Friday, October 21, 2016

Hillary's Benenson Strategy Group says she is tanking, Trump supporters unstoppable


A document has surfaced online — a report titled Salvage Program from Benenson Strategy Group, the pollster and strategist for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. The report looks professional and credible. It’s called Salvage Program because its goal is to “salvage” — to rescue, save, recover, restore — Hillary’s campaign, which is tanking.
In the words of the report (my words are in green):
“At this point Donald Trump has both momentum and enthusiasm. Distrust in the mainstream media is blunting the impact of the collective polling narrative [which implies that the polls we are told are fraudulent — their data manufactured to favor Hillary]As Election Day approaches, Hillary Clinton’s favorable ratings have crashed to historic lows(12%) in non-partisans and Donald Trump is consolidating support (97% of LV Republican-identifying respondents are either enthusiastic or very enthusiastic about voting for Trump).”
Before we go any further, let’s take a look at what Benenson Strategy Group is, so as to determine if the Salvage Program report is credible.
To begin, an AFP report on Oct. 19, 2016 names Joel Benenson as a pollster for Hillary Clinton and quotes him:
“we don’t appear to be generating the excitement or a sense of a fresh, new candidacy we had hoped for.”
Wikipedia identifies Benenson Strategy Group (BSG) as “a strategic consulting firm,” i.e., a company that uses polling data to provide advice on political strategy to politicians, political parties, and business corporations. The CEO (and presumably the founder) of BSG is Joel Benenson, 64 — a “pollster and consultant known for his role as a strategist for Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns. He is currently the chief strategist for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.” Born “in New York City to a Jewish family,” Benenson is:
“the CEO of Benenson Strategy Group, a strategic consulting firm, and serves as a communications and polling advisor to the [Obama] White House. He has been a strategist for U.S. senators, governors and mayors, as well as Fortune 500 companies. He was a pollster for the DCCC in 2006, when the Democrats won back the majority in the House of Representatives. […] Benenson is also the Co-Founder of iModerate Research Technologies. In January 2015, Hillary Clinton hired Benenson and Robby Mook as strategists.”
The Benenson Strategy Group’s report, Salvage Program, is 7 pages long, and is marked “Do Not Distribute – Do Not Copy” at the bottom of each page. Here’s a screenshot of the top of page one, with BSG’s address and logos of BSG and the Clinton Foundation (who pays BSG):
benenson-strategy-group-logoSalvage Program begins by specifying that “no skews or narrative screens were employed”:
  • “Skews” refers to pollsters skewing polling samples to favor Democrats by overpolling or overrepresenting Democrats, i.e., having a larger percentage of Democrats in the polling sample than the actual percentage of Democrats in the U.S. population.
  • A “narrative” is a story; an account. To “screen” is to “conceal, protect, shelter”. Polling results are translated by the pollster and the media into a “narrative” because too many Americans are uninformed about the methodology and statistics of public opinion surveys/polls, and so rely on having the polling data explained to them. “Narrative screen” refers to a misleading textual account or narrative of the polling data.
Translated into plain English, “no skews or narrative screens were employed” means the BSG report Salvage Program is delivering the truth of what BSG has found in its polls, not the lies that we are told everyday from pollsters who skew their polling samples, and from the MSM’s misleading, contrived narrative accounts of the polling numbers.
Let’s begin with the “Executive Summary” of the polling data discovered by Benenson Strategy Group — Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist and pollster:
Executive Overview: Hillary Clinton Flash-Crash to 12% Favorable, Losing 19-77% Nationally  
At this point Donald Trump has both momentum and enthusiasm. Distrust in the mainstream media is blunting the impact of the collective polling narrative. As Election Day approaches, Hillary Clinton’s favorable ratings have crashed to historic lows (12%) in non-partisans and Donald Trump is consolidating support (97% of LV Republican-identifying respondents are either enthusiastic or very enthusiastic about voting for Trump).
Among independents, Hillary voters who are exposed to any alternative media (73%) are aware of the WikiLeaks emails and find them either disturbing (54%) or deeply disturbing (18%).Among liberal-identifying whites, support is shifting from Hillary (-27 since October 1st) to Donald Trump (78%) or Jill Stein (21%).
For voters who solely consume mainstream media only 28%are aware of the WikiLeaks emails and of those, only 8% are aware of the content. For these voters Clinton leads Trump by +8. 
Minority voters are less likely to consume alternative media(only 14%) and are less likely to be aware of the email leak(only 18% for males, 9% for females). Even with this group, enthusiasm is down 63 points compared to October 2008. 
