AIPAC and Stealth Israeli Lobbying PACS – Another Media Fabrication: This Time Against Syria – Nearly Half US Living in Household Receiving Govt. Help – Post 9-11 Vets Polled: US Must Focus Less on Foreign Wars

AIPAC and Stealth Israel Political Action Committees

Why are these political action committees trying to conceal their real intent and should we be concerned?  What agenda is AIPAC and these numerous Zionist PACs foisting upon our leaders?  Learn how they work to buy control over our leaders under misleading names and the use of stealth. 

Janet McMahon

—————————————————————————————

Zainab al-Hosni alive: West still waging their bitter propaganda war on Syria

Patrick Henningsen
Infowars.com
October 6, 2011

We like to believe that there once was a time, an age of Woodward and Bernstein, when facts mattered and journalists would not dare go global with a completely fabricated, custom-made piece of fiction designed to stoke the fires of war. If there was such a time, it’s definitely not now.

Two weeks ago, once respected charity Amnesty International, claimed that it had “uncovered evidence” of an 18-year-old girl in Syria named Zainab al-Hosni, whose mutilated body was decapitated and the arms and skin removed. Before long this story spread like wild fire, circulating throughout the multi billion dollar global mainstream media empire.

Yesterday, the real bombshell dropped. It’s official: Zainab al-Hosni  was back from the dead, and being interviewed on Syrian TV, stating, “I came to the police station to tell the truth. That’s what I say to those lying channels – I’m now still alive, not dead”.

So Zainab al-Hosni has magically reappeared- in the flesh, proclaiming she is indeed alive, much to the horror and embarrassment of US Ambassador Susan Rice, who hung most of her unsuccessful UN sanctions attempt against Syria on a series of fabricated media stories like this one.

Rice stormed out of the UN security council meeting after China and Russia vetoed the US-backed resolution condemning Syria’s crackdown on anti-government protests.

The lies that were created through clever editing, zero fact checking and yellow journalism are striking. Here is a brief sample of CNN’s creative video fantasy which ran on September 28, 2011:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEFMEEkne8k

Call it creative communication, call it PR, or call it propaganda. One thing is crystal clear today: the US, its allies and its media partners including a highly compromised Amnesty International, CNN, the BBC, FOX, ABC, CBS, AOL and its newest edition to the western propaganda matrix- Al Jazeera, will say and publish just about anything as long as it dovetails with the received foreign policy goals coming out of Washington and Whitehall.

For those who haven’t been paying attention over the last four years, Al Jazeera has slowly become a middle east extension of the BBC, as well as Washington’s trusted desert media lapdog. The network’s head offices in Doha, Qatar are just down the road from US CENTCOM– military command and control, so you can only imagine who’s buying lunch.

Unsurprisingly, Al Jazeera also did their bit in spreading convenient disinformation about alleged ‘brutal’ death of  Zainab al-Hosni, instead of reporting on what was actually happening in Syria.

Amazingly, only one global media network chose NOT cover the faux death of Zainab al-Hosni with such western vigor. That network was Russia Today (RT). Nor did Infowars.com run with the story. We were aware of it but did not cover it, as it was suspected to be somewhat of a bogus tale designed to push Syria closer to a confrontation with NATO.

RT now reports on NATO’s Al-Hosni disinfo debacle:

The mainstream media’s quick reaction often costs it in terms of fact-checking. As human rights groups continue to sound the alarm over multiple arrests and killings in Syria, one high-profile victim has made an amazing reappearance.

Zainab Al-Hosni was hailed as the flower of Syria, the symbol of the suffering under President Bashar Assad’s brutal regime. At least that is what much of the Western media said after her apparent butchering by security forces.

Several Western media outlets were quick to report Zainab Al-Hosni’s gruesome death – apparently the first woman to be killed in government custody.

Human rights groups like Amnesty International jumped on the bandwagon too, reporting Al-Hosni had been tortured, murdered and mutilated. It even claimed her mother found the body in a morgue last month. All assertions the group is now being forced to backtrack on.

