In a new Project Veritas video, James O’Keeffe and his team expose a plot across the U.S. to disrupt the entire District of Columbia—including its rail lines and highways—during President-elect Trump’s inauguration.
The plot was allegedly meant to be carried out by several groups with “some planning peaceful activities some planning criminal activities all under the umbrellas of #DisruptJ20,” according to O’Keefe.
The video opens up with Disrupt J20 organizer, Todd Brogan, speaking in a meeting of protesters:
“A significant number of us, up to a dozen we talked to so far, at least, expressed interest in arrestable actions of civil disobedience, but the agreement that we left Sunday on was, we’re not going to do that unless, as you pointed out, it’s actually effective. We’re not just looking to get a notch to say we got arrested, we want to do it so we can have an impact.”
Another Disrupt J20 organizer, Legba Carrefour, expressed plans to block checkpoints and disrupt the train cars with a chain that would have to be cut, a potentially dangerous stunt.
“So simultaneous to the checkpoint blockades in the morning, we are also doing a series of clusterf*ck blockades, where we are going to try to blockade all the major ingress points in the city,” Carrefour said. “So we figured out this, the trains pull up.. one person is going to lock one end of a chain to an edge and on the other end of the chain the end of the car, so on and so fourth done.”
Carrefour also said that if he was to hit “Metro Center, Gallery Place and L’Enfant Plaza,” all three locations are close enough to walk to, and include every line in the city.
“It takes fifteen seconds and everyone can leave and literally it can’t go anywhere now at that point, it’s anchored,” Carrefour said. “And you can use a really thin chain, you don’t need a heavy chain that would require like a bolt cutter to undo, basically to shut down that line.”
O’Keefe noted that disabling trains constitutes an act of terrorism under 18 USC 1992, which states:
“a person found guilty will face a fine or imprisonment for no more then 20 years and that if the offense results in the death of a person the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life or may face the death penalty.”
Project Veritas then turned this information over to the DC Metro police, secret service and the FBI.
Benjamin Barr, an attorney speaking for Project Veritas, said the group was able to find evidence that “these individuals were hoping to shut down all metro train transit around the Washington DC area around inauguration.”
In another plot, the Disrupt J20 group wanted to use homeless people to block traffic by setting up tables using the excuse to feed the homeless.
“We want to encourage you all to give to the poor and the homeless. Go right down to 2nd, and D, help us to block the vehicle and pedestrian traffic flowing into the inauguration.”
They even planned to blockade a bridge and one group, Smashing Racism D.C., lead by Mike Isaacson, even advocated “throat punching” groups that they deem nazis.
As O’Keeffe noted, peaceful activities are protected under the First Amendment. Some of these events would have been peaceful protests, while others would have been been initiated with violent intent.
There is a group of anonymous scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control—they call themselves the Spider Group—Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research. They have penned a letter to the CDC’s chief of staff, Carmen S. Villar:
Here is the explosive accusation they make:
“We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.”
“Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right.”
“We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”
I have written at length about another whistleblower at the CDC, William Thompson, a long-time researcher who, in August of 2014, confessed in writing to massive fraud (archive here). He admitted that, in a study on the safety of the MMR vaccine, he and his colleagues literally threw vital sheets of data into a garbage can. The study then gave a free pass to the vaccine, claiming it had no connection to autism—when in fact it did. Thompson is the subject of the film, Vaxxed (trailer).
Now with this letter, we see that other scientists at the CDC are blowing the lid off internal corruption at their Agency.
If, in fact, President-elect Trump gives the green light for an independent investigation of the CDC, as press outlets are now reporting, and if he appoints Robert Kennedy Jr. to head up that panel, as Kennedy claims, we are going to see a large number of hidden facts emerge from the secretive halls of the CDC.
Because this Spider Group is anonymous, I wanted to make sure their letter is real. I contacted reporter Carey Gillam (twitter), who has been covering the story. I received this reply: “I was able to authenticate the letter by contacting CDC’s public affairs office and asking them directly about it after I received it from internal CDC sources.”
And now I write a letter to them, so they can deepen their investigation.
Dear Spider Group:
I commend you on making an important start. You’re on the right road. As a reporter who has covered the CDC for many years, I offer you three suggestions. This short list is by no means exhaustive. I’m just pointing to a few areas where your own research will yield very rich and fertile results.
ONE: SWINE FLU FRAUD.
Let me take you back to the late summer of 2009, and the Swine Flu epidemic, which was hyped to the sky by the CDC. The Agency was calling for all Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine. Remember?
The problem was, the CDC was concealing a scandal.
At the time, star CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, was working on a Swine Flu story. She discovered that the CDC had secretly stopped counting cases of the illness—while, of course, continuing to warn Americans about its unchecked spread.
The CDC’s main job is counting cases and reporting the numbers.
What was the Agency up to?
Here is an excerpt from my 2014 interview with Sharyl Attkisson:
Rappoport: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, [secretly] stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?
Attkisson: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it and, in the end, no broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.
—end of interview excerpt—
It was routine for doctors all over America to send blood samples from patients they’d diagnosed with Swine Flu, or the “most likely” Swine Flu patients, to labs for testing. And overwhelmingly, those samples were coming back with the result: not Swine Flu, not any kind of flu.
That was the big secret. That’s what the CDC was hiding. That’s why they stopped reporting Swine Flu case numbers. That’s what Attkisson had discovered. That’s why she was shut down.
But it gets even worse.
Because about three weeks after Attkisson’s findings were published on the CBS News website, the CDC, obviously in a panic, decided to double down. If one lie is exposed, tell an even bigger one. A much bigger one.
Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response: “Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 .” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon).
Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.
In the summer of 2009, the CDC secretly stops counting Swine Flu cases in America, because the overwhelming percentage of lab tests from likely Swine Flu patients shows no sign of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.
There is no Swine Flu epidemic.
Then, the CDC estimates there are 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US.
TWO: THE CDC BUYS MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF VACCINES AND, AT THE SAME TIME, HEADS UP RESEARCH ON THE SAFETY OF VACCINES. EXPLOSIVE STRUCTURAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
If you wanted to buy a product, and the main source of research on the product was the company selling it, would you automatically assume the product was safe and effective?
But you see, that’s the just the beginning of the problem. Suppose the company’s research was cited thousands of times in the press, as the authoritative standard of proof—and anyone who disputed that research was labeled a conspiracy theorist and a quack and a danger to the community and an anti-science lunatic.
Would you begin to suspect the company had some awesome media connections? Would you suspect some very powerful people were backing the company?
This is exactly the situation that exists at the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Read these two quotes:
“The government’s Vaccine for Children Program (a CDC organization) purchases vaccines for about 50 percent of children in the U.S.” (The Atlantic, February 10, 2015)
“The CDC currently spends over $4 billion purchasing vaccines [annually] from drug makers…” (Health Impact News, October 24, 2016)
However, the CDC is also the gold standard for research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. It turns out an unending stream of studies on these subjects. And the results of those studies are dutifully reported in the mainstream press.
Do you think, under any circumstances, the CDC would publish data showing vaccines are ineffective and dangerous? They’d be cutting their own throats.
“Well, we spend $4 billion a year buying vaccines from drug companies, but guess what? These vaccines are often dangerous…”
Every time you read about a CDC study on vaccines, keep this obvious (and clearly illegal) conflict of interest in mind.
THREE: MASSIVE OVERESTIMATE OF FLU DEATHS IN THE US, IN ORDER TO PUSH THE FLU VACCINE.
In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published a shocking report by Peter Doshi, which created tremors through the halls of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.
Here is a quote from Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):
“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”
You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.
This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.
But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.
Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.
Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.
This death toll is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure.
However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.
In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.
“Well, uh, we say that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US. But actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”
The CDC must turn out a steady stream of outrageous lies about the need for vaccines. If they didn’t, they’d have no way to justify the billions of dollars they spend every year buying the vaccines from drug companies.
So, Spider Group, don’t stop now. Deepen your probe. Become true heroes for honest research, expose the deep roots of corruption in your Agency, and do the right thing for the American people you’re sworn to serve.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).
Contributed by Jon Rappoport of No More Fake News.
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
A new bill, SB-17 the Bill of Rights for Children, has been introduced to the California Senate. Many in the state are dubbing it the “The Medical Kidnap Act” or “The Government Owns Your Children Act.”
The bill was created by Dr Richard Pan, the same pediatrician who is working towards making vaccines mandatory by taking away exemptions rights from many California families.
There is very good reason to be concerned as this bill would give the government the right to take away a child for practically any reason they see fit.
As attorney Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute warns, “It’s really not the children’s bill of rights, it’s the government’s bill of rights.”
The bills reads as follows:
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that all children and youth, regardless of gender, class, race, ethnicity, national origin, culture, religion, immigration status, sexual orientation, or ability, have inherent rights that entitle them to protection, special care, and assistance, including, but not limited to, the following:
It is the intent of the Legislature, by January 1, 2022, to enact appropriate legislation to accomplish all of the following:
The wording used in SB-17 makes it easy for the government to manipulate and use in their favor in almost any given scenario. What the government may see as “acting in the best interest” of a child may wildly differ from what the parent believes is best for their child. If a parent is homeschooling and decides to not follow a curriculum, can the parents then be accused of not providing “appropriate, quality education?” With the push for mandatory vaccines, the government giving themselves blanketing responsibility of determining what is appropriate healthcare for a child is particularly alarming.
Medical kidnapping is a nightmare parents who dare to disagree with their doctors are having to face. Doctors are using CPS to take children away and persecute parents without a trial and in without providing any actual evidence.
One story that made national news and brought the reality of medical kidnapping to the public eye is that of Justina Pelletier by Boston Children’s Hospital. Justina’s family was referred to Boston Children’s Hospital when her doctor’s diagnosed her with mitochondrial disease. After she was admitted, she was put into a psychiatric ward instead by a different group of physicians who decided she did not have mitochondrial disease. The state of Massachusetts then took custody of the child when her parents and former doctors objected.
Medicalkidnap.com is a website dedicated to the injustices of families like Justina’s where one can read about hundreds of other cases.
Separation from parents is an undoubtedly emotional traumatic experience for children. Parents are also finding that their once healthy children are becoming sick and many even die in foster care from abuse or neglect. The system is extremely corrupt and CPS has clearly shown it cares more about power and funding than it does actually protecting children.
Before her murder in 2010, Sen. Nancy Shaefer was looking into the reality of CPS and published a report entitled “The Corrupt Business of Child Protection Services.”
“I have witnessed such injustice and harm brought to these families that I am not sure if I even believe reform of the system is possible! The system cannot be trusted. It does not serve the people. It obliterates families and children simply because it has the power to do so. Children deserve better. Families deserve better. It’s time to pull back the curtain and set our children and families free.”
Joseph Churchwell is an Arkansas attorney who works with families fighting against the corruption of CPS in his state. Churchwell sent a letter to the Arkansas Legislature and Governor Asa Hutchinson where he stated:
“I honestly cannot recall the number of men and women involved with DHS and ASP that I have consulted with and or represented in my career.