On other fronts, the counter-narrative [against Trump] is failing as well. Most heavy consumers of social media understand that the allegations against Donald Trump of sexual misconduct have largely been debunked (77%). We understand that communications strategies in that space have been unable to reduce the impact of this messaging. Worse, among white males in telephone polling 93% of them either approve (72%) or strongly approve (21%) of Donald Trump’s hot-mic tape.
Only 39% of women approve of them however a majority (64%) say they ‘understand that confident men talk that way.’ In effect, these allegations have been diffused.
On a positive note, most respondents who were liberal-leaning(83%) or Independent (59%) were unaware of the messaging front concerning Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct. While the vast majority (88%) were aware of consensual extra-marital relationships, the mainstream media approach to the stories has left only 8% of liberal-leaning voters and only 19% of independents aware of the allegations of rape. 
On a disturbing note, some 70% of Republican-leaning voters are aware bussed-in voting, false-face operations, and dead-man’s-party registration drives. This may necessitate severe strategy changes for November.
Here are the findings of Benenson Strategy Group’s accurate (non-skewed, non-narrative screened) polls:
(1) Support for Hillary is “collapsing”:
  • Both “soft” and “hard” support.
  • The “collapse” is “steady and pronounced” after the first presidential debate.
  • Damage from reports of Hillary’s ill health “has metastasized” — “Hillary is widely considered sick, untrustworthy, and [even] most Hillary-leaning Democrats would vote to replace her”:
    • Only 21% believe Hillary to be healthy, with no ailment(s); 4% are not sure.
    • The majority (75%) believe she is sick (18% pneumonia, 16% brain cancer, 16% vascular dementia, 13% anti-social personality disorder, 10% Parkison’s disease, 2% Alzheimer’s disease).
  • Among those who know about the WikiLeaks emails, on whether Hillary “hates ‘everyday people’, 52% answered “yes”, 15% answered “no”, 33% answered “not sure”.
(2) Support for Trump is surging (“momentum”), enthusiastic, and “virtually unstoppable”:
  • The Democrats have failed in their schemes to damage Trump:
    • Most Americans believe he has the temperament to be President: 33% say “he fights the mainstream media’s lies”; 27% “his temperament is winning”; 21% “he is a strong, Alpha-male personality”; 12% “a president willing to get angry is what we need now”; 5% “his temperament will frighten America’s enemies”.
  • Trump voters are “virtually unstoppable”:
    • Asked if disastrous events such as “threat of war,” “natural disaster,” “active riots/civil unrest”, “lethal epidemiological agent (smallpox)” would stop them from voting, 74% of “hard Trump supporters” answered “None”.
    • In contrast, 0% of “hard Clinton supporters” answered “None”.
(3) The Alternative Media have come of age:
  • Americans who avail themselves of the Alternative Media know about Hillary’s unsecured email server, the WikiLeaks emails, Democrat voter fraud, and other information the MSM don’t tell or don’t emphasize. They are supporters of Trump, including even some Democrats.
  • Hillary supporters truly are low-information voters — they rely solely on the MSM and don’t pay attention to social media and the alternative media: “voters who solely consume mainstream media only 28% are aware of the WikiLeaks emails and of those, only 8% are aware of the content. For these voters Clinton leads Trump by +8.”
  • That explains Hillary’s support among racial minorities because they are “less likely to consume alternative media (only 14%) and are less likely to be aware of the email leak (only 18% for males,
    9% for females).” But even with this group, their enthusiasm for Hillary is falling — “down 63 points compared to October 2008.”
(4) Americans are catching on to the fake polls:
The BSG report says “The public has lost faith in polling” because:
“Poll-driven narratives have been pushed too far, alienating most of the voting population. The use of polls as a psychological weapon has also been noticed (especially on social media). As the poll-gap narrative becomes ever more extreme, obvious visible evidence (rally-size, yard-signs, bumper-stickers, memes / social-media posts) becomes more and more obviously contradictory. Attempts at shaming outspoken poll-deniers such as Bill Mitchell on Twitter have failed in 2016 where they succeeded (Dean Chambers) in 2012. We are in uncharted territory.
Even hooks into non-philosophically compromised pro-Republican polling outfits such as FOX, Rasmussen, and Gravis have not produced substantial results.”
In other words, the phony polls are not working because the American people are not stupid — we can see that the polling data contradict the HUGE turnouts for Trump rallies compared with Hillary’s anemic rallies.
The one thing about BSG’s Salvage Program report that had puzzled me when I first read it last night was the report’s last part on “Salvage Options” — BSG’s recommendation on how to “salvage” Hillary’s failing presidential campaign.
Not recommended are the following:
  • Red Dawn: a (simulated) foreign invasion.
