9/11 After 18 Years

Source

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org

Paul Craig Roberts

Sept 10, 2019

I would appreciate hearing from readers whether they have come across a report in the print, TV, or NPR media of the highly professional four-year investigation of WTC Building 7’s demise.  The international team of civil engineers concluded that the official story of Building 7’s destruction is entirely false.  I reported their findings here: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/09/04/the-official-story-of-the-collapse-of-wtc-building-7-lies-in-ruins/ 

I suspect that the expert report is already in the Memory Hole.  Popular Mechanics, Wikipedia and CNN cannot label a distinguished team of experts “conspiracy theorists.”  Therefore the presstitutes and assorted cover-up artists for the 9/11 false flag attack on the United States will simply act as if no such report exists. The vast majority of people in the world will never hear about the report. I doubt that the real perpetrators of 9/11 will even bother to hire their own team to “refute” the report as that would bring the report into the news, the last place the perpetrators want it to be.

The 9/11 Commission report was not an investigation and ignored all forensic evidence. The NIST simulation of Building 7’s collapse was rigged to get the desired result.  The only real investigations have been done by private scientists, engineers, and architects.  They have found clear evidence of the use of nano-thermite in the destruction of the twin towers.  More than 100 First Responders have testified that they experienced a large number of explosions inside the towers, including a massive explosion in the sub-basement prior to the time the airliners are said to have hit the tower.  Numerous military and civilian pilots have said that the flight maneuvers involved in the WTC and Pentagon attacks are beyond their skills and most certainly beyond the skills of the alleged hijackers.  Wreckage of the airliners is surprisingly missing from impact sites.  And so on and so on. That Building 7 was a controlled demolition is no longer disputable. 

On the basis of the known evidence, knowledgeable and informed people have concluded that 9/11 was an inside job organized by Vice President Dick Cheney, his stable of neoconservatives, and Israel for the purpose of reconstructing the Middle East in Israel’s interest and enriching the US military/security complex in the process.

Most people are unaware of Robert Mueller’s role as FBI Director in protecting the official 9/11 story from the evidence.  Paul Sperry reports in the New York Post the many actions Mueller took as FBI director to hide the facts from Congress and the public.  https://nypost.com/2019/09/07/robert-mueller-helped-saudi-arabia-cover-up-its-role-in-9-11-attacks-suit/?utm_source=facebook_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site+buttons&utm_campaign=site+buttons 

Patrick Pasin, a French author, provides additional evidence of Mueller’s misuse of his office to protect an official lie. An English language translation of Pasin’s book, The FBI Accomplice of 9/11, has been published by Talma Studios in Dublin, Ireland.  https://www.amazon.com/FBI-Accomplice-11-Documents-ebook/dp/B07TRXKNG2/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Patrick+Pasin&qid=1567967650&s=books&sr=1-1 

Pasin’s book consists of his organization of the known evidence, which has been suppressed in order to perpetrate a false story of 9/11, into a compelling account of how a false flag attack was protected from exposure.  He details the plan “through which the FBI tried to prove the government conspiracy narrative—no matter the cost.”  Keep in mind that Mueller is the one that the Deep State set on President Trump.  Dirty business is Mueller’s business.

Pasin collects the evidence and weaves it into a compelling story.  It is all there.  The insider trading in advance of the airliner hijackings, the impossibility of cell phone calls from airliners in 2001, the anthrax letters sent to senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy which paved the way for the PATRIOT Act, the effort to blame American military scientists for the letters once it emerged that the anthrax was unique to a US military lab, the total implausibility of finding an undamaged passport in the rubble of the twin towers where fires allegedly were so hot that they melted steel.  

It is extraordinary that anyone could have believed a word of this.  Try to imagine such intense heat as to melt steel but not enough to burn a passport!

Pasin’s book is easy to read.  He just lays it out, revealing falsification after falsification, lie after lie.  The obviously false story is fed to the world, and the experts who expose it as false are called “conspiracy theorists” by people too stupid and uninformed to carry their books.

This is America in the 21st century, and apparently the rest of the world’s population is not any brighter.

In 3 days it will be the 18th anniversary of 9/11.  What have we learned in these 18 years?  We have learned that thousands of experts with hard evidence cannot prevail over a transparent official lie.

Canada: Justin Trudeau’s government goes ka-boom

Source

http://www.aljazeera.com

by Andrew Mitrovica

Aug 16, 2019

 

A scathing report on Trudeau’s handling of a corruption inquiry shredded his credibility and chances for re-election.