I do however recall the word most often used to describe their feelings, and that word is terrified. No word better describes the tactics of an entity that’s primary intervention is to enter one’s home, remove one’s children, and place them in an undisclosed location with unidentified adults and children for as long as it wishes.
Combine that with the authority to place those children for adoption should it choose to do so, while acting in complete secrecy. Perhaps the most egregious part of all is that this action may be set into motion by an anonymous phone call requiring no more evidence than the reporter’s statement.
If one considers the totality of the circumstances, terrorism is no longer an adequate descriptor for the actions taken in the name of “protecting the children.”
It is easy to see why many are trying to stop SB-17 when medical kidnap is becoming more common and corruption is so rampant. A bill like SB-17 would give the government unprecedented abilities to make decisions on what they deem as unfit parenting. It would also make the cases even more difficult for parents to win.
As the fight between the state and concerned families goes on in California over mandatory vaccines, California seems to be the testing ground for bills like this that could follow suit in the rest of the country.
For information regarding how to deal with CPS and avoid medical kidnapping, click here.
(WeAreChange) — President Obama has shortened the prison sentence of former Army private and whistleblower Chelsea Manning. Manning, who was convicted of an enormous 2010 leak that revealed American military and diplomatic activities across the world, disrupted the Obama administration, and brought WikiLeaks, the recipient of those disclosures, to the forefront.
She will be released in five months on May 17, instead of remaining in military custody until 2045, as originally sentenced. Her original 35-year sentence was by far the longest punishment ever imposed in the United States for a leak conviction.
This news is a welcome relief to the broader whistleblower community across the globe who have petitioned Obama to grant Manning clemency.
Not less than 72 hours ago, the hashtag #HugsForChelsea was going viral as thousands across the country offered their support for her release.
NBC News reported last week that Manning was on Obama’s ‘short list’ for commutation.
BREAKING: Obama commutes Chelsea Manning’s sentence for leaking to WikiLeaks. She will be freed on May 17. https://t.co/7Y6s55x6OV
— Charlie Savage (@charlie_savage) January 17, 2017
Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept tweeted:
I visited Chelsea Manning & spent countless hours on phone w/her. Damage is palpable. UN found she was abused. Clemency is only moral option
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 17, 2017
If there is one thing we know about Russian President Putin, it is that he is brutally honest, and he does not hold back. His latest sensational comments put the nail in the coffin of this whole “Russian hacking” scandal that we have been hearing about for the past two months.
Putin responded to rumors that Russia has compromising and embarrassing information on Trump, and he insisted that while Russia’s “prostitutes are the best in the world,” he doubts Trump “would fall for them.”
Putin then accused the Obama administration of spreading fake news in order to undermine Trump. He said the allegations are “binding the president-elect hand and foot to prevent him from fulfilling his election promises.”
Putin also said that those behind the leak must be “worse than prostitutes” because they have “no moral scruples.”
“I don’t know Mr. Trump personally, I have never met him and don’t know what he will do on the international arena,” Putin said.” So I have no grounds to attack him or criticize him for anything, or protect him or whatever.”
Most importantly, Putin warned Trump to beware of a “Maidan-style” coup d’état as he prepares for his inauguration.
“I have an impression they practiced in Kiev and are ready to organize a Maidan in Washington, just to not let Trump take office,“ Putin said, referencing the coup d’état that led to the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014.
It is important to note that it was NATO that provided the support behind this transfer of governments, and that sparked the revolution inside of the Ukraine. The Clinton Global Initiative, U.S. aide, and the national endowment all came together to support the government transferring from being pro-Russia to pro-European Union.
Trump and Putin are reportedly scheduled to meet during Trump’s first foreign trip as president.
What do you think about this news? Let us know in the comments!
If you want stay up to date with WeAreChange, and you want to learn more about how you can truly become the change you want to see in the world, check out our website and sign up for our newsletter!
You can also access exclusive content from We Are Change by contributing monthly to our Patreon.
Check us out on social media:
We take BITCOIN too: 12HdLgeeuA87t2JU8m4tbRo247Yj5u2TVP
The website in question is www.demandprotest.com, a site recently registered on Dec. 2, 2016, that claims to be offering $2,500 to Anti-Trump “operatives” who would like to help disrupt the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump.
The website has posted several backpage ads with the headline “Get paid fighting against Trump!” There are also claims that the grassroots organization will pay protesters $50 per hour and an additional $2,500 per month if they show up to at least six events a year, and they are “seeking operatives to help send a strong message at upcoming inauguration protests.”
“Demand Protest is the largest private grassroots support organization in the United States. We pay people already politically motivated to fight for the things they believe. You were going to take action anyways, why not do so with us!
We are currently seeking operatives to help send a strong message at upcoming inauguration protests.
PLEASE NOTE: You will be required to attend an in-person workshop and sign our standard non-disclosure agreement.
As a Demand Protest operative you will receive a monthly retainer of $2,500 on top of our standard per-event pay of $50/hr, as long as you participate in at least 6 events a year. We are extremely flexible and can work with almost any existing work schedule. Full-time operatives receive health, vision and dental insurance for families, flexible vacations, and paid trainings. Travel expenses are always paid.
All operatives have access to our 24/7 phone helpdesk in addition to in-person support at events.”
However, there are a couple anomalous things about the page. The first, as mentioned above, is the website was recently registered, according to a who.is search, yet the organization claims to be the largest private grassroots support organization in the United States. The second anomaly is the website was registered anonymously, and there is no background to this website, to determine it’s validity.
