COLLAPSE of Democrat-run cities now imminent as TRUCKERS say they will refuse delivering to cities with de-funded police

Saturday, June 13, 2020 by: 

Interesting perspective!

(Natural News) God bless the truckers! News is breaking today that nearly 4 out of 5 truckers across America will refuse to make deliveries to cities where Democrats have de-funded or abolished the police.

Truckers are the lifelines to cities, bringing food, fuel, medicine and other essential items into cities (which are artificial constructs that depend on imports just to survive). Sadly, truckers get little credit for their crucial role in keeping society running, and truckers put their lives at risk when they roll into Democrat-run cities that are collapsing into Black Lives Matter chaos and terrorism. (BLM is now understood to mean Burn, Loot and Murder.)

The mad violence, looting and “reparations” demands of lunatic Left-wing terrorist groups means that trucks full of supplies are among the high-risk targets. Truck drivers aren’t fools, and they are increasingly deciding to avoid carrying loads into cities where anarchy-oriented Leftists / Democrats are de-funding or abolishing police.

Just yesterday, the city council of Minneapolis voted to completely disband the police department. Once implemented, this will plunge Minneapolis into a third world scenario of lawlessness and total chaos, perhaps making Ilhan Omar feel right at home as she successfully brings the lawlessness of her home country to America. (Fact: Minneapolis, with an enormous number of immigrants from Somalia, is now the No. 1 radical Islamic terrorism recruitment city in America.)

77% of truckers say they will refuse to deliver to cities where police are de-funded

“Truck driving is historically ranked as one of the most dangerous jobs in the country. In 2018, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic reported truck driving as the most deadly job in the country,” writes CDLlife.com, a site dedicated to commercial trucking.

“Truck drivers have spent the last year on the front line of a global pandemic and protests. Now many are fearful of what might happen if police departs disband or are defunded.”

CDL Life, which has a mobile app, ran a poll that asked commercial truck drivers if they would deliver loads to cities where police departments have been de-funded or abolished. So far, 77% of respondents said they would refuse to deliver loads to such cities.

As CDLlife.com explains, some of the responses from truckers include:

– I will not deliver to an area with a disbanded police department. My life matter and I do this for my family. We are already at the mercy of these towns and cities with laws and hate against us for parking, getting a meal or even using a restroom.

– For my own safety and security of my customers’ loads, I have already informed my dispatcher that I will refuse all loads to cities that have defunded their police departments.

– …if something was to happen and you have to take matters into your own hands, and then you risk being prosecuted for protecting yourself.

As I wrote in January of this year in an important story that warned about a “super supply chain crisis” hitting America’s cities:

Radical left-wing domestic terrorism groups such as Antifa routinely stage physical assaults on Trump supporters across America, using deadly weapons and mob violence to commit acts of intimidation against their political opponents. The idea that these radical left-wing groups might quickly escalate their tactics into city-wide chaos, murder and mayhem is no stretch of the imagination. This seems to be their plan.

Yes, I wrote that in January. So don’t believe those who say, “Nobody saw this coming.” We saw this coming!

Without truck loads full of goods, every city collapses into total chaos within 96 hours

By de-funding or abolishing police, radical left-wing Democrats (“DEMONcrats”) are deliberately pushing their own cities toward collapse and chaos so they can then blame Trump for all the problems they caused themselves.

Every city in America collapses into chaos inside of 96 hours if the trucks stop rolling. Grocery stores, for example, only stock enough food for about 2-3 days of normal grocery shopping. Once the deliveries cease, the sudden increase in purchasing from the locals will wipe out grocery store shelves in less than 24 hours.

If you thought the George Floyd riots were bad, that was just a tiny taste of what you’ll see once deliveries of food, fuel, medicine and consumer goods are halted.

It also begs the question: Who will be stupid enough to drive trucks full of goods into left-wing cities that have collapsed into chaos and “warlord” autonomous zones where police are banned?