“We will endeavor to be more cautious and phrase things a little bit more nuanced,” Amnesty International spokesperson told the BBC.

The state broadcaster says the interview is to dispel what it labels fabrications by foreign media to serve Western interests.

It is stories like this that have been used to prop up calls from the US, Britain and France for UN sanctions to be slapped on Syria, but their foundations are now looking shakier than ever.

Some video footage shows allegedly unarmed pro-Assad civilians being targeted by gun-toting rebels, whom the West views as peaceful opposition. It seems as Western media only looks in one direction.

“This notion that the US is part of this pro-democracy regime is ridiculous. They’re jumping on that bandwagon as an opportunity to get out in front of it and create this deceptive appearance, while at the same time they’re supporting the dictatorships that are aligned with them and the UN that are part of their empire,” claims Jacob Hornberger from the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Here is another prime example of the power of propaganda coming out of the US and Europe, used as a tool to sway public opinion and influence foreign policy as a result. As RT has very astutely pointed out, real video footage showing unarmed pro-Assad civilians being targeted by heavily armed gun-toting rebels.

Just like in Libya, the so-called “rebels” in Syria are hardly unarmed peace-niks carrying bouquets of flowers. In Libya, in the first days of the civil war back in Jan 2011, the protesters were armed and set fire to government buildings and police stations- hardly the stuff of a romantic Arab Spring in the Magreb. Nonetheless, the West and its obedient media disinformation machine began to pump out the lies, as the ‘International Community’ and its freedom lobby cried out, “Gaddafi is gunning down his own people.”

In many cases, these rebels are armed, violent, well financed and have some links to shadowy, corporate-sponsored ‘Pro Democracy’ foundations in the US, aka “Google’s Revolution Factory”. Cetainly, this was the case in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya.

Readers and viewers should be asking themselves right now, ‘Who should I trust? Can I really trust CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera or Amnesty International anymore- and more importantly, are they compromised by powerful Western influences and intelligence agencies?”

Today should really act as a wake-up call for any media consumers who still remain on the media fence.

——————————————————————————–

Nearly Half of U.S. Lives in Household Receiving Government Benefit

Sara Murray
Wall St Journal
Oct 6, 2011

Families were more dependent on government programs than ever last year.

Nearly half, 48.5%, of the population lived in a household that received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2010, according to Census data. Those numbers have risen since the middle of the recession when 44.4% lived households receiving benefits in the third quarter of 2008.

The share of people relying on government benefits has reached a historic high, in large part from the deep recession and meager recovery, but also because of the expansion of government programs over the years. (See a timeline on the history of government benefits programs here.)

Means-tested programs, designed to help the needy, accounted for the largest share of recipients last year. Some 34.2% of Americans lived in a household that received benefits such as food stamps, subsidized housing, cash welfare or Medicaid (the federal-state health care program for the poor).

Another 14.5% lived in homes where someone was on Medicare (the health care program for the elderly). Nearly 16% lived in households receiving Social Security.