Canada’s ethics commissioner said PM Trudeau improperly pressured a former attorney general to halt the criminal prosecution of a company August 14, 2019 [Andrej Ivanov/Reuters]

I owe Canada’s Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion an apology.

Earlier this year, I wrote a column referring to his office as “moribund,” and anticipating that Dion would likely investigate the ethics scandal then devouring Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his equally powerful inner orbit of insolent advisers with the “tenacity of a chihuahua”.

That scandal – dubbed, the SNC-Lavalin affair – had the necessary ingredients of a cause celebre that could go ka-boom: a big, Quebec-based and historically well-connected engineering and construction company; tawdry allegations of bribery to win lucrative overseas contracts, pending criminal charges; and a lone federal minister, rebuffing, again and again, the PM and his emissaries who desperately wanted the whole, potentially combustible “problem” to be buried behind an expedient legal tactic.

So, when two opposition Members of Parliament asked the Liberal government’s hand-picked ethics commissioner to probe the prickly matter, I assumed Dion would repay his patron’s, no doubt, certain faith in him by doing his best to ensure that the SNC-Lavalin imbroglio didn’t go ka-boom on the eve of a federal election that polls show is a toss-up.

I was wrong. So, Mr Dion, I apologise.

Turns out, the ethics commissioner is not a chihuahua, but a piranha. On Wednesday, Dion shredded Trudeau’s credibility, integrity and quite possibly his chances of being re-elected in October. Ka-boom, indeed.

In his scathing verdict, Dion found that Trudeau – working hand-in-glove with SNC Lavalin – had not only broken conflict of interest rules, but, in effect, the prime minister had treated the rule of law as a trivial, irritating obstacle while he and his unelected accomplices at the apex of authority in Ottawa repeatedly (and unsuccessfully) pressured former Attorney General and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to make damn sure SNC-Lavalin did not face an embarrassing and possibly crippling criminal trial.

“The evidence showed there were many ways in which Mr. Trudeau, either directly or through the actions of those under his direction, sought to influence the attorney general,” Dion wrote in his report. “The prime minister, directly and through his senior officials, used various means to exert influence over Ms. Wilson-Raybould. The authority of the prime minister and his office was used to circumvent, undermine and ultimately attempt to discredit … the authority of Ms. Wilson‑Raybould as the Crown’s chief law officer.”

Dion also took particular aim at Trudeau’s “troubling” role in “directing his staff to find a solution that would safeguard SNC-Lavalin’s business interests in Canada”.

• “I have no doubt,” Dion concluded, “that the result of Mr. Trudeau’s influence would have furthered SNC-Lavalin’s interests. The actions that sought to further these interests were improper since the actions were contrary to the constitutional principles of prosecutorial independence and the rule of law.”

I had to re-read those astonishing excerpts several times to appreciate the profound implications of their meaning.

First, Trudeau, his office and large swaths of the Government of Canada had acted essentially as a subsidiary of SNC-Lavalin.

As a result, Trudeau and company played a central role in an orchestrated campaign to: 1. Protect SNC-Lavalin’s commercial interests at all costs to “save jobs”. 2. Badger Canada’s “chief law officer” relentlessly, and, in so doing, defile the supposedly sacrosanct notions of judicial independence and constitutionally protected due process.

And when their brazen gambit failed, Trudeau and his eager associates tried to “discredit” – a polite euphemism for smear, I suspect – Wilson-Raybould after she said no to their parochial, politically motivated entreaties.

Anyone in Canada with keen, non-partisan synapses understood all this to be apparent long before Dion delivered his damning indictment.

But to his honourable credit, Dion methodically gathered the evidence – as best he could – and told Canadians, using plain, direct language that the prime minister who hired him had broken the law and the justice minister who refused to appease the boss on principle had done her “due diligence” in defence of the rule of law.

In my maiden column for Al Jazeera more than three years ago, I wrote that despite starry-eyed corporate media coverage, international audiences should not be fooled by Trudeau’s youthful exuberance, telegenic charm and so-called progressive credentials.

Behind the deliberately manufactured facade, was an obdurate political operator who remained fixed to the old, corrosive ways and means of governing – domestically and internationally.

With his formidable imprimatur, Dion’s exhaustive exhumation of Trudeau’s dark modus operandi has provided, I believe, much ammunition to prove that column’s central point.

Even Trudeau’s predictable, bromide-laced response to Dion’s evisceration of him is further evidence of how he goes about recycling the same, tired responses of so many other politicians who have had their private natures and shenanigans exposed.