Nobody, of course.

Perhaps the city council members who voted to abolish the police can try to find an available rig and deliver a few truckloads of products themselves, but it won’t be enough. Cities need a steady supply of large volumes of trucks to restock the shelves at grocery stores and big box stores like Home Depot and Lowe’s. Imagine the total panic when cities like Los Angeles run out of toilet paper and frozen burritos.

And with Walmart now donating $100 million to left-wing terrorism-linked groups, it seems that even corporate America is so stupid that they will empower the very terrorists who are going to destroy the cities and gut their own retail stores (which will be mercilessly looted).

Behold your new liberal “utopia” depicted in this video, as looters ransack the local Target store. This is what’s coming to every city in America that’s run by terror-supporting democrats:

Here’s another scene of what you can look forward to if you live in a city run by Democrats, a political party that now overtly supports left-wing terrorists, anarchy and lawlessness:

And here’s a scene from the Oakland riots from a few years ago, when looters ransacked a truck and set fire to buses. This is just a small taste of what’s to come across America’s democrat-run cities:

This underscores the critical urgency of getting out of the cities while you still can

By destroying the rule of law, Democrats are making their cities unsafe for the execution of basic functions (such as commercial deliveries) upon which the citizens rely for basic survival. A city without police protection, run by left-wing warlords and Black Lives Matter terrorist gangs, is a city that cannot function. Yet this is exactly what Democrats are doing quite deliberately, including the Mayor of Seattle and the Governor of Washington, both of whom are actively supporting rogue left-wing terrorist cells that have already seized six city blocks of downtown Seattle and declared themselves to be a new sovereign nation.

The critical takeaway from this is that every person living in a U.S. city needs to double down on their efforts to bug out from those cities as quickly as possible. This is not a temporary weekend getaway; it needs to be a permanent relocation out of the cities and into a low-density rural area. The cities are rapidly collapsing into a level of lawnessless that will soon lead to a collapse of food supplies. And once that happens, everything descends into chaos and gang warfare. The police will be unable to protect you. Heck, they can’t protect you now.

Democrat city “leaders,” if you can even call them that, have already proven that they will side with left-wing terrorists rather than protect their own citizens. Even though Americans who live in cities are paying sky-high property taxes that are supposed to provide services such as a 911 police response, the police are now being de-funded and abolished. Some sections of the cities — such as in Seattle — are being completely surrendered to terrorist groups like Black Lives Matter, which openly advocates the killing of police and executions of white people.

Thus, even if you are paying the city property taxes, you aren’t getting city services. Instead, your cities are being handed over to terrorist cells with names like Black Lives Matter and Antifa, both of which are radical extremist terrorist organizations.

Only rural America will fight back (and shoot back) against left-wing terrorist groups

Since you can’t rely on clueless Democrats to assert the rule of law, your only play at this point is to get out of the cities and create physical distance between yourself and the hoards of starving looters who will soon be attempting to scour the countryside, looking for food and shelter.

Once the Black Lives Matter terrorists exit the cities and leave the protections of the corrupt Democrat mayors, they will enter rural counties where they will be met with an overwhelming kinetic response from armed rural citizens and sheriff’s departments. The Black Lives Matter terrorist groups can’t survive in rural America, because rural Americans will shoot back and hold their ground, unlike left-wing city dwellers who have been disarmed and transformed into weak-willed “white guilt” jellyfish who bow down and lick the boots of black extremist terrorist groups like BLM.

If you wish to survive the collapse of the cities — something I’ve been warning about for many years — your window of opportunity to get out is rapidly collapsing.

In 2017, we published, “ANALYSIS: The big cities most likely to collapse into violence and social unrest.”

In 2015, we published, “America’s cities will collapse into utter chaos the day the EBT cards stop working.”