Although rumors were running rampant on 4chan that this site is financed by George Soros, there is no proof to back this claim that came to light. So it’s unclear if the website is legitimate, or a fraud that someone created for attention, or to just troll the internet.
“We are strategists mobilizing millennials across the globe with seeded audiences and desirable messages,” the DemandProtest.com website claims. “With absolute discretion a top priority, our operatives create convincing scenes that become the building blocks of massive movements. When you need the appearance of outrage, we are able to deliver it at scale while keeping your reputation intact.”
There is a fake news article from abcnews.com, which stated that a protester was paid $3,500 for protesting Donald Trump. However, because there have been past reports of Black Lives Matter protesters receiving funding from George Soros, and being promised nearly $5,000 a month.”
The third problem is the organization doesn’t exist in San Francisco according to checked business records, the fourth final problem that puts the nail in the coffin is the quotes on the website upon which reading becomes very obvious that this website is a fake setup as a possible honeypot or simple satire.
It is however, worth noting that Soros and John Podesta planned on using grassroots organizations to push agendas with protest movements.
Here are a few cities where the fake “job” postings have popped up on Backpage.com for professional protesters:
Domain Name: demandprotest.com
Registry Domain ID:
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.google.com
Registrar URL: https://domains.google.com
Updated Date: 2017-01-04T00:00:00Z
Creation Date: 2016-12-02T00:00:00Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2017-12-02T00:00:00Z
Registrar: Google Inc.
Registrar IANA ID: 895
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: email@example.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8772376466
Domain Status: ok https://www.icann.org/epp#ok
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124951702
Registrant Organization: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124951702
Registrant Street: 96 Mowat Ave
Registrant City: Toronto
Registrant State/Province: ON
Registrant Postal Code: M4K 3K1
Registrant Country: CA
Registrant Phone: +1.4165385487
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Registry Admin ID:
Admin Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124951702
Admin Organization: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124951702
Admin Street: 96 Mowat Ave
Admin City: Toronto
Admin State/Province: ON
Admin Postal Code: M4K 3K1
Admin Country: CA
Admin Phone: +1.4165385487
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: email@example.com
Registry Tech ID:
Tech Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124951702
Tech Organization: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124951702
Tech Street: 96 Mowat Ave
Tech City: Toronto
Tech State/Province: ON
Tech Postal Code: M4K 3K1
Tech Country: CA
Tech Phone: +1.4165385487
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Name Server: ANDY.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM
Name Server: SARA.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM
Philippines President Threatens Martial Law Over Drug War; To Throw Corrupt Officials Out Of A Helicopter
Philippines President Threatens Martial Law Over Drug War; To Throw Corrupt Officials Out Of A Helicopter
Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte has threatened martial law if the drug war increases in an unprecedented effort to continue his violent crackdown against drugs.
“I have to protect the Filipino people. It is my duty. And I tell you now, if I have to declare martial law, I will declare it,” Duterte told a conference of businessmen.
Duterte has expressed his disdain for his country’s judicial system saying that “he doesn’t care about the Supreme Court,” and that no one can stop him.
“The right to preserve one’s life and my nation transcends everything else, even the limitations,” he said.
Duterte has vowed to stop the sale and use of illegal drugs in the Philippines to prevent the country from becoming “a narco-state” in his own words.
The recent crackdown on drug users and dealers has left about 6,000 dead in the last six months, as Duterte endorsed killing drug crime offenders in a war zone worthy stance in 2016.
As the BBC reported, “the Philippines Constitution says a president can only declare martial law for 60 days and then only to stop an invasion or a rebellion.
Duterte has also ordered troops to fire on militants behind a wave of kidnappings, even if it results in the deaths of hostages calling those hostages “collateral damage.”
“If you are corrupt, I will fetch you using a helicopter to Manila and I will throw you out, I have done this before, why would I not do it again?” Duterte, said.
Although he says that if you aren’t a bad person and “don’t do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.”
Hitman Edgar Matobato told a Senate hearing that Duterte ordered hits of his political employees in the 1980’s when Duterte was mayor, even saying that the former mayor took part in the killings and was the leader of the “Lambada Boys” – a Philippean gang and precursor to another gang, the Davao Death Squad.
“Mayor Duterte was the highest leader of DDS,” Edgar Matobato said in his affidavit.
Edgar Matobato also alleged that Duterte knew about the drug trade and organized crime within this organization.
When asked what his motives were for coming forward he replied, “I want justice to be served because we killed many people. I have a conscience. Even up to now, many are still being killed.”
If true this would explain why Duterte wants to go after drug offenders/users because they might rat him out.
UN human rights experts have asked the Philippines government to address extrajudicial killings of drug users in the country since August even going as far as saying that Duterte “lacks understanding of human rights.”
In response to the UN condemnation, Duterte has said he is considering taking the Philippines out of the UN, withdrawing from the ICC or International Criminal Court, and ending a major pact with the U.S. government.
But Duterte’s murders are just a part of his grotesque campaign promise to kill 100,000 criminals if elected.
- Shockingly 40% of the Philippines voted for Duterte, unless there was that nasty word the Democrats in the U.S. hated and said didn’t exist “election rigging.”
Udo Ulfkotte, a brave, selfless, hero died on Friday at the age of 56. The legacy he leaves behind is one that gives context to today’s geopolitical relations between the United States and Russia.