“I take full responsibility. The buck stops with the prime minister,” Trudeau said. “I, obviously, take the ethics commissioner’s report very seriously. We will make sure that this never happens again under any government in this country.”

My goodness, how many times have you heard that comical, banal pledge made by a rogue’s gallery of presidents and prime ministers?

Here’s another instructive query.

How many times have you heard sanctimonious politicians – like Trudeau – lecture the “developing world” about how “liberal” democracies like Canada are the model of probity and “good” governance that it ought to emulate?

That is, of course, a rhetorical question.

In any event, there have been the perfunctory calls for Trudeau to resign. That is not going to happen. Trudeau will not apologise, let alone step down.

More astute observers recognise that Dion’s report should be considered another chapter in the unfolding story, not the end of it.

Canada’s top civil servant – the Clerk of the Privy Council – Ian Shugart, denied Dion access to all cabinet documents connected to Trudeau’s conduct throughout the SNC-Lavalin affair. That means the entire, sordid story has not been told.

I hope the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) stirs from its institutional somnolence to read Dion’s expose and demands in court, if need be, to see that paper trail Shugart prevented Dion from examining. That may lead Canada’s federal police – if it is inclined – to make further inquiries that could lead to some uncomfortable places for Trudeau et al.

Still, while I mistakenly suggested that the Ethics Commissioner’s office was “moribund,” I can confidently predict the Mounties will not press to see those secret cabinet records or ask any questions that might make Trudeau et al uneasy.

I would, however, welcome the opportunity to apologise again.    

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance. 

---

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Andrew Mitrovica

Andrew Mitrovica is an award-winning investigative reporter and journalism instructor.

Complete List Of Clinton Associates Who Allegedly Died Mysteriously Or Committed Suicide Before Testimony

The Clinton name will be forever synonymous with pedophilia and Satanism.

“Clinton made at least 27 times trips on Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane. Most of those flights were with underage girls.”

Source

http://www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Jim Hoft via GatewayPundit.com,

Sun, 08/11/2019

 

On Saturday multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein, the highest-profile prisoner in US custody, was found dead in his prison cell in Manhattan.

This occurred the day after two thousand previously sealed court documents involving the Jeffrey Epstein child sex abuse case were released to the public.

The documents described how Bill Clinton held a private party on Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophile island.

Clinton made at least 27 times trips on Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane. Most of those flights were with underage girls.

Despite a previous attempt on his life just three weeks ago the prison guards skipped the 30 minute required checks on Epstein’s cell last night.

Early yesterday morning they found him dead.

Jeffrey Epstein is the latest in a long list of Clinton family associates and acquaintances who died mysteriously or committed suicide before their public testimony.

In 2016 CBS Las Vegas posted a list of Bill and Hillary Clinton associates alleged to have died under mysterious circumstances.

Here is that list.

1- James McDougal – Clintons convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr’s investigation.

2 – Mary Mahoney – A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown .. The murder …happened just after she was to go public w:th her story of sexual harassment in the White House.

3 – Vince Foster – Former White House counselor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock’s Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.

4 – Ron Brown – Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown’s skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on the plane also died. A few days later the Air Traffic controller commited suicide.

5 – C. Victor Raiser, II – Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.

6 – Paul Tulley – Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock , September 1992. Described by Clinton as a “dear friend and trusted advisor”.

7 – Ed Willey – Clinton fundraiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.

8 – Jerry Parks – Head of Clinton’s gubernatorial security team in Little Rock .. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock Park’s son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.

9 – James Bunch – Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a “Black Book” of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas

10 – James Wilson – Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater..

11 – Kathy Ferguson – Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.

12 – Bill Shelton – Arkansas State Trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancee, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancee.

13 – Gandy Baugh – Attorney for Clinton’s friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.

14 – Florence Martin – Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal, Mena, Arkansas, airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.

15 – Suzanne Coleman – Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.

16 – Paula Grober – Clinton’s speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.
17 – Danny Casolaro – Investigative reporter, investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.

18 – Paul Wilcher – Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 “October Surprise” was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993, in his Washington DC apartment had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death.

19 – Jon Parnell Walker – Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington ,Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guaranty scandal.

20 – Barbara Wise – Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death: Unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, naked body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.

21 – Charles Meissner – Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.

22 – Dr. Stanley Heard – Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton ‘s advisory council personally treated Clinton’s mother, stepfather and brother.

23 – Barry Seal – Drug running TWA pilot out of Mena Arkansas, death was no accident.

24 – Johnny Lawhorn, Jr. – Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.

25 – Stanley Huggins – Investigated Madison Guaranty. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.