Early this year, I wrote about the “super supply chain crisis,” talking about how, “America’s cities may collapse into war zones.” From that story, published in January, before the pandemic was even news:

James Lab issued a Dec. 17th press release in which he warned of “nationwide riots that will impede truckers’ ability to make deliveries of products for Americans’ consumption.” Those supplies include food, fuel, medicine, ammunition and other supplies on which Americans depend each day.

Radical left-wing domestic terrorism groups such as Antifa routinely stage physical assaults on Trump supporters across America, using deadly weapons and mob violence to commit acts of intimidation against their political opponents. The idea that these radical left-wing groups might quickly escalate their tactics into city-wide chaos, murder and mayhem is no stretch of the imagination. This seems to be their plan.

In other words, yes, we saw all this coming. We do you think I live way out in the country, far from any city, surrounded by rugged rural country? It’s because my entire ranch is basically one giant rifle range, and I know the ranges and the ballistics holds for every landmark on the ranch. The zombies won’t get far in rural Texas. You can bank on that.

You should really watch the whole series of “The Joy of Shooting” that I filmed in central Texas with some of my military buddies. Over several episodes, they teach you the basics of shooting and self-defense. Check it out:

l

Quote of the day

The secret of the joke is that it brings you to a point where you are expecting, expecting, expecting that this is going to happen; then it never happens. And what happens is so sudden… and because you were expecting something you were coming to a tension, and then suddenly something else happens, and the tension has come to such a climax that it explodes. You are all laughter. It is a tremendous release, it is great meditation. If you can laugh totally, it will give you a moment of no-time, no-mind. Mind lives logically with expectations, laughter is something that comes from the beyond. Mind is always guessing what is going to happen, groping. And something happens which is absolutely contrary to its expectations: it simply stops for a moment.

And that is the moment when the mind stops, when laughter comes from your belly, a belly laugh. Your whole body goes into a spasm, it is orgasmic.

A good laugh is tremendously meditative.

Rajneesh

Attorney Gen. Bill Barr just put Obama on notice

This is interesting, perhaps a red-herring move by Trump on behalf of lapdog Barr?

Attorney General Bill Barr is putting members former President Barack Obama’s administration on notice.

And he’s warning — publicly — that some very big names could find themselves in legal hot water in the coming weeks and months.

Barr’s comments to Fox News are coming as the Justice Department continues its investigation of the 2016 “spygate” scandal in which the Obama-led law enforcement officials targeted President Donald Trump’s campaign.

“For the first time in American history, police organizations and the national security organizations were used to spy on a campaign,” Barr said. “And there was no basis for it.”

In fact, he said the agencies specifically “ignored” any evidence that cleared members of the Trump campaign and focused only on the things that suited their pre-written narrative.

“There were actions taken that really appear to be efforts to sabotage his campaign,” he said. “And that has to be looked at.”

Specifically, he said his team is looking at the “very aggressive investigation” of the Trump campaign that was launched despite only a “a very thin, slender reed as a basis for it.”

And the timing was interesting.

Trump was widely considered the longest of longshots when he first entered the race in 2015. Even as he racked up primary victory after primary victory in 2016, the mainstream media and members of his own party wrote him off.

There was even talk that he could be challenged at the Republican National Convention in July of that year.

Ultimately, the only overt sign of dissent came from Sen. Ted Cruz. R-Tex., one of Trump’s vanquished primary rivals who spoke at the event to a smattering of boos as he refused to endorse him.

That moment… when the idea of a Trump presidency suddenly became very real… could’ve been when the Obama administration struck.

“It seemed that the bureau was sort of spring-loaded at the end of July to drive in there and investigate a campaign,” Barr said.

What happened next is a matter of public record at this point. The FBI used and badly abused FISA warrants to spy on members of the Trump campaign as part of a relentless attempt to undermine his candidacy – and, ultimately, his presidency.

All the while, figures within the government were leaking salacious allegations to the media, which was only too happy to run with it.

“The media largely drove that,” Barr said. “And all kinds of sensational claims were being made about the president that could have affected the election.”