  • Cobalt Rain: a “radiological attack”.
  • BLRiot: Referring to BlackLivesMatter riots, the report said: “while staged civil unrest could prevent pockets of America from voting, the damage [from the Alternative Media’s uncovering of the riots being staged] is too wide-spread.”
  • Zikpocalypse: Referring to the zika virus epidemic, the report says: “Improved strains of ZIKV have been delivered and we have disseminated them to operatives. Unfortunately this will suppress women voters more than men (even as ZIKV2 is lethal in adults). This would hurt Hillary Clinton and Trump voters are willing to risk lethal pathogens to vote.”
  • Sharia Escalation: Referring to Muslim provocations, the report says: “States have blocked key immigrant operatives. Without the required Muslim-Islamist population in place, the IE plan will not be sufficiently impactful.” I have no idea what “IE plan” means.
  • Unnatural Disaster: “HAARP is in skeleton crew mode. Subterranean thermobaric devices in fracking mines are untested. Surveys suggest this might not stop Trump voters.”
After reviewing all the unrecommended methods to “salvage” Hillary’s campaign, the BSG report concluded with one “salvage” recommendation. Called “FIRESIGN,” the recommendation is to launch a Project Blue Beam-type fake extraterrestrial event. In the words of the BSG report (p. 6):
“For almost two decades the Department of Defense and NASA have coordinated on a black book project under the codename FIRESIGN. 
FIRESIGN’s aim is to create a religious “awe effect” in enemy populations to create an instantaneous psychological soft-kill (abject submission). The operation uses high powered lasers to project real-seeming images on the sodium layer 100km above the surface. These images can cover hundreds or even thousands of square miles and can appear completely real, three dimensional, and can move. 
These visual cues are augmented with pulsed ELF electromagnetic emissions (see: PROJECT SANGUINE) that attack the specific areas of the prefrontal cortex that are stimulated during religious experience. In limited tests, subjects have been able to be overwhelmed on both axis of vastness (an overwhelming of the subject’s frame of reference) and a powerful need-for-accommodation. The mix of these two will produce inaction, lack of focus on self or individual interaction, and gross transformations in mental equilibrium (a Road-to-Damascus Experience).”
There have been discussions in the Alternative Media about Project Blue Beam — a conspiracy theory by Quebecois journalist Serge Monast, which he published in his book Project Blue Beam (NASA). Monast claimed that NASA will attempt to implement a New World Order via a gigantic “space show” of a technologically-simulated Second Coming, wherein three-dimensional holographic laser projections will be beamed all over the planet to lead people to follow a false New Age religion with the Antichrist at its head. Monast died of a heart attack in 1996, which his believers suspect was an assassination.
There’s a video on Project Firesign on
I was puzzled by why the BSG report would recommend in effect Project Blue Beam, for if there’s a (simulated) ET invasion, wouldn’t that work to Trump’s advantage? In a crisis of that magnitude, why would Americans turn to a sickly old woman instead of a kick-ass alpha-male male?
The answer is in one of the BSG polling questions.
There was a second question asking “hard Trump supporters” what disastrous event would stop them from voting. Recall that in a previous question, an astonishing 74% of “hard Trump supporters” answered “None”.
But another question listing different disasters got a lower percentage (17%) of “None” responses from “hard Trump supporters”.
Presented with four epic disasters, the percentages of “hard Trump supporters” who said the disaster would stop them from voting are:
  • 8% for “shooting war in neighborhood”
  • 16% for “Biblical event”
  • 17% for “external invading force”
  • 38% for “attack by extraterrestrials”
In other words, “hard Trump supporters” are so determined to turn out to vote for him on election day that only an extreme event of an attack by extraterrestrials would stop 38% of them from voting.
That is why, based on its own polling findings, the Benenson Strategy Group’s Salvage Program made the recommendation that FIRESIGN — a simulated ET invasion — be used to salvage Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
You can read Salvage Program for yourself here. I’ve also uploaded it to FOTM‘s media library for safekeeping. See “Benenson Strategy Group Salvage Program“.
Is the BSG report genuine or a very skillfully put-together and professional-looking fake? You be the judge.
I do find it noteworthy that the BSG report’s poll findings are consistent with what was said in that memo to Patrick Murray, the director of Monmouth University’s Polling Institute. Alas, my post on that memo, “Leaked Monmouth U. polling memo: Democrats ‘despondent’; Hillary unpopular with Millennials & minorities, seen as a ‘lying harpy’,” as well as the original source — the memo onScribd — no longer exist. I took down that post because I was threatened with a lawsuit to “Cease & Desist” by an email from Monmouth University.
See also:
H/t Mark S. McGrew