26 – Hershell Friday – Attorney and Clinton fundraiser died March 1, 1994, when his plane exploded.

27 – Kevin Ives & Don Henry – Known as “The boys on the track” case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the 2 boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.

THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:

28 – Keith Coney – Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, 7/88.

29 – Keith McMaskle – Died, stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988

30 – Gregory Collins – Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.

31 – Jeff Rhodes – He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.

32 – James Milan – Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to natural causes”.

34 – Richard Winters – A suspect in the Ives/Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.

THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE ALSO DEAD

35 – Major William S. Barkley, Jr.

36 – Captain Scott J . Reynolds

37 – Sgt. Brian Hanley

38 – Sgt. Tim Sabel

39 – Major General William Robertson

40 – Col. William Densberger

41 – Col. Robert Kelly

42 – Spec. Gary Rhodes

43 – Steve Willis

44 – Robert Williams

45 – Conway LeBleu

46 – Todd McKeehan

And the most recent, Seth Rich, the DC staffer murdered and “robbed” (of nothing) on July 10. Wikileaks founder Assange claims he had info on the DNC email scandal.

Not Included in this list are the 4 heroes killed in Benghazi.

And now you can add multi-millionaire Jeffrey Epstein to the list…

US ‘Democracy’ – A Spectacle of War Party

US ‘Democracy’ – A Spectacle of War Party

Source

http://www.strategic-culture.org

August 2, 2019

With over 20 Democratic party candidates vying for the US presidential election in 2020, there appears to be an abundance of choice from a glance at the mere number of contenders. But the superficial optics are far from “2020 vision”.

Unfortunately, lamentably, on crucial foreign policy concerning militarism, war and peace, and on relations towards Russia and China, there seems little difference between the crowded field. The single notable exception, so far at least, is the Hawaiian congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.

As our columnists Philip Giraldi and Tom Luongo have both separately assessed in recent commentaries for SCF, Gabbard appears to be the only genuine anti-war candidate.

Gabbard, a veteran soldier who served in Iraq, has trenchantly criticized America’s overseas militarism and covert wars for regime change. She has also clearly called for an end to Cold War-style hostility towards Russia, and for better bilateral relations.

In some ways, Gabbard is an echo of Donald Trump when he was running for the 2016 presidency as the Republican candidate. Trump back then condemned US foreign wars and proffered developing normal relations with Russia. Since then, however, Trump has failed miserably to end Washington’s militarism. Indeed he has emerged as an even bigger militarist than previous presidents, boosting the Pentagon’s already gargantuan budget, and embarking on a policy of reckless aggression towards Iran.

In regard to Russia, Trump has expressed wanting friendly relations with Moscow. Nevertheless, he has not scaled back on NATO’s provocative build-up along Russia’s borders; his administration continues to sanction Moscow over spurious claims, including on the matter of gas energy trade with Europe; and, to cap it all, this week the US has officially ended its adherence to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear (INF) Treaty. The US termination of the INF raises the specter of a new arms race with Russia and gravely undermines global peace and security. It was President Trump who personally pushed ending the INF by citing baseless claims of Russia violating the treaty.

In short, Trump is no friend of Russia and his past electoral promises of challenging the US status quo on malign foreign policy have turned out to be pathetic empty rhetoric.

It remains to be seen whether Tulsi Gabbard advances to the nomination as Democrat candidate for the presidency. And whether she retains her commitment to fundamentally change US foreign policy on matters of militarism, war and peace and in particular on creating a real reset in relations with Russia.

As both of our columnists cited above have appraised, the US mainstream corporate-controlled media and Washington political establishment have embarked on a systematic and scurrilous campaign to smear Gabbard as “soft on Russia” and a “Kremlin stooge”. The same smear campaign, of course, has been a non-stop effort to politically eviscerate Trump since he entered the White House more than two years ago. He appears to have conformed to the pressure by self-censoring and suppressing his erstwhile promise to restore relations with Russia.

That brings us back to the other 20 or so Democrat candidates. Virtually all of them conform to the giant media hoax (“psyops”) known as “Russiagate” which bombarded the US public with specious allegations of Russian “interference in American democracy”.

Democrat front-runners Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are proponents of this nonsense. So too are supposed “radical left” candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. A handy compilation of all the candidates’ stated views on Russia as “an enemy” and their denigration of President Vladimir Putin as a “dictator” illustrate the execrable poverty of independent, intelligent thinking among America’s political class. These “opponents” are supposed to be offering American voters a change from Trump. Admittedly, Trump has scoffed at the whole Russiagate claims as “fake news” – and he is right to do that. But what has Trump actually done to pursue normal relations with Moscow? Very little.