All from a government investigation that never should’ve took place, much of it built around a politically motivated dossier of salacious and discredited allegations.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz last year found “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in the application sent to the FISA court seeking permission to surveil Trump campaign official Carter Page.

As a result, former deputy attorney general Rod J. Rosenstein admitted this month to Congress that he would not have signed off on the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign and supposed Russian interference if he had all of the information available to him.

Now, U.S. Attorney John Durham is wrapping up his own investigation.

Barr said he is “very troubled” by what has emerged so far, and that his findings will soon be made public.

He indicated that very familiar names could appear in those findings, but added that neither Obama himself nor then-Vice President Joe Biden were among them.

“We can’t discuss future charges,” Barr said. But just because someone hasn’t been charged yet doesn’t mean they’re in the clear.

“You know, there’s the old saying that that the wheels of justice grind slow and they do run slow because we have due process and we follow the process,” he said. “But people should not draw from the fact that no action has been taken yet, that that means that people or people are going to get away with wrongdoing.”

— Walter W. Murray is a reporter for The Horn News. He is an outspoken conservative and a survival expert, and is the author of “America’s Final Warning.”

Voters won’t accept the 2020 election results — no matter who wins

By Matthew Walther

June 13, 2020 “Information Clearing House” – During the last month and a half or so of the 2016 presidential election, meta-arguments about how Donald Trump would respond to his own (inevitable in the estimation of most observers) defeat became more important than any of the apparent issues in the campaign. Would he accept the results? What this question was supposed to mean — accept how? psychologically? — was far less important than the response it was meant to elicit, which is to say, a negative answer that would in turn become the pretext for thousands of fear-mongering articles like this one.

There were strong and weak theories about what form the Celebrity Apprentice star’s loss would take. The most hysterical prognosticators, including his Democratic opponent, argued that he would attempt to destroy democracy itself. (How exactly he would go about this was never very clear: Would he attempt a coup via Twitter?) Others suggested that his entire campaign had been a marketing ploy all along, the teaser trailer for a coming right-wing populist media empire in which Trump would present himself as a kind of president-in-exile to millions of delusional fans, endlessly agitating for recounts and hawking branded water.

In these endeavors, few if any observers expected Trump to receive support from the institutional GOP, which had, with few exceptions, remained ambivalent about its own presidential nominee. This was the implicit bargain between Trump and Republican leadership. Had he lost, he would have been excommunicated; his swift political rise and equally rapid fall would have been the occasion for an endless I-told-you-sos, both from those who have come to consider themselves his supporters and in what are now the wild hinterlands of #NeverTrump conservatism. (Whether casting him into outer darkness would have been as easy as congressional Republicans and the editors of conservative publications would have liked is an interesting question.)

We all know what happened instead. After months of harangue from his opponent and the media about the existential importance of resigning himself to an assured defeat, Trump won, and Democrats spent the next four years very publicly doing most of the things they had predicted would ensue if things had gone the opposite way. His presidency was regarded as invalid from the moment he took the oath of office, for reasons ranging from his being an agent of the KGB to the very serious crime of not actually withholding aid to a minor East European nationalist regime.

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?

Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter

No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media

Four years later, Joe Biden is openly fantasizing about a scenario in which the praetorian guard dispatches the senescent emperor from his palace. Whether the former vice president remembers the similar (and ultimately pointless) discussions from 2016 is an open question, but not an especially important one. What matters more is the current barely concealed relish at the prospect of the current president being removed from the White House by force. Never mind the fact that these lurid speculations exist alongside equally lunatic assertions that we are living under a Trump-led military dictatorship: What they reveal about the American attitude toward presidents and their legitimacy is far more interesting than their internal coherence.