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Washington moves to silence WikiLeaks by pressuring Ecuador

Bill Van Auken

The cutting off of Internet access for Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is one more ugly episode in a US presidential election campaign that has plumbed the depths of political degradation.
Effectively imprisoned in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for over four years, Assange now is faced with a further limitation on his contact with the outside world.

On Tuesday, the Foreign Ministry of Ecuador confirmed WikiLeaks’ charge that Ecuador itself had ordered the severing of Assange’s Internet connection under pressure from the US government. In a statement, the ministry said that WikiLeaks had “published a wealth of documents impacting on the US election campaign,” adding that the government of Ecuador “respects the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states” and “does not interfere in external electoral processes.” On that grounds, the statement claimed, the Ecuadorian government decided to “restrict access” to the communications network at its London embassy.
This statement from the bourgeois government of Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa is a study in hypocrisy and cowardice. By abetting the US government’s suppression of WikiLeaks, Quito has intervened in the US elections on the side of the ruling establishment and against the rights of the American people. If Correa expects that his professed sensitivity toward the “principle of non-intervention” will be reciprocated, he should recall the fate of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, who was toppled in a coup orchestrated by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009.

WikiLeaks cited reports that Secretary of State John Kerry had demanded that the government of Ecuador carry out the action “on the sidelines of the negotiations” surrounding the abortive Colombian peace accord last month in Bogota. The US government intervened to prevent any further exposures that could damage the campaign of Clinton, who has emerged as the clear favorite of the US military and intelligence complex as well as the Wall Street banks.
Whether the State Department was the only entity placing pressure on Ecuador on behalf of the Clinton campaign, or whether Wall Street also intervened directly, is unclear. The timing of the Internet cutoff, in the immediate aftermath of the release of Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches, may be more than coincidental.

In the spring of 2014, the government of Ecuador agreed to transfer more than half of its gold reserves to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. for three years, in an attempt to raise cash to cover a growing deficit brought on by the collapse in oil prices. It reportedly sent 466,000 ounces of gold to Goldman Sachs, worth about $580 million at the time, in return for “high security” financial instruments and an anticipated profit on its investment. It is hardly a stretch of the imagination to believe that such a relationship would give Goldman Sachs considerable leverage in relation to the Ecuadorian government.
In any case, it is evident that the US ruling establishment is growing increasingly desperate to stanch the flow of previously secret emails and documents that are exposing the real character not only of Clinton, but of capitalist politics as a whole. While WikiLeaks has released over 17,000 emails from the account of Clinton campaign manager and top establishment Democrat John Podesta, it is believed that there are more than 33,000 still to come.