All the Democrat candidates – with the honorable exception of Gabbard – are on record for harboring, to varying degrees, Cold War-style ideology of depicting Russia as an enemy or adversary. They have used this baleful and offensive view of Russia as a way to attack Trump. Instead of challenging Trump on his dubious economic policies favoring the wealthy and big corporations, the Democrats have used a futile and destructive tactic of trying to paint Trump has a “Kremlin agent”. Such thinking has only consolidated ever-more hostile US relations with Russia, which has culminated this week in the deplorable collapse of the INF Treaty.

As well as supporting the status quo of obscene US military spending and militarism generally, the so-called political opposition to Trump demonstrate with crystal clarity that there is only one party in the US – the War Party.

Republicans and Democrats are in reality two sides of the same coin that promotes oligarchy and imperialistic wars. That conformity of thinking even among so-called “radical left” candidates is a repugnant reflection on the degraded state of US politics and democracy.

Americans Don’t Trust the Govt, the Media, or Each Other: Fading Trust is “Sign of Cultural Sickness and National Decline”

“About two-thirds (69%) of Americans say the federal government intentionally withholds important information from the public that it could safely release, and 61% say the news media intentionally ignores stories that are important to the public.”

Source

http://www.theorganicprepper.com

By Dagny Taggart

July 23, 2019

Americans are losing trust in each other, in the government, and in the media, according to a concerning new survey.

Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that conducts public opinion polls and social science research and informs the public about issues, attitudes, and trends shaping the world. The organization recently published a new report called Trust and Distrust in America, which reveals that Americans think declining trust in the government and in each other is making it harder to solve important problems.

Confidence in the government and in each other is shrinking.

“Two-thirds of adults think other Americans have little or no confidence in the federal government. Majorities believe the public’s confidence in the U.S. government and in each other is shrinking, and most believe a shortage of trust in government and in other citizens makes it harder to solve some of the nation’s key problems,” the report states.

Many Americans think it is necessary to clean up the “trust environment”: 68% say it is very important to repair the public’s level of confidence in the federal government, and 58% say the same about improving confidence in fellow Americans.

Source: Pew Research Center

There are several reasons for the decline in trust.

Diminishing trust is viewed by some as a sign of cultural sickness and national decline. Others believe it is linked to what they perceive to be increased loneliness and excessive individualism.

Those who think interpersonal trust has declined in the past generation offer a laundry list of societal and political problems, including a sense that Americans on the whole have become more lazy, greedy and dishonest. Some respondents make a connection between what they think is poor government performance – especially gridlock in Washington – and the toll it has taken on their fellow citizens’ hearts. (source)

Overall, 49% of adults think interpersonal trust has been tailing off because people are less reliable than they used to be.

In a comment typical of the views expressed by many people of different political leanings, ages, and educational backgrounds, one participant in a new Pew Research Center survey said: “Many people no longer think the federal government can actually be a force for good or change in their lives. This kind of apathy and disengagement will lead to an even worse and less representative government.” Another addressed the issue of fading interpersonal trust: “As a democracy founded on the principle of E Pluribus Unum, the fact that we are divided and can’t trust sound facts means we have lost our confidence in each other.” (source)

Levels of personal trust tend to be linked with people’s broader views on institutions and civic life. Those who are less trusting in the interpersonal sphere also tend to be less trusting of institutions, less sure their fellow citizens will act in ways that are good for civic life, and less confident that trust levels can rise in the future:

For instance, high trusters often have significantly more positive views about their fellow Americans’ civic and political behaviors than do medium or low trusters. The gaps are particularly striking when it comes to how much confidence high trusters and low trusters express in Americans’ willingness to treat others with respect (54 percentage point gap between the high and low trust groups), respect the rights of people who are not like them (48 points), do what they can to help others in need and obey federal and state laws (both have 45-point gaps), accept election results regardless of who wins (43 points) and honestly report their full income when paying taxes (38 points). (source)

Public confidence in the government is at historic lows.

Trust in government has been declining for decades, and for good reasons, according to the report:

Long-running surveys show that public confidence in the government fell precipitously in the 1960s and ’70s, recovered somewhat in the ’80s and early 2000s, and is near historic lows today.