There’s little reason to think any of us are prepared to accept the results of the upcoming election, at least not unequivocally. This unwillingness has less to do with the candidates themselves or the circumstances surrounding individual elections than with the chiliastic terms upon which presidential campaigns are waged in this country. These are not quadrennial contests between two parties offering competing sets of prudential solutions to the nation’s problems: They are spiritual wars in which the righteousness of one side and the iniquity of the other are both blindingly obvious to all persons of good will.

This is why George W. Bush’s first presidential victory was dismissed by mainstream liberals as the result of either counting-related malfeasance or a plot by the Supreme Court or both, and why his re-election must have had something to do with rigged voting electronic voting machines. It is also why millions of us convinced ourselves that Barack Obama must have been born abroad and that Trump was working for the Russians.

These conclusions, absurd and conspiratorial as they are, follow effortlessly from the twin premises that every presidential election is an all-or-nothing contest between good and evil and that the sovereign will of the people is inviolable. This is why even when genuine support for the “wrong” side is acknowledged — not every vote is the result of a fraudulent ballot or a tweet from a Russian troll bot — we insist upon delegitimizing the voters in question. The 47 percent and the basket of deplorables are mirror images of each other, and not only because simple arithmetic suggests that they must refer to many of the same voters. Rather than accept the idea that millions of our fellow Americans have simply drawn different conclusions about the candidates, which might call into question either the presumed stakes of our elections or the wisdom of self-government, we insist upon pushing them outside the boundaries of politics: people who vote in bad faith and (at least implicitly) should not be regarded as contributing to the actual democratic process. The plainer alternative explanation — that elections are messy things and voters frequently irrational and almost never deserving of the flattery bestowed upon them by candidates from both parties — is one that we have become mysteriously incapable of considering.

Beginning as we do from such premises, it should be no surprise that none of us are prepared to “accept” any political outcomes that we find objectionable. So far from subverting our democracy, disregarding the results of our elections has become one of the most reliable norms in American politics.

Matthew Walther is a national correspondent at The Week. His work has also appeared in First ThingsThe Spectator of London, The Catholic HeraldNational Review, and other publications. He is currently writing a biography of the Rev. Montague Summers. He is also a Robert Novak Journalism Fellow. – Source –

 

The problem is – that whoever wins – begins to inflict their agenda on the side that lost to the cheers of their supporters. This is especially true of Republicans as they chortle with glee at sending conservative judges to the nation’s highest courts where they can spit in the face of liberals for many many years to come. Whether they retain control or not.
As a lifelong leftist I have to say that for all the handwringing over the appointment of Republican judges, I’ve found over the decades that they tend to become fairly reasonable when put into practice. This has not been the case with the Obama appointees, whose partisanship on the bench has been nothing if not disgraceful. There’s something particularly egregious about the autocracy of Obama-era Dems that has alienated me forever from that party. Their shenanigans under Trump have actually become criminal, leaving me hoping to see them prosecuted. But since there’s no way I could ever support the Repugs, I’m now left out in the cold. Good thing I left the country almost 20 years ago, fleeing the criminal regime of Bush Jr., whom today’s Dems seem to think was okay. To hell with them all.
I don’t think these deep divisions over election results were as bad until Clinton started it over losing in 2016. Until then there was lots of hmm-ing and ahh-ing, but never a point-blank refusal to accept it by blaming a foreign government.

All western elections appear to be rigged now; but if you engage in election-rigging, as Clinton clearly did by stealing the Democrat nomination from Bernie Sanders, you can’t go complaining if somebody out-rigs you or actually gets more votes.

“he would attempt to destroy democracy itself. ”
Why pretend that any form of democracy exists in US elections? All is money, lobbies and lies. As Pres. Putin said long ago, why would Russians care about who wins, as the difference is so small in any case.

 

Syria in Seattle: Commune Defies the U.S. Regime

FBI launches open attack on ‘foreign’ alternative media outlets challenging US foreign policy

Under FBI orders, Facebook and Google removed American Herald Tribune, an alternative site that publishes US and European writers critical of US foreign policy. The bureau’s justification for the removal was dubious, and it sets a troubling precedent for other critical outlets.