Ulfkotte was a world-class German journalist, working for a major Germany newspaper, who came out and exposed how the mainstream media lies for the CIA. In an interview with RT in October 2014, Ulfkotte explained the CIA’s practice of manipulation and bribery:
“I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years, and I was educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public. But seeing right now within the last months how the German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia — this is a point of no return and I’m going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do and have done in the past because they are bribed to betray the people, not only in Germany, all over Europe.”
Ulfkotte also revealed that he was forced to publish the work of intelligence agencies under his name, and he was threatened with termination if he did not comply. The main reason he said he came out was because the intelligence agencies were pushing disinformation in order to push for war between Europe and Russia.
Ulfkotte’s death was allegedly the result of a heart attack. However, he was aware the possible repercussions that could come from what he was exposing. In an interview with Russia Insider, he said:
“When I told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Ulfkotte’s newspaper) that I would publish the book, their lawyers sent me a letter threatening with all legal consequences if I would publish any names or secrets—but I don’t mind. You see, I don’t have children to take care of.”
He knew he would face persecution from the state, and he did. Ulfkotte told RT that German prosecutors searched his house on at least six separate occasions.
Similar information was disclosed through the Church Committee Senate hearings that happened in 1975 with Sen. Frank Church leading the way and exposing the fact that the same thing happened in the U.S. with Operation Mockingbird.
This all brings us back to now, where we are seeing intelligence agencies and the mainstream media pushing for war with Russia, and clashing against Trump. Ulfkotte also revealed the fact that there are mainstream media journalists who have been trained as CIA operatives, which is a topic WeAreChange has covered extensively over the years.
Also at the Church hearings, it was revealed that the CIA has developed a poison dart gun that “gives deadly heart attacks and leaves no trace.”
We don’t have all of the facts, and we don’t know exactly what happened to Ulfkotte, but we do know that he was a hero who put everything on the line in order for you to know the truth.
What do you think about this story? Let us know in the comments!
If you want stay up to date with WeAreChange, and you want to learn more about how you can truly become the change you want to see in the world, check out our website and sign up for our newsletter!
You can also access exclusive content from We Are Change by contributing monthly to our Patreon.
Check us out on social media:
We take BITCOIN too: 12HdLgeeuA87t2JU8m4tbRo247Yj5u2TVP
Donald Trump’s team is reportedly working to change the game, by allowing the alternative media, radio hosts, and bloggers access to the White House’s press briefing room.
Under the proposal, Trump’s team is seeking a new venue to replace the old James S Brady press briefing room.
Sean Spicer said on Sunday, that due to “off the chart demand” in the new administration, the president-elect is considering moving briefings to a venue with a greater capacity.
“We are looking at spaces in the white house that will allow more journalist to cover until I think sometimes change is scary but change can be good,” Spicer said. “I am working with reporters getting their insight but the idea that you can involve more people be more transparent and have more accessibility should be seen as a welcome change.”
Spicer also said this change would give greater accessibility to more people.
“There are a lot of talk radio and bloggers and people who can’t fit in right now and maybe don’t have a permanent seat, because they’re not a part of the Washington elite media,” Spicer said. “But to allow them an opportunity to ask the press secretary or president a question is a positive thing and it’s more democratic and it should be welcomed.”
Jeff Mason, the WHCA president and Reuters White House correspondent disagrees, and said that he made it clear to the Trump administration that it would be viewed as “unacceptable.”
“I made clear that the WHCA would view it as unacceptable if the incoming administration sought to move White House reporters out of the press work space behind the press briefing room,” Mason said. “Access in the West Wing to senior administration officials, including the press secretary, is critical to transparency and to journalists’ ability to do their jobs.”
So the dinosaur media is dying, and the phoenix of alternative media is rising. This change may soon mean that many alternative media outlets will have a spot covering Trump’s presidency.
As Spicer said, this is indeed a more democratic move, and a push for better relations with the general public.
The WikiLeaks and Snowden smears are getting more disingenuous by the day.
In the latest attack on what is without doubt the most significant media organization in the world—WikiLeaks—a far less consequential publisher—The Daily Kos—has managed to squeeze an entire article out of one Twitter rant by what they describe as a “quasi-official Anonymous Twitter account” – @YourAnonCentral, also known as YAC.
In doing so, The Daily Kos is the latest to demonstrate that there is nothing more intellectually insubstantial than the recent trend of quasi-journalists slapping together an entire quasi-article about someone having had a moan on Twitter.
Poorly-investigated and deficiently-sourced, their article fails to dig any deeper than the surface contents of the singular thread, trusting that it contains sufficient reference points that no one will invest the time or effort to look into the matter any further.
Unfortunately for them, we have.
The 25-tweet diatribe their article is based off can be read here and is dissected tweet by tweet at the bottom of this page. But first, let’s look a little deeper into the opinions and attitudes espoused by @YourAnonCentral, and give you the story that The Daily Kos didn’t.
YAC doesn’t just hate Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. He also has it in for Edward Snowden.
The animosity isn’t restricted to silly memes or playing favorites among whistleblowers. It extends to pronouncements that blatantly violate the basic principles and beliefs of the Anonymous movement.
The idea that an Anonymous account would be openly calling for the prosecution of a whistleblower and advocating that they be subjected to “law and punishment” with “no exceptions” is not only contrary to the ideological premise of the collective, but is frankly extreme in its audacity and hypocrisy.
For an account claiming to be a part of a movement whose members have been aggressively hunted by law enforcement agencies, to advocate throwing a whistleblower to the dogs, is flabbergasting.
But their vitriol doesn’t end there. Since July 2014, YAC has been waging an unrelenting smear campaign against the pillars of the activism community.
Major Anonymous accounts like @AnonymousVideo, tweeting content from Thomas Drake to YAC, go without amplification or acknowledgement.
