional White House outreach program headed by Faith Whittlesey as “preaching to the converted.”

Raymond told Clark that the new project would involve a more comprehensive approach aimed at persuading a majority of Americans to back Reagan’s Central American policies, which included support for right-wing regimes in Guatemala and El Salvador as well as the Contra rebels fighting the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

“We must move out into the middle sector of the American public and draw them into the ‘support’ column,” Raymond wrote. “A second package of proposals deal with means to market the issue, largely considering steps utilizing public relations specialists – or similar professionals – to help transmit the message.”

To improve the project’s chances for success, Raymond wrote, “we recommended funding via Freedom House or some other structure that has credibility in the political center. Wick, via Murdoch, may be able to draw down added funds for this effort.”

Raymond included similar information in a separate memo to Wick in which Raymond noted that “via Murdock [sic] may be able to draw down added funds” to support the initiative. (Raymond later told me that he was referring to Rupert Murdoch.)

In a March 7, 1984 memo about the “‘Private Funders’ Project,” Raymond referred to Murdoch again in discussing a request for money from longtime CIA-connected journalist Brian Crozier, who was “looking for private sector funding to work on the question of ‘anti-Americanism’ overseas.”

Raymond wrote: “I am pursuaded [sic] it is a significant long term problem. It is also the kind of thing that Ruppert [sic] and Jimmy might respond positively to. Please look over the stack [of papers from Crozier] and lets [sic] discuss if and when there might be further discussion with our friends.”

Crozier, who died in 2012, had a long history of operating in the shadowy world of CIA propaganda. He was director of Forum World Features, which was set up in 1966 by the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which received covert funding from the CIA. Crozier also acknowledged in his memoir, keeping some of his best stories for the CIA.

At least one other document related to Murdoch’s work with USIA Director Wick remains classified, according to the National Archives. Murdoch’s News Corp. has not responded to requests for comment about the Reagan-era documents.

Helping Murdoch

Murdoch, who became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1985 to meet a regulatory requirement that U.S. TV stations must be owned by Americans, benefited from his close ties to both U.S. and British officialdom.

On Monday, the UK’s Independent reported that Ed Richards, the retiring head of the British media regulatory agency Ofcom, accused British government representatives of showing favoritism to Murdoch’s companies.

Richards said he was “surprised” by the informality, closeness and frequency of contact between executives and ministers during the failed bid by Murdoch’s News Corp. for the satellite network BSkyB in 2011. The deal was abandoned when it was discovered that journalists at Murdoch’s News of the World tabloid had hacked the phone of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler and others.

“What surprised everyone about it – not just me – was quite how close it was and the informality of it,” Richards said, confirming what had been widely reported regarding Murdoch’s access  to powerful British politicians dating back at least to the reign of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. The Reagan documents suggest that Murdoch built similarly close ties to leading U.S. politicians in the same era.

In 1983, Murdoch’s rising media empire was still based in Australia with only a few U.S. properties, such as the Star tabloid and the New York Post. But he was eyeing expansion into the U.S. media market. In 1984, he bought a stake in 20^th Century Fox and then six Metromedia television stations, which would form the nucleus of Fox Broadcasting Company, which was founded on Oct. 9, 1986.

At the time, Murdoch and other media moguls were lobbying for a relaxation of regulations from the Federal Communications Commission, a goal that Reagan shared. Under FCC Chairman Mark Fowler, the Reagan administration undertook a number of steps favorable to Murdoch’s interests, including increasing the number of TV stations that any single entity could own from seven in 1981 to 12 in 1985.

In 1987, the “Fairness Doctrine,” which required political balance in broadcasting, was eliminated, which enabled Murdoch to pioneer a more aggressive conservatism on his TV network. In the mid-1990s, Murdoch expanded his political reach by founding the neoconservative Weekly Standard in 1995 and Fox News on cable in 1996. At Fox News, Murdoch has hired scores of prominent politicians, mostly Republicans, putting them on his payroll as commentators.

Last decade, Murdoch continued to expand his reach into U.S. mass media, acquiring DirecTV and the financial news giant Dow Jones, including The Wall Street Journal, America’s leading business news journal.