By Gareth Porter

une 14, 2020 “Information Clearing House” – The FBI has publicly justified its suppression of dissenting online views about US foreign policy if a media outlet can be somehow linked to one of its adversaries. The Bureau’s justification followed a series of instances in which Silicon Valley social media platforms banned accounts following consultations with the FBI.

In a particularly notable case in 2018, the FBI encouraged Facebook, Instagram and Google to remove or restrict ads on the American Herald Tribune (AHT), an online journal that published critical opinion articles on US policy toward Iran and the Middle East. The bureau has never offered a clear rationale, however, despite its private discussions with Facebook on the ban.

The FBI’s first step toward intervening against dissenting views on social media took place in October 2017 with the creation of a Foreign Influence Task Force (FTIF) in the bureau’s Counterintelligence Division. Next, the FBI defined any effort by states designated by the Department of Defense as major adversaries (Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) to influence American public opinion as a threat to US national security.

In February 2020, the FBI defined that threat in much more specific terms and implied that it would act against any online media outlet that was found to fall within its ambit. At a conference on election security on February 24, David K. Porter, who identified himself as Assistant Section Chief of the Foreign Influence Task Force, defined what the FBI described as “malign foreign influence activity” as “actions by a foreign power to influence U.S. policy, distort political sentiment and public discourse.”

Porter described “information confrontation” as a force “designed to undermine public confidence in the credibility of free and independent news media.” Those who practice this dark craft, he said, seek to “push consumers to alternative news sources,” where “it’s much easier to introduce false narratives” and thus “sow doubt and confusion about the true narratives by exploiting the media landscape to introduce conflicting story lines.”

“Information confrontation”, however, is simply the literal Russian translation of the term “information warfare.” Its use by the FTIF appears to be aimed merely at justifying an FBI role in seeking to suppress what it calls “alternative news sources” under any set of circumstances it can justify.

While expressing his intention to target alternative media, Porter simultaneously denied that the FBI was concerned about censoring media. The FITF, he said “doesn’t go around chasing content. We don’t focus on what the actors say.” Instead, he insisted that “attribution is key,” suggesting that the FTIF was only interested in finding hidden foreign government actors at work.

Thus the question of “attribution” has become the FBI’s key lever for censoring alternative media that publishes critical content on U.S. foreign policy, or which attacks mainstream and corporate media narratives. If an outlet can be somehow linked to a foreign adversary, removing it from online platforms is fair game for the feds.

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?

Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter

No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media

The strange disappearance of American Herald Tribune

In 2018, Facebook deleted the Facebook page of the American Herald Tribune (AHT), a website that publishes commentary from an array of notable authors who are harshly critical of U.S. foreign policy. Gmail, which is run by Google, quickly followed suit by removing ads linked to the outlet, while the Facebook-owned Instagram scrubbed AHT’s account altogether.

Tribune editor Anthony Hall reported at the time that the removals occurred at the end of August 2018, but there was no announcement of the move by Facebook. Nor was it reported by the corporate news media until January 2020, when CNN elicited a confirmation from a Facebook spokesman that it had indeed done so in 2018.  Furthermore, the FBI was advising Facebook on both Iranian and Russian sites that were banned during that same period of a few days.  As Facebook’s chief security officer Alex Stamos noted on July 21, 2018, “We have proactively reported our technical findings to US law enforcement, because they have much more information than we do, and may in time be in a position to provide public attribution.”

On August 2, a few days following the removal of AHT and two weeks after hundreds of Russian and Iranian Pages had been removed by Facebook, FBI Director Christopher Wray told reporters at a White House briefing that FBI officials had “met with top social media and technology companies several times” during the year, “providing actionable intelligence to better enable them to address abuse of their platforms by foreign actors.”  He remarked that FBI officials had “shared specific threat indicators and account information so they can better monitor their own platforms.”