Other old school Anonymous accounts like @AnonSwedeninfo get acidic responses from YAC…
Or are completely ignored when they attempt to share relevant content with them:
Sputnik News noted the disparity between the positions of @YourAnonNews and YAC, on Snowden:
YAC’s smears against Snowden are completely baseless. Even the most cursory knowledge of his revelations and activity easily dispels them. Take for example, the following tweet:
In their desperation to discredit him and hoping that any mud will stick, Snowden’s detractors routinely contradict each other’s narratives. While some deride him for having spoken out about NSA spying on Chinese university students while still in Hong Kong, YAC audaciously claim that he has never cared about non-US citizens. Yet by the time of their above tweet, in October 2015, Snowden had spoken via video conference in a whole host of non-US countries, about revelations specific to those citizens, including but not limited to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany and others.
Of course, if you wanted further proof of how far YAC have been barking up the wrong tree, you need only look at their own historical tweets, which disprove their more recent ones:
Time and time again, YAC stumbles over its own opinion and contradicts its own messaging. For example, they cast aspersions on radical leftists and Russian-based media organisations, despite having a long history of sharing information from precisely those sources.
At various times they accuse Snowden of being both aligned with US government and the Russians. Likewise, with WikiLeaks.
They accused WikiLeaks of being beholden to other foreign governments:
…yet make bizarre attempts to associate WikiLeaks staff with being pro-US government – specifically claiming that they have “ties to the US military and intelligence”:
The attempt to portray WikiLeaks as being an agent of the US military-industrial complex is followed by, three months later, a switch of course to complain that WikiLeaks only exposes US war crimes:
In aggregate, it seems that they don’t care who WikiLeaks or Snowden is or isn’t working for, they are only trying to cause the maximum possible damage to their reputations, as seen by the posting of skewed opinion polls such as the following, which do not provide any dissenting option.
Glenn Greenwald is another frequent victim of attempts to detract from those doing the most significant and visible work to circulate revelations from the Snowden archives.
Accusations that The Intercept has not released enough documents, or with the speed that many would like, are commonplace. However, YAC chose the precise day that Greenwald and The Intercept had just come out with further major revelations, in order to attack them about it. Ultimately serving as a distraction from the information that had just hit the public arena.
Rather than analyzing and amplifying the documents that they claimed to be so eager to see released, YAC just tore chunks out of those doing the actual work instead.
Things didn’t always used to be this way. A trip down memory lane reveals that at a certain point, there was a seismic shift in YAC’s position.
Going back through YAC’s tweets in reverse-chronological order, there was a clear delineation between the original stances of the account, with its reversed positions and open hostility.
Ladies and gentlemen, meet the old YAC:
So what happened? How did YAC go from an account covering Occupy-related media and sharing pro-whistleblower content and leaks, in neatly laid out well-sourced tweets, to what appears to be an angry and aggressively anti-Snowden/WikiLeaks admin?
In the course of investigating this story I discovered the below tweet from fellow ex-Occupier and WRC journalist, Cassandra Fairbanks.
Suddenly, it all clicked. The concise news-style presentation of the early YAC tweets is likely attributable to Cassandra’s efforts. I reached out to her and asked for her take on what happened.
We Are Change: “Cassandra, the @YourAnonCentral account shared a lot of great work throughout the Occupy movement and had a really effective tweet style with a focus on info-sharing, up until June of 2014. Since then it devolved into what appears to be one person’s endless rant against pillars of the activism world like Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks. Can you tell us how this occurred?”
Cassandra Fairbanks: “That’s about when I left YAC. I had been using it to promote WikiLeaks and Snowden stuff, but we had massive internal disagreements so I quit. The main person running the account was using it as a tool to promote the person they were dating (@georgieBC) who had personal issues with Wikileaks even though she had previously ran WikiLeaks Central, which was essentially a fan site.”
YAC’s anti-Snowden tweets have very little uptake and the threads routinely feature dissenting opinions by readers that are puzzled by the maliciousness on display. Likewise, the malevolent nature of the specific accusations leveled at WikiLeaks by YAC that were picked up by the Daily Kos, did not escape notice.
So let’s break down the 25 YAC tweets, referenced by The Daily Kos in the article “Anonymous Squeals On WikiLeaks and Julian Assange”
Tweets 1-2/25: YAC tweets at @Khannoiseur, an anti-Trump, anti-WikiLeaks journalist, that they find his conspiracy theory that Julian Assange is being blackmailed by Putin “fascinating and quite in line with reality” and “would like to touch on the subject, given that we have somewhat of an insight into the matter.”
Tweet 3/25: YAC describes Julian Assange as a “fascist ideologue“, without any reference or source.
Tweets 4-5/25: YAC says that the attributes commonly associated with WikiLeaks including supporting “human rights, gov’t transparency, and open government” are “not in line with Assange’s politics”.
YAC then sets about trying to ascribe those qualities to people who have ceased working for WikiLeaks in the past, in an attempt to effectively strip WikiLeaks of its identity.
Tweets 6-7/25: YAC claims that WikiLeaks ability to receive leaks was dependent upon someone who had departed the organization. YAC says “the software developer behind it (leak platform) left the project. We assume he is still writing software.”