Scaife’s Role

Richard Mellon Scaife exercised his media influence on behalf of Reagan and the conservative cause in a different way. While the scion of the Mellon banking, oil and aluminum fortune did publish a right-wing newspaper in Pittsburgh, the Tribune Review, Scaife mostly served as a financial benefactor for right-wing journalists and think tanks.

Indeed, Scaife was one of the original financiers of what emerged as a right-wing counter-establishment in media and academia, a longstanding goal of key Republicans, including President Richard Nixon who recognized the importance of propaganda as a political weapon.

According to Nixon’s chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, as reported in The Haldeman Diaries, one of Nixon’s pet ideas was to build a network of loyal conservatives in positions of influence. The President was “pushing again on the project of building our establishment in press, business, education, etc.,” Haldeman wrote in one entry on Sept. 12, 1970.

Financed by rich conservative foundations and wealthy special interests, Nixon’s brainchild helped tilt politics in favor of the American Right with Richard Mellon Scaife one of the project’s big-money godfathers. By using family foundations, such as Sarah Scaife and Carthage, Scaife joined with other leading right-wing foundations to fund think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, which Scaife helped launch in 1973.

In 1978, Nixon’s friend and Treasury Secretary William Simon provided more impetus to this growing machine, declaring in his book, Time for Truth: “Funds generated by business… must rush by the multimillion to the aid of liberty… to funnel desperately needed funds to scholars, social scientists, writers and journalists who understand the relationship between political and economic liberty.”

With Reagan’s inauguration in 1981 – and Casey’s selection as CIA director – Scaife and other right-wing ideologues were in position to merge their private funding with U.S. Government money in pursuit of the administration’s geopolitical goals, including making sure the American people would not break ranks as many did over the Vietnam War.

Building the Operation

On Nov. 4, 1982, Raymond, after his transfer from the CIA to the NSC staff, but while still a CIA officer, wrote to NSC Advisor Clark about the “Democracy Initiative and Information Programs,” stating that “Bill Casey asked me to pass on the following thought concerning your meeting with Dick Scaife, Dave Abshire [then a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board], and Co.

“Casey had lunch with them today and discussed the need to get moving in the general area of supporting our friends around the world. By this definition he is including both ‘building democracy’… and helping invigorate international media programs. The DCI [Casey] is also concerned about strengthening public information organizations in the United States such as Freedom House. …

“A critical piece of the puzzle is a serious effort to raise private funds to generate momentum. Casey’s talk with Scaife and Co. suggests they would be very willing to cooperate. … Suggest that you note White House interest in private support for the Democracy initiative.”

In subsequent years, Freedom House emerged as a leading critic of Nicaragua’s Sandinista government, which Reagan and Casey were seeking to overthrow by covertly supporting the Contra rebels. Freedom House also became a major recipient of money from the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy, which was founded in 1983 under the umbrella of the Casey-Raymond project.

The role of the CIA in these initiatives was concealed, but never far from the surface. A Dec. 2, 1982 note addressed to “Bud,” a reference to senior NSC official Robert “Bud” McFarlane, described a request from Raymond for a brief meeting.  “When he [Raymond] returned from Langley [CIA headquarters], he had a proposed draft letter… re $100 M Democ [racy]  Proj [act],” the note said.

While Casey pulled the strings on this project, the CIA director instructed White House officials to hide the CIA’s role. “Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate,” Casey said in one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III as Casey urged creation of a “National Endowment.”

On Jan. 21, 1983, Raymond updated Clark about the project, which also was reaching out to representatives from other conservative foundations, including Les Lenkowsky of Smith-Richardson, Michael Joyce of Olin and Dan McMichael of Mellon-Scaife. “This is designed to develop a broader group of people who will support parallel initiatives consistent with Administration needs and desires,” Raymond wrote.

Bashing Teresa Heinz

One example of how Scaife’s newspaper directly helped the Reagan administration can be seen in clippings from the Tribune-Review that I found in Raymond’s files. On April 21, 1983, the newspaper published a package of stories suggesting illicit left-wing connections among groups opposed to nuclear war.

The articles leave little doubt that Scaife’s newspaper is suggesting that these anti-war activists are communists or communist fellow travelers. One headline reads: “Reds Woo Some U.S. Peace Leaders.”