Cybersecurity firm FireEye, which boasts that it has contracts to support “nearly every department in the United States government,” and which has been used by Department of Homeland Security as a primary source of “threat intelligence,” also influenced Facebook’s crackdown on the Tribune. CNN cited an unnamed official of FireEye stating that the company had “assessed” with “moderate confidence” that the AHT’s website was founded in Iran and was “part of a larger influence operation.”

The CNN author was evidently unaware that in U.S. intelligence parlance “moderate confidence” suggests a near-total absence of genuine conviction. As the 2011 official “consumer’s guide” to US intelligence explained, the term “moderate confidence” generally indicates that either there are still differences of view in the intelligence community on the issue or that the judgment ”is credible and plausible but not sufficiently corroborated to warrant higher level of confidence.”

CNN also quoted FireEye official Lee Foster’s claim that “indicators, both technical and behavioral” showed that American Herald Tribune was part of the larger influence operation. The CNN story linked to a study published by FireEye featuring a “map” showing how Iranian-related media were allegedly linked to one another, primarily by similarities in content.  But CNN apparently hadn’t bothered to read the study, which did not once mention the American Herald Tribune.

Finally, the CNN piece cited a 2018 tweet by Daily Beast contributor Josh Russell which it said provided “further evidence supporting American Herald Tribune’s alleged links to Iran.” In fact, his tweet merely documented the AHT’s sharing of an internet hosting service with another pro-Iran site “at some point in time.”  Investigators familiar with the problem know that two websites using the same hosting service, especially over a period of years, is not a reliable indicator of a coherent organizational connection.

CNN did find evidence of deception over the registration of the AHT. The outlet’s editor, Anthony Hall, continues to give the false impression that a large number of journalists and others (including this writer), are contributors, despite the fact that their articles have been republished from other sources without permission.

However, AHT has one characteristic that differentiates it from the others that have been kicked off Facebook: The American and European authors who have appeared in its pages are all real and are advancing their own authentic views. Some are sympathetic to the Islamic Republic, but others are simply angry about U.S. policies: Some are Libertarian anti-interventionists; others are supporters of the 9/11 Truth movement or other conspiracy theories.

One notable independent contributor to AHT is Philip Giraldi, an 18-year veteran of the CIA’s Clandestine Service and and an articulate critic of US wars in the Middle East and of Israeli influence on American policy and politics. From its inception in 2015, the AHT has been edited by Anthony Hall, Professor Emeritus at University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

In announcing yet another takedown of Iranian Pages in October 2018, Facebook’s Gleicher declared that “coordinated inauthentic behavior” occurs when “people or organizations create networks of accounts to mislead others about who they are what they’re doing.” That certainly doesn’t apply to those who provided the content for the American Herald Tribune.

Thus the takedown of the publication by Facebook, with FBI and FireEye encouragement represents a disturbing precedent for future actions against individuals who criticize US foreign policy and outlets that attack corporate media narratives.

Shelby Pierson, the CIA official appointed by then director of national intelligence in July 2019 to chair the inter-agency “Election Executive and Leadership Board,” appeared to hint at differences in the criteria employed by his agency and the FBI on foreign and alternative media.

In an interview with former acting CIA Director Michael Morrell in February, Pierson said, “[P]articularly on the [foreign] influence side of the house, when you’re talking about blended content with First Amendment-protected speech…against the backdrop of a political paradigm and you’re involving yourself in those activities, I think that makes it more complicated” (emphasis added).

Further emphasizing the uncertainty surrounding the FBI’s methods of online media suppression, she added that the position in question “doesn’t have the same unanimity that we have in the counterterrorism context.”

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist who has covered national security policy since 2005 and was the recipient of Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2012.  His most recent book is The CIA Insider’s Guide to the Iran Crisis co-authored with John Kiriakou, just published in February.– Source

Post your comment below

See also

In case you missed it; US to launch new media network to provide Chinese diaspora with ‘alternative’ news