Full article here

———————————————————————————-

Most of Post-9/11 Vets Polled Say U.S. Must Focus Less on Foreign Wars

| Print |

Written by Raven Clabough   –   New American

Wednesday, 05 October 2011 17:00

According to a recent opinion survey, one in three U.S. veterans of the post-9/11 military believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not worth fighting, and a majority of those questioned said that after 10 years of military engagement in the Middle East, the United States should focus less on foreign wars and more on some of its own internal problems.The poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center, reveals a number of significant findings. First, respondents revealed that they are proud of their efforts in the Middle East, but that they were greatly impacted by their time in war. Second, they seemed to believe that the American people do not have a significant understanding of the problems that wartime poses for military members and their families. The survey also demonstrates that members of the military are more inclined to call themselves Republicans than Democrats, and to disapprove of President Obama’s job performance as Commander-in-Chief. Surprisingly, the poll also indicates that veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are less likely to be affiliated with any particular religion than those of previous wars. Pew notes that this particular poll, based on two surveys conducted between late July and mid-September, was the first of its kind. The first survey questioned 1,853 veterans, of which 712 served in the military following 9/11, while the second poll surveyed 2,003 adults, none of whom served in the military. Fox News writes: Nearly half of post-9/11 veterans said deployments strained their relationship with their spouses, and a similar share reported problems with their children. On the other hand, 60 percent said they and their families benefited financially from having served abroad in a combat zone. Asked for a single word to describe their experiences, the war veterans offered a mixed picture: “rewarding,” “nightmare,” “eye opening,” “lousy.” Since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 6,000 troops have died in combat, while the combined costs of the wars have surpassed $1 trillion. There are currently 98,000 American troops in Afghanistan. President Obama campaigned on promises of withdrawing all troops from Iraq, and in July announced he would pull 10,000 troops out of Afghanistan this year and 23,000 more by next September. The poll shows that the veterans are more supportive of the war in Afghanistan, despite its length, because it has been a less deadly conflict. Overall, however, one-third of those veterans who were polled believe that neither the war in Afghanistan nor the one in Iraq was worth the sacrifice of lives and money. In the second poll, 45 percent adhered to the same philosophy. Fox News commented on the results of the polls, The findings highlight a dilemma for the Obama administration and Congress as they struggle to shrink the government’s huge budget deficits and reconsider defense priorities while trying to keep public support for remaining involved in Iraq and Afghanistan for the longer term. The results of the survey should not come as a shock to anyone who has been closely following the race for the GOP presidential nomination. Texas Congressman Ron Paul, with a strong message of non-interventionism, peace, and troop withdrawal from the American bases around the world, has managed to garner a significant majority of military campaign donations. Politifact.com reports: We turned to the presidential candidates’ latest campaign finance filings compiled by the Federal Election Commission, which breaks out donations by donors’ employers. … From April through June, Paul fielded more than $25,000 from individuals who listed their employer as a branch of the military. Combined, six other Republican presidential candidates listed donations from members of the military totaling about $9,000. Our most-to-least breakdown: Herman Cain, $2,850; Mitt Romney, $2,750; Michele Bachmann, $2,250; Newt Gingrich, $500; and Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum, $250 each. Paul even edged out President Obama in military donation receipts, despite the President’s alleged intentions of ending American militarism in the Middle East. Politifact reports that Obama has received only $16,000 in donations from members of the military. Likewise, a recent Rasmussen Report poll shows that in a potential race between President Obama and Ron Paul, Paul trails behind the President by only a single point. According to constitutionalist journalist David Kretzmann, the reason Paul fares so well against Obama is simple: Ron Paul is actually anti-war and would end the Iraq War; Obama has hardly changed a thing in Iraq. Ron Paul would bring all U.S. troops home; Obama has started and expanded new endless wars in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Libya. One must assume that Paul’s popularity amongst members of the military can only be tied to his message of non-interventionism and his intent to withdraw troops from the Middle East. During an interview on the PBS “Newshour” show, Paul declared that he would remove U.S. forces from Afghanistan “as quickly as the ships could get there.” He continued: It’s insane what we’re doing. And I’ll tell you one thing about this business about the military: We just had a quarterly [campaign finance] report, and they listed all the money that all the candidates got from the military. I got twice as much as all the other candidates put together on the Republican side, and even more than Obama got, which tells me that these troops want to come home as well because they know exactly what I’m talking about. And despite the popularity of the wars at the times they began, there seems to be growing resentment among the American people regarding the wars in the Middle East. This resentment was made especially evident by the reaction of American citizens to the recent military action taken in Libya by President Obama. A June Gallup poll showed that a mere 39 percent of Republicans support military action in Libya, and a large majority of Independents reject the endeavor as well, with just 31 percent showing support for it. Only among Democrats is the Libya war popular — with 54 percent supporting it — a direct contrast to their views on the war in Iraq embarked upon by President George W. Bush. ——————————————————————————–