The transcripts of Clinton’s speeches to Goldman Sachs and other top banks and employers’ groups, for which she was paid on average $200,000 per appearance, are the most incriminating. They expose the workings of the oligarchy that rules America and the thinking and actions of a politician prepared to do anything to advance the interests of this ruling stratum, while simultaneously accruing ever greater riches and power for herself.
While on the campaign trail, Clinton has postured as a “progressive,” determined to hold Wall Street’s feet to the fire. But in her speeches to Goldman Sachs, she made clear her unconditional defense of the banks and financial houses. Under conditions of popular outrage against the bankers and their role in dragging millions into crisis in the financial meltdown of 2008, Clinton gave speeches praising the Wall Street financiers and insisting that they were best equipped to regulate themselves. She apologized to them for supporting the toothless Dodd-Frank financial regulatory law, saying that it had to be enacted for “political reasons.”

In front of her Wall Street audiences, Clinton made clear she had no inhibitions about ordering mass slaughter abroad. While telling her public audiences that she supports a “no-fly zone” in Syria as a humanitarian measure to save lives, she confidentially acknowledged to her Goldman Sachs audience that such an action is “going to kill a lot of Syrians” and become “an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.” In the same speech she declared her willingness to bomb Iran.
The emails have laid bare the nexus of corrupt connections between the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, her various campaigns and her network of financial and corporate donors, which together constitute a quasi-criminal influence-peddling enterprise that could best be described as “Clinton, Inc.”
The revelations contained in the WikiLeaks material have been ignored or downplayed by the corporate media, which instead has focused unrelentingly on the charges of sexual misconduct leveled against Clinton’s Republican rival, Donald Trump.

The Clinton camp itself has sought to deflect any questions regarding what the candidate said in her speeches or the corrupt operations of her campaign by claiming, with no evidence whatsoever, that the material released by WikiLeaks had been hacked by the Russian government and therefore cannot be trusted.
This line of argumentation serves not only to divert attention from the WikiLeaks material, but also to further the Clinton campaign’s neo-McCarthyite claims of Kremlin intervention on behalf of Trump and advance a propaganda campaign aimed at preparing popular opinion for a direct military confrontation with Russia.
There is an air of desperation in the attempt to quash the WikiLeaks material. CNN news anchor Chris Cuomo, an open supporter of Clinton, went so far as to lie to his audience, claiming it was illegal for them to access the emails and insisting they could obtain any information on them only through the filter of the corporate media.

Well before the release of documents related to the Democratic Party, the determination of ruling circles to suppress WikiLeaks had found repeated and violent expression. State Department officials have come forward with a report that in 2010, in the midst of WikiLeaks’ mass release of State Department cables exposing US imperialist operations around the world, Clinton, then secretary of state, asked subordinates, “Can’t we just drone this guy?” She recently said she could not remember the remark, but if she made it, it was a joke.
During the same period, however, Clinton supporter and longtime Democratic campaign operative Bob Beckel declared in a television interview in relation to Assange: “A dead man can’t leak stuff. This guy’s a traitor, he’s treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States… there’s only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch.”
To this point, the American ruling class has limited itself to judicial frame-ups and character assassination, counting on the help of its servants within both the media and the pseudo-left, large sections of which have either joined the witch-hunt against Assange or downplayed his victimization.

The principal vehicle for this campaign of persecution had been fabricated allegations of sexual misconduct pursued by Swedish authorities acting in league with the US and British governments. Earlier this year, the UN’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued findings that Assange had been “deprived of his liberty in an arbitrary manner,” meaning the body had reached the conclusion that the Swedish case constituted a politically motivated frame-up.
In the midst of the current attempt to silence Assange, an even more bizarre and filthy frame-up has been concocted, attempting to smear the WikiLeaks founder with charges of taking Russian money as well as pedophilia.