Another article cites an accusation from one congressman in the 1950s, after hearings on foundation grants “to numerous Communists and Communist-front organizations,” that “Here lies the story of how Communism and Socialism are financed in the U.S. – where they get their money.” The 1983 article then asks: “Is history repeating itself?”

Ironically, one of the philanthropists who is singled out in these red-baiting articles is Teresa Heinz, then married to Sen. John Heinz, R-Pennsylvania, who died in a 1991 plane crash. In 1995, Teresa Heinz married Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, who is currently Secretary of State.

The organizational role of Casey and Raymond in this domestic propaganda campaign raised concerns about the legality of having two senior CIA officials participating in a scheme to manage the perceptions of the American people.

Both in internal documents and a deposition to the congressional Iran-Contra committee, Raymond made clear his discomfort about the possible legal violation from his and Casey’s roles. Raymond formally resigned from the CIA in April 1983, so, he said, “there would be no question whatsoever of any contamination of this.”

That sensitivity was also reflected in press guidance prepared in case a reporter noted Raymond’s CIA background and the problems it presented to the “public diplomacy” effort. In case someone challenged press reports that asserted “there is no CIA involvement in the Public Diplomacy Program” and then asked “isn’t Walt Raymond, a CIA employee, involved heavily?” – the prescribed answer was:

“Walter Raymond is a member of the National Security Council staff. In the past, he has worked for Defense, CIA and State. It is true that in the formative stages of the effort, Walt Raymond contributed many useful ideas. It is ironic that he was one of those who was most insistent that there be no CIA involvement in this program in any way.

“Indeed, it is a credit to the Agency that it has stressed throughout that the United States ought to be completely open about the programs it puts in place to assist in the development of democratic institutions and that none of these programs should come under the aegis of the CIA. They do not want to be involved in managing these programs and will not be. We have nothing to hide here.”

If a reporter pressed regarding where Raymond last worked, the response was to be: “He retired from CIA. He is a permanent member of the National Security Council.” And, if pressed about Raymond’s duties, the scripted answer was: “His duties there are classified.” (Raymond’s last job at the CIA was Director of the Covert Action Staff with a specialty in propaganda and disinformation.)

Beyond how Raymond’s “classified duties” contradict the assertion that “we have nothing to hide here,” there was a more deceptive element of the press guidance: it didn’t mention the key role of CIA Director Casey in both organizing and directing the project – and it suggested that Raymond’s role had been limited to offering “many useful ideas” when he was the hands-on, day-to-day manager of the operation.

Casey’s Hidden Hand

Casey’s secret role in the propaganda scheme continued well into 1986, as Raymond continued to send progress reports to his old boss, even as Raymond fretted in one memo about the need “to get [Casey] out of the loop.”

The “public diplomacy” operation was “the kind of thing which [Casey] had a broad catholic interest in,” Raymond shrugged during his Iran-Contra deposition. He then offered the excuse that Casey undertook this apparently illegal interference in domestic politics “not so much in his CIA hat, but in his adviser to the president hat.”

Though the Casey-Raymond teamwork ended with the exposure of the Iran-Contra scandal in late 1986 and with Casey’s death on May 6, 1987, its legacy continued with Scaife and other rich right-wingers funding ideological media that protected the flanks of President Reagan, his successor President George H.W. Bush and other Republicans of that era.

For instance, Scaife helped fund the work of Steven Emerson, who played a key role in “discrediting” investigations into whether Reagan’s 1980 campaign had sabotaged President Jimmy Carter’s hostage negotiations with Iran to gain an edge in that pivotal election. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Unmasking October Surprise Debunker.”]

Scaife also helped finance the so-called “Arkansas Project” that pushed hyped and bogus scandals to damage the presidency of Bill Clinton. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Starr-gate: Cracks on the Right.”]

Walter Raymond Jr. died on April 16, 2003. Richard Mellon Scaife died on July 4, 2014. But Rupert Murdoch, now 83, remains one of the most powerful media figures on earth, continuing to wield unparalleled influence through his control of Fox News and his vast media empire that stretches around the globe.