By and large, Americans think the current low level of trust in government is justified. Just one-in-four (24%) say the federal government deserves more public confidence than it gets, while 75% say that it does not deserve any more public confidence than it gets. Similarly, among U.S. adults who perceive that confidence in each other has dropped, many think there is good reason for it: More than twice as many say Americans have lost confidence in each other “because people are not as reliable as they used to be” (49% support that statement) than take the opposite view, saying Americans have lost confidence in each other “even though people are as reliable as they have always been” (21% say that). (source)

The rise of independent news sources like Wikileaks that are not afraid to dump truth out there for all to see – exposing widespread government corruption in the process – has no doubt led to the diminishing trust in government.

The majority believes that officials and the media withhold information.

Confidence in institutions is associated with how those institutions handle and share important information with the public. People’s confidence in key institutions is associated with their views about the transparency of institutions.  Those who hold those skeptical views are more likely than others to have greater concerns about the state of trust.

About two-thirds (69%) of Americans say the federal government intentionally withholds important information from the public that it could safely release, and 61% say the news media intentionally ignores stories that are important to the public.

In addition, many say it is becoming more difficult to tell fact from fiction:

Significant shares also assert they face challenges separating the truth from false information when they are listening to elected officials and using social media. Some 64% say it is hard to tell the difference between what is true and not true when they hear elected officials; 48% say the same thing about information they encounter on social media. (source)

In this era of rampant mainstream media “fake news” and the government’s long history of orchestrating false flags, it is no surprise many Americans do not trust either institution. Attempts to censor alternative media outlets are not exactly helping to build trust, either. Mainstream news outlets are often quick to report on events, often sensationalizing them, facts be damned. Remember when the MSM twisted the Covington Catholic story, essentially putting a target on the back of a teenaged boy? The MSM also has a tendency to sugar-coat important events, including glossing over details surrounding extremist attacks. There are countless examples of the media’s manipulation of details in order to fit a certain narrative. Often, it seems that the media is deliberately trying to incite civil war (that would be great for their ratings, right?).

While some level of trust is important to society, it has downsides.

The report explains that while social trust “is seen as a virtue and a societal bonding agent, too much trust can be a serious liability. Indiscriminate trusters can be victimized in any number of ways, so wariness and doubt have their place in a well-functioning community.”

As preppers know, the risk of widespread civil unrest becoming reality in the near future is increasing. “Uncivil behavior isn’t just widely accepted – it’s praised and cheered on. Hatred of one another is becoming the norm and this is how civil wars begin,” Daisy Luther warned us last year.

While it is wise to be careful about who you allow in your circle, distrust can be taken to the extreme. Finding a small group of like-minded people to collaborate with isn’t a bad idea. But because it can be difficult to know whom you can really trust these days, becoming as self-reliant as possible is crucial.

People link declining trust with other major problems they see.

On a grand scale of national issues, trust-related issues are not near the top of the list of Americans’ concerns. However, people do link declining trust as a factor that impacts other issues they do consider important:

For example, in their open-ended written answers to questions, numbers of Americans say they think there are direct connections between rising distrust and other trends they perceived as major problems, such as partisan paralysis in government, the outsize influence of lobbyists and moneyed interests, confusion arising from made-up news and information, declining ethics in government, the intractability of immigration and climate debates, rising health care costs and a widening gap between the rich and the poor.

Many of the answers in the open-ended written responses reflect judgments similar to this one from a 38-year-old man: “Trust is the glue that binds humans together. Without it, we cooperate with one another less, and variables in our overall quality of life are affected (e.g., health and life satisfaction).” (source)

Most people believe it is possible to regain trust.

The majority of Americans think that trust can be restored and that it is possible to improve the level of confidence people have in the government and each other:

More than eight-in-ten Americans (84%) believe it is possible to improve the level of confidence people have in the government.

Their written responses about how to make headway on trust problems urge a variety of political reforms, starting with more disclosure of what the government is doing, as well as term limits and restrictions on the role of money in politics. Some 15% of those who answered this question point to a need for better political leadership, including greater honesty and cooperation among those in the political class.

Similarly, 86% believe it is possible to improve peoples’ confidence in each other. They say local communities can be laboratories for trust-building as a way to confront partisan tensions and overcome tribal divisions. Some also make the case that better leaders could inspire greater trust between individuals. Others suggest that a different approach to news reporting – one that emphasizes the ways people cooperate to solve problems – would have a tonic effect. (source)

To read Pew Research Center’s full report, click here: Trust and Distrust in America

About the Author

Dagny Taggart

Dagny Taggart is the pseudonym of an experienced journalist who needs to maintain anonymity to keep her job in the public eye. Dagny is non-partisan and aims to expose the half-truths, misrepresentations, and blatant lies of the MSM.