The “software developer” in question may be Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who volunteered full-time for WikiLeaks in 2009. In this annotated transcript of the film “We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks,” an unauthorized biography by filmmaker Alex Gibney, WikiLeaks points out that
“…in 2007 WikiLeaks uncovered billions of dollars’ worth of corruption in Kenya, a leak that made front pages around the world, and is widely viewed to have changed the results of the Kenyan 2007 Presidential Election. In 2008 WikiLeaks defeated the largest private Swiss bank in US courts after revealing its Cayman Islands trusts, costing the bank hundreds of millions as it cancelled its scheduled US IPO. However these leaks pre-date Domscheit-Berg’s substantive involvement.”
If the leaks pre-date Domscheit-Berg’s involvement, the idea that Domscheit-Berg was the sole engineer of the WikiLeaks platform—or so crucial that his departure crippled the technological functioning of the organization—is counter-intuitive. Meaning that in fact, the claims made by YAC in these tweets are demonstrably false.
But in fact, they are worse than merely slanders of WikiLeaks. They are an attempt to form a revisionist history that seeks to raise the profile of someone—Domscheit-Berg—who was not merely a disgruntled former volunteer. He was without doubt, a saboteur.
Here is why I can say that with such confidence: Domscheit-Berg didn’t merely beef with WikiLeaks or Julian Assange. He didn’t merely sell-out by writing a book slamming them and selling the movie rights to Dreamworks. He did much, much worse. By all accounts, he deliberately destroyed evidence of war crimes and other corporate transgressions and withheld documented proof of such that were entrusted to him.
“I gave WikiLeaks some documents detailing proof of torture and government abuse of a Latin America country. The documents were only in hard copy. I entrusted those valuable documents – the only copy available – to Wikileaks because of the expertise of the people running it, their procedures and the mechanisms they used to maximize impact when published. I did not intend to give such material to Mr. Domscheit-Berg personally, as was made clear to him by me at the time. My intention was to give it to the platform I trusted and contributed to; to WikiLeaks. The material has not been published and I am disturbed to read public statements by Mr. Domscheit-Berg in which he states that he has not returned such documents to WikiLeaks.” – Renata Avila
Avila describes being present at Domscheit-Berg’s home when he was toasting journalist Heather Brooke with champagne. Brooke later stated: ““one of [Assange’s] disaffected colleagues gave me a full set of the US diplomatic cables that Assange was planning to use in his next publication.”
These were, of course, files supplied to WikiLeaks by Chelsea Manning. Of Domscheit-Berg’s attitude towards Manning, Renata Avila notes:
“After the arrest of Bradley Manning became public, I asked Mr. Domscheit-Berg how I could help the young soldier, but he did not appear to be interested. He was on holiday. I sent him contact details of human rights workers I thought would be able to support Manning, which he said he forwarded on to someone else. He never followed it up. I was under the impression that he didn’t care or that someone else must have the situation well in hand. It was only after he was suspended from WikiLeaks that he became outspoken about Manning.” – Renata Avila
The comments section on Avila’s post is well worth reading, to begin to understand the full extent of the betrayals by Domscheit-Berg, referred to as DDB.
OpenLeaks, DDB’s project to springboard off WikiLeaks, was a spectacular failure that resulted in his temporary expulsion from the Chaos Computer Club.
Slashdot sums it up:
Then of course, there’s another tiny problem with the theory of DDB being the technical brains behind the WikiLeaks leaks submission platform.
It turns out he wasn’t actually a developer, a programmer, a computer scientist or a software architect. Nor did he invent, design, build or maintain the platform. He just did a really effective job of sabotaging and temporarily compromising it.
WikiLeaks also confirmed that Domscheit-Berg made off with the “internals” of up to 20 neo-Nazi organizations.
Tweets 8-9/25: YAC alleged that WikiLeaks “copied the publish everything leak platform” concept from Cryptome.org‘s John Young. Then YAC alleges that Cryptome “left” WikiLeaks but still adheres to the principle. According to Young, Cryptome curate their content and do not simply publish everything. Nor do they guarantee the authenticity of the documents they publish or offer any protection to their sources. According to the Wikipedia page for Cryptome, Young says their organisation does not believe in “context“, “verification, authentication” or “background“. Additionally, unlike WikiLeaks, they have complied with official requests for removal of content.
Cryptome has a long established history of obscuring events related to the security of their website with conflicting statements.
Given the massive disparities between the two organizations, not the least of which is their core modus operandi, it is hard to decipher precisely what it is YAC now accuse WikiLeaks of copying from them. The function of receiving documents? That’s what journalists do. Cryptome might have been an early influence for WikiLeaks but they did not invent journalism.
Of WikiLeaks, Young said in a 2010 interview with The Observer:
So after joining WikiLeaks in 2006, publicly trashing it in 2007, printing its internal communications and then doing mainstream media interviews about the project he had abandoned after discovering years later that it had become successful regardless, John Young is a WikiLeaks “member”, “insider”, “devotee” and “critic”. Take from that what you will.
This is, of course, the same John Young who claimed to Vocative in July 2014 that Cryptome would be imminently publishing the Snowden documents that had been withheld from the public. He described the leak of the full archive as inevitable. It has yet to eventuate.
Tweets 10-11/25: These tweets are virtually meaningless. YAC says that WikiLeaks postures itself as anti-war and then attributes that stance to Chelsea Manning. Then anomalously states that Chelsea still holds these beliefs. As if WikiLeaks prior to 2010 wasn’t anti-war, when it clearly was, or as if WikiLeaks is somehow pro-war. The assertion is such a lame duck that it’s not even worth taking the time to debunk. Look at what they were releasing prior to 2010, and what they have since, and the writing is on the wall.