At the center of these allegations is a little known online dating service,, which first attempted to lure Assange into a supposed deal to film an ad for the site, for which he supposedly would be paid $1 million, to be provided by the Russian government. When WikiLeaks rejected this preposterous provocation, the same site claimed that Assange had been charged with inappropriate contact through the site with an eight-year-old Canadian child visiting the Bahamas. This accusation was then invoked in an attempt to pressure the UN to drop its demand for an end to the persecution of Assange.
Even a cursory investigation makes clear that these allegations constitute a grotesque fabrication. Bahamian police have stated that there are no charges or any case whatsoever against Assange. The dating service has no business address, working phone number or corporate presence anywhere in the US, having all the earmarks of a dummy company created by US intelligence for the purpose of hounding Assange.
The use of such tactics is a measure of how terrified the US ruling class has become in the face of growing mass hostility to both major political parties and their two abhorrent candidates. Their fear is that the relentless exposure of the inner workings of a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich is robbing the existing political setup of what little legitimacy it had left within the population, and creating the conditions for a political radicalization within the working class and social upheavals, whoever is elected on November 8.

Wikileaks' 10 Most Damning Emails prove Mainstream Media Scripted and Controlled for Hillary

Washington, D.C. – With information coming out of WikiLeaks at a fast and furious pace, it’s difficult for the average person to keep up with the many bombshell revelations being exposed. This is happening so much that the most damning evidence is ending up as background noise in the 24-hour election news cycle without ever making it into the mainstream news.

On October 7th, 2016, WikiLeaks published thousands of emails belonging to John Podesta’s private email archives. More emails have been released in the days that followed. Podesta is Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign Chairman. He previously served as Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton and Counselor to President Barack Obama.
The Podesta emails give insight into why there has been such little fanfare in the mainstream media regarding many of the most damning allegations against Clinton.
The fact that most of the newsworthy information contained in the emails is not being reported by the corporate media is indicative of the incestuous relationship between the mainstream media and the Clinton campaign – and is on full display in the Podesta emails.
While there are dozens of bombshell revelations contained within the emails –including transcripts of speeches to Wall St. banks that Clinton had refused to release, hidden policy positions, and evidence of collusion with brutal regimes – the most damning is the collusion and control of the U.S. media on display in the emails.
Essentially, the media has been weaponized as a means of controlling public opinion by propagandizing the American people. World renowned academic Noam Chomsky, in his book “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media,” detailed how U.S. media frequently serve as an errand boy for U.S. corporate, military and imperial interests.
Chomsky forwarded the idea of what he called a “propaganda model.” Although the book was written in 1988, it speaks precisely to what is currently taking place and clearly revealed in the Podesta emails.

“The media serve, and propagandize on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them. The representatives of these interests have important agendas and principles that they want to advance, and they are well positioned to shape and constrain media policy.” -Chomsky
With knowledge of what is currently transpiring, here are the ten most damning Clinton emails regarding the media’s collusion with her presidential campaign, with hotlinks to the original WikiLeaks release.
1. Clinton Staff hosts private “off-the-record cocktail party” with 38 “influential” reporters, journalists, editors, and anchors (from 16 different mainstream media outlets including CNN, NBC, CBS, NYT, MSNBC, & more) with the stated goal of “framing the race.”
2. Donna Brazile (CNN contributor at the time, and current DNC Chairman now) leaked CNN town hall questions to Hillary Clinton’s staff prior to the debate.
4. Glen Thrush, POLITICO’s chief political correspondent and senior staff writer for POLITICO Magazine, sends John Podesta an article for his approval. Writes: “Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this. Tell me if I fucked up anything.”
5. Huffington Post contributor Frank Islam writes to John Podesta in an email titled “My blogs in the Huffington Post”, says “I am committed to make sure she is elected the next president.” “Please let me know if I can be of any service to you.”

6. Clinton staffer “Placing a story” with Politico / New York Times: “place a story with a friendly journalist” “we have a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico” “we should shape likely leaks in the best light for HRC.”
Clinton staff “placing a story with a friendly at the AP (Matt Lee or Bradley Klapper).”
8. Clinton staff colluding with New York Times and Wall Street Journal to paint Hillary’s economic policies in a “progressive” light.
9. CNBC panelist colluding with John Podesta on what to ask Trump when he calls in for an interview.
10. Clinton staff appearing to control the release times of Associated Press articles.
The reality revealed in these emails is one of media collusion with powerful interests, which only serve to keep the American people in the dark about what is actually transpiring. The exact opposite of transparency.
Please share this article to wake people up to the fact that their news is scripted by powerful entities as a means of influencing people’s perceptions!