The Johnson Doctrine: The World According to Britain’s New Prime Minister

© AP Photo / Virginia Mayo

Source

sputniknews.com

July 23, 2019

As a former Foreign Secretary and vocal commentator on global affairs, the new British Prime Minister brings to Number 10 Downing Street a set of staunch positions on a number of the most pressing issues in contemporary international relations, from war and peace in the Middle East to climate change.

On the watch of now former-Prime Minister, Theresa May, the UK has largely been absent from international affairs, outside of its perpetual mud-wrestling with the European Union over the fate of Brexit. However, the new guy in Downing Street, Boris Johnson, has pledged to change that.

Although it’s not yet certain whether Mr Johnson is as well-versed in the methods of African dance as Miss May, his unwavering position on Brexit is widely known: that the UK will be leaving the EU by the deadline of October 31st, with or without a deal. It is that dogged determination and certainty that has, in part, accumulated him so much popularity among Brexit supporters.

Yet, beyond the realms of Brussels, what are Boris Johnson’s positions on today’s major international issues?

Iran

Prime Minister Johnson must commandeer the UK foreign policy ship at a time when London faces something of an international crisis in the Gulf. On Friday, July 19, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps captured a British-flagged oil tanker for “security reasons” after Britain recently impounded an Iranian tanker in Gibraltar for purportedly violating EU sanctions on Syria.

Reportedly, doubts exist in the UK foreign policy establishment as to whether Johnson and his team have the mettle to manage the crisis effectively. Some point to what was widely perceived as a major diplomatic gaffe made during his tenure as foreign secretary in which he said that a British-Iranian woman detained in Iran, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, had been teaching people journalism in the country, a statement that Miss Ratcliffe’s family have said was false and worsened her plight. While in 2017 Johnson did travel to Iran to lobby his Iranian counterpart for Miss Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release, he returned home empty-handed.

The new PM also said in a recent interview with Jewish News that he is ready and prepared to restart sanctions against Iran over its recent uranium enrichment breaches of the 2015 nuclear deal. Yet, he has also come out in favour of the deal, saying in 2018 that, “of all the options we have for ensuring that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon, this pact offers the fewest disadvantages.”

Somewhat echoing the Trump administration, during his time as Foreign Secretary, Johnson also criticised Iran for, in his words, its policy of perusing “proxy warfare” in the Middle East.

Israel-Palestine

Friends of Israel are likely to cheer at the spectacle of Boris Johnson’s ascendance to Number 10.

During his time at Oxford University, the new Prime Minister spent a summer working on an Israeli Kibbutz, where, by his own admission, he spent a great deal of time “Washing dishes.”

Although he once reportedly described the 1917 Balfour Declaration as “bizarre” and “tragicomically incoherent,” he has pursued a line of almost unwavering support for the state of Israel, saying that its establishment in 1948 was a “historic event, which led to a giant political fact.”

Along with his Muslim heritage, Johnson also has Jewish ancestry too – his maternal great-grandfather was a rabbi from Lithuania.

In terms of forging peace, Mr Johnson has, at least publicly, endorsed the two-state solution by writing that, “for Israel, the birth of a Palestinian state is the only way to secure its demographic future as a Jewish and democratic state. For Palestinians, a state of their own would allow them to realise their aspirations for self-determination and government.”

Climate Change

Back in April of this year, Boris branded Extinction Rebellion protestors as “smug, irritating and disruptive” and added that he is “utterly fed up” with suggestions that their opinions “are more important than my own.”

Speaking during the midst of climate change protests that brought the British capital to a standstill, Johnson said that, “I don’t want some double-barrelled activist telling me that air travel is only to be used in emergencies – when his own Instagram account contains pictures of his recent skiing holiday.”

In terms of policy, Mr Johnson has voted against measures to prevent climate change, including a carbon reduction target for the UK that was presented to parliament in 2016.

Yet, despite those seemingly hostile positions, Mr Johnson has also said that he is sympathetic to the climate change cause, but has told activists to go and “lecture” to China about it instead.

Transatlantic Relations

Prime Minister Johnson, a staunch Atlanticist who has consistently heaped praise upon President Trump, has pledged to repair US-UK relations following the recent publication of a leaked cable in which London’s now former ambassador to Washington, Kim Darroch, described Trump’s White House as “inept” and “dysfunctional.” Mr Darroch resigned soon after.

Johnson has also already made it a hallmark of his tenure to strike up a tantalising post-Brexit trade deal with the US, despite the fact that reports suggest talks on such an agreement have hit a rough patch.