Tweets 12-13/25: YAC’s attempts to insinuate that WikiLeaks is usurping the achievements of others, with a complete lack of context, continues. Swiftly moving on to Iceland, invoking the terms ‘open government‘ and ‘transparency‘ then raising the IMMI (Icelandic Modern Media Initiative), brainchild of Iceland’s Pirate Party leader Birgitta Jonsdottir. What YAC fails to mention is how events in Iceland came to the head that they did. The tide of public dissent that the Pirate Party was able to ride to prominence came about from leaks published by WikiLeaks, exposing gross corruption on the part of Icelandic bankers.
Their supposition that WikiLeaks was not involved in IMMI at a fundamental level is also factually incorrect. In the original video of Birgitta and Julian Assange speaking about IMMI at the 2010 Logan Symposium, the truth couldn’t be any more clear, or any more different than YAC portrayed it.
“The reason why I am here is that early this year me and a group of people including WikiLeaks started to work on a proposal for the Icelandic Parliament tasking the Icelandic government to create sort of a reversal ideology of a tax haven, where they pick good legislation around the world to create secrecy, we want to pick the best possible legislation from around the world to create transparency…
…when I heard this idea, originally the idea about IMMI was introduced by Julian Assange and Daniel Schmitt at a conference in Iceland in December last year, where I was also speaking. Coming from a background of being an activist, a journalist and a writer and a pioneer on the internet, I immediately understood the importance of this.” – Birgitta Jonsdottir
The video is well worth the watch so here it is:
Tweets 14-16/25: YAC says that WikiLeaks only “supported human rights, horizontal governance and was a megaphone for those at risk… based on their (@wikileaks) Twitter feed from 2010 to 2012. News tweeted by @Wikileaks then was based on work of @GeorgieBC.” Once again, this is a ridiculous statement. WikiLeaks interest in human rights both pre and post dates Georgie’s admittedly excellent work on @WLCentral, which for a time was a brilliant and regularly lauded contribution to the WikiLeaks platform.
WikiLeaks’ most significant achievement in acting as “a megaphone for those at risk” has been in the establishment and undertakings of the Courage Foundation, which is a unique, groundbreaking organization acting to defend, promote and represent the best interests of some of the world’s most high-risk, high-profile and fiercely persecuted whistleblowers and journalists. Courage was established long after WLCentral was discontinued.
Therefore the idea that their interest in either of the aforementioned principles was somehow bestowed upon them by a departed third party is frankly, disingenuous.
With regards to horizontal governance, it is true that GeorgieBC has done some really innovative, thorough and challenging thinking and writing on that topic and made many proposals through her personal blog and elsewhere. However, YAC is clearly no expert on how WikiLeaks currently operates or is structured behind the scenes.
The proof is in the pudding really and whatever WikiLeaks are doing, they are doing it right. The stats are long since in – they were the most impactful and significant media organisation on social media during the recent U.S. election. They sport an unblemished record of relentless publishing. It is simply sour grapes to deny them the credit they are due for having achieved so much, in such dire and drastic circumstances as having intelligence agencies, particularly those of the West, set against their success and continued livelihood at every turn. Yet they have triumphed regardless.
Tweets 17-18/25: YAC bizarrely suggests that Jeremy Hammond having leaked the GIFiles from Stratfor was the sum total of WikiLeaks work against ‘corporate tyranny’. But their established record of publishing huge leaks on (not to mention confronting in court and winning against) corporates goes back to 2007 and stretches to the current day. As a campaigner against the TPPA I can tell you that WikiLeaks consistent publishing and analysis of the TPPA, TISA and TTIP texts was hugely consequential in helping to grow the movements against those ‘trade’ agreements – which were not trade agreements at all, but corporate coup d’etat undermining national sovereignty for the benefit of the bottom lines of giant transnational conglomerates – and that is just the most recent example. To swing the pendulum all the way back, it was 2007-2008 when WikiLeaks first took on banks and won.
Tweet 19/25: “People thought @Wikileaks wanted to support the weak against the powerful. That was #Anonymous, not Julian Assange.” What else is there to do but shake one’s head at this inanity? Compared to the entire might of the Western Empire and its military-industrial complex, WikiLeaks *was* the weak. They are quite literally David vs Goliath and they have delivered time and time again. The false dichotomy between Anonymous and Julian Assange is a deliberate attempt at divide and conquer. The vast majority of Anonymous supports WikiLeaks and Assange and always has. Their genesis is from the same community. They cannot be separated just by someone with a Twitter account who desperately hopes they can be. When Assange’s internet was cut by Ecuador in 2016, what happened? Vast swathes of the connectivity of the East Coast of America (and elsewhere) was taken down in retaliation. No matter how much B.S. YAC circulates to the contrary, YAC cannot break solidarity between hackers just because they wish it were so.
Tweet 20-25/25: Bereft of any actual evidence and not having posted a single source link in the entire 25-tweet diatribe, YAC resorts to ad hominems. Assange is this, Assange is that. It is well known that The WikiLeaks Party was infiltrated, just as its parent organisation had been repeatedly in the past, and then smeared for supporting neo-Nazis, just as Anonymous itself was once smeared as supporting neo-Nazis. Just as Occupy was smeared as supporting neo-Nazis, just as any significant activism movement or group supporting any kind of radical change is hauled into the exact same smear because it is a known tactic of the state to do so. According to YAC, somehow Julian’s support of the First Amendment of the US Constitution is also bad – despite Birgitta Jonsdottir having expressed exactly the same admiration for it in the above video.
“None of the people who have ever been involved in @Wikileaks have changed…”
Well, the people involved in @YourAnonCentral have definitely changed and it sure as hell wasn’t an improvement.
By Suzie Dawson