Although he has grand designs for the future of transatlantic relations, Mr Johnson’s opinions haven’t always been welcomed in Washington with open arms. Back in 2016, he suggested that then-President Barack Obama’s lukewarm attitude toward Britain was based on his “part-Kenyan” heritage and thus an “ancestral dislike of the British empire.” Needless to say, this comment didn’t earn him too many friends within and among the Obama administration.

Dave Collum Goes Deep On “Conspiracy Theories”: 9/11, Epstein, Pizzagate, JFK, and The Vegas Shooting

Source

http://www.zerohedge.com

Sun, 07/21/2019

Cornell professor and long-time Zero Hedge friend, David Collum recently appeared on an episode of the Quoth the Raven podcast to talk all things conspiracy. Collum is an economic commentator, chemist, Betty R. Miller Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Cornell University and is known for writing his “Year in Review”, which appears here on Zerohedge at the end of every year.

On the episode, host Chris Irons notes that Collum’s appearance was prompted by a recent Tweet he put out, in defense of being a conspiracy theorist which sparked a massive social media response and outpouring of reactions, both pro and con.

Dave Collum@DavidBCollum

I am a “conspiracy theorist”. I believe men and women of wealth and power conspire. If you don’t think so, then you are what is called “an idiot”. If you believe stuff but fear the label, you are what is called “a coward”.

5:14 PM – Jul 18, 2019

On the podcast, Collum and host Chris Irons tap into every major conspiracy theory over the last couple of decades, as well as several current events and the world of finance.

Some highlights:

Collum Thinks Jeffrey Epstein Could Have Been Working For “Powerful People” And “Setting People Up”

The discussion starts with analysis of the current Jeffrey Epstein fiasco and Collum ponders what “can of worms” could open for Bill Clinton and Donald Trump as a result of Epstein going to trial and documents relating to his indictment coming to light.

“It’s going to be bi-partisan,” Collum says about the Epstein allegations. “Epstein was working for powerful people, to get dirt on powerful people. Epstein wasn’t just a dirtball, he was setting people up,” he continues.

Collum comments:

“Nowadays getting photographed on a boat with a blonde sitting on your lap doesn’t even cause you to lose a vote. Now they gotta get you with something much dirtier. I think that’s where the underage kids come in. I think Epstein has been building a portfolio of dirt, like J. Edgar Hoover.”

“What if that crazy ass pizzagate conspiracy turns out to be true?” he asks.

* * *

Collum Doesn’t Buy The 9/11 Narrative – “Physics Tells Me There’s Problems”

Collum then discusses why he doesn’t believe the mainstream narrative behind the 9/11 attacks. He cites physics, Building 7 and the lack of video footage of the plane crashing into the Pentagon as two of the big reasons that he questions the official story.

“I think there’s problems with 9/11, but no one wants to say that because they’re embarrassed to say that. But the laws of physics tell me there’s problems. I don’t give a shit about the squibs or Larry Silverstein saying they decided to pull the building. When I watch two towers come down perfectly and I go ‘chaos theory alone says they should have gone asymmetric and stopped tumbling’…”

Collum continues:

“”I can’t believe Building 7 should have fallen. There’s really not a shred of footage of the plane hitting the pentagon. Not one frame. The official frame isn’t a frame. If someone’s got the footage, let me see it.”

* * *

Collum Doesn’t Believe the Las Vegas Shooter Story – “There Were People Saying ‘You’re All Going To Die'”

Dave also weighs in at length on the Las Vegas shooting, questioning with the host why a motive was never found, how somebody could get rich playing video poker as the shooter was alleged to have, whether or not there were character actors on the news after the event and what happened to the security guard who was involved and only gave one quick interview on the Ellen show before “relocating” to Mexico.

“There’s about 150 things that just don’t add up,” Collum says about the Steven Paddock Las Vegas narrative.

He speaks about the security guard from the day of the shooting:

“You got Jesus the security guard. He gets shot in the f*cking leg then all of a sudden goes off the radar. Then he disappears and the word is that he’s gone to Mexico. The explanation is that he had a vacation planned. Then he comes back with a cane and comes back – and does one interview with Ellen Degeneres.”

Collum also talks about other mysterious occurrences from the day of the shooting:

“There were people saying there was a couple walking around the infield saying ‘You’re all going to die in 45 minutes’ – and then they got escorted out. And then, ‘boom boom boom’, a lot of them died!”

Collum and the host also take a little bit of time talking about JFK, the moon landings, negative interest rates and the effect of Central Bank policy on the global economy.

You can subscribe to future episodes of the QTR podcast on YouTube here and on iTunes here.