WORD WARS

REUTERS/Keith Bedford

Dan Rather has a new name for climate deniers — and they probably won’t like it.

The iconic former CBS newsman took to Facebook with a fresh hot take on Wednesday, this one about climate change deniers. Rather thinks they deserve a new name: Reality deniers.

Dan Rather

el miércoles pasado

I think at this point, we can stop calling them climate change deniers. Reality Deniers is closer to the truth.

A few years back, I traveled to the famed Northwest Passage, to report on how climate change might eventually melt the icy blockades which had thwarted explorers for centuries. Well "later" seems to have become much sooner than scientists expected.

http://www.nytimes.com/…/science/arctic-global-warming.html…

Spiking Temperatures in the Arctic Startle Scientists

A spate of extreme warmth is linked to climate change, and may lead to shrinking ice coverage and even more warming in the region, scientists said.

NYTIMES.COM|BY HENRY FOUNTAIN AND JOHN SCHWARTZ

10K

348

4.3K

It may seem trivial, but language really is a contentious debate in the fight over public perception. One debate is even about the best term to describe the issue itself — “global warming” versus “climate change.” According to one scholar with Gallup, there isn’t much of a difference in how people respond to the two terms, though GOP pollster Frank Luntz wanted the Bush White House to abandon “global warming” for what he viewed as the less-frightening term.

When it comes to labeling the people who reject the science themselves, emotions run higher. Climate change deniers, for their part, tend toloathe the term “denier,” preferring to call themselves “skeptics,” or, more ludicrously, “optimists.” But here at Grist, we prefer to call ’em like we see it. A denier is a denier.

Katie HerzogDec 22, 2016
(GRIST)

Dan Rather has a new name for climate deniers — and they probably won’t like it.

The iconic former CBS newsman took to Facebook with a fresh hot take on Wednesday, this one about climate change deniers. Rather thinks they deserve a new name: Reality deniers.

Dan Rather

el miércoles pasado

I think at this point, we can stop calling them climate change deniers. Reality Deniers is closer to the truth.

http://www.nytimes.com/…/science/arctic-global-warming.html…

Spiking Temperatures in the Arctic Startle Scientists

A spate of extreme warmth is linked to climate change, and may lead to shrinking ice coverage and even more warming in the region, scientists said.

NYTIMES.COM|BY HENRY FOUNTAIN AND JOHN SCHWARTZ

10K

348

4.3K

Court Rules Police Can Legally Execute Your Dog If It Does Anything But Sit Silently

DECEMBER 24, 2016

By Jack Burns

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded Monday that police officers are justified in killing citizens’ pets — even if those animals are not attacking or attempting to attack them.

Judges MOORE and CLAY (Circuit Judges), and HOOD (District Judge) heard an appeal from the plaintiffs Mark and Cheryl Brown, of Battle Creek, Michigan. The Browns filed a lawsuit against the BATTLE CREEK Police Department, the City of Battle Creek, and officers Jeffrey Case, Christof Klein, and Damon Young for the death of their beloved dogs at the hands of sadistic cops.

The incident occurred on April 17^th, 2013, when police were attempting to execute a search warrant on the home where the Browns were living because a police informant reported another man, Vincent Jones, was distributing heroin, cocaine, and marijuana from the residence. Jones was apprehended before police arrived on the scene.

Mark Brown, who was not a suspect in the search, had gone home on his lunch break to let out his two pit bulls. After doing so, he locked the door and headed back to work when police arrived and detained him. He told them he had a key, and that they didn’t need to destroy the front door to gain entry into the home. But destroy it they did.

The Browns dispute the claims by police that the dogs were barking. Mark Brown even testified the smaller of the two dogs had “never barked a day in her life.” Officer Klein said the larger dog was barking and “lunged” at him, but later admitted the pet “had only moved a few inches.”

Despite there being no attack, Klein fired a round at the dog. Both dogs ran away from the officers to the basement, obviously fleeing in fear. There, the two dogs were shot and killed by the officers who felt that they could not properly clear the room and effectively execute the search warrant on the home, explaining they “did not feel [the officers] could safely clear the basement with those dogs down there.”

Going further, the officers stated the “basement was loaded. You’ve gotta look under beds, you’ve gotta do everything, and [the dogs] basically prevented us from doing that, and they were protecting that basement.” Klein testified the smaller pit bull was “just standing there” when it was shot and killed.

In spite of these sadistic admissions, the appellate court ruled in favor of the officers, the police department, and the other defendants. They agreed with the lower court ruling that the police officers were covered under “doctrine of qualified immunity” and were therefore not liable for compensating the plaintiffs in the case.

The precedent has now been set. Cops can legally kill your dogs for the sole act of being a dog. If your dog moves, it is dead. If your dog barks, it is dead. If your dog does anything but sit silently in the other room, it is dead. However, as the above case illustrates, even if they are silent in the other room, police can still kill them — just to make their search for arbitrary substances deemed illegal by the state — that much easier.

Jack Burns writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared

(activistpost.com)

New center gets money, authority to decide what's truth, what's not

Published: 1 day ago

Barack Obama has signed into law a bill authorizing some $611 billion in funding for the U.S. military for 2017, but hidden inside the massive governmental document is a provision that is alarming free-speech and limited-government advocates: authorization and funding for a new center to decide what is truth.

The newly approved Center for Information Analysis and Response, or as it’s been dubbed, the “Ministry of Truth,” is being given power to not only make those determinations, but also do what’s needed to influence the American public to believe it.

“Here are a few highlights,” wrote a a blogger who focuses on government indoctrination through its Common Core education mandates, at What is Common Core:

“The new center will ‘counter propaganda and disinformation’ as defined by the center. … The new center will use ‘covert or clandestine special operators and agents to influence targeted populations. … The new center has 10 million dollars to pay select members of academia and journalism to ‘proactively promote fact-based narratives and policies,’ and ‘to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation’ – as defined by the center.”

In fact, the law calls for the center to “provide grants or contracts of financial support to civil society groups, journalists, nongovernmental organizations, federally funded research and development centers, private companies, or academic institutions.”

Aaron Kesel wrote at We Are Change that, in layman’s terms, “the act will allow the government to crack down with impunity against any media outlet it deems ‘propaganda.’ The next piece of the legislation will provide substantial amounts of money to fund ‘counter propaganda,’ to make sure the government’s approved stories drown out alternative media and journalists who question the status quo.”

He continued, “Welcome to 1984.”

At the Zerohedge website, Tyler Durden wrote about Obama’s announcement regarding the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.

Obama blamed the GOP for Guantanamo’s continued operations, and he criticized Congress for failing to reduce wasteful spending.

“But … the biggest news is what was buried deep inside the provisions,” he wrote. “As we reported in early June, ‘a bill to implement the U.S.’ very own de facto Ministry of Truth had been quietly introduced in Congress.'”

It was from several members of Congress, including Sen. Rob Portman, who cited the concern that there was “no single U.S. governmental agency or department charged with the national level development, integration and synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation.”

Reported ZeroHedge, “Long before the ‘fake news’ meme became a daily topic of extensive conversation on such discredited mainstream portals as CNN and WaPo, H.R. 5181 would task the Secretary of State with coordinating the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to ‘establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response,’ which will pinpoint sources of disinformation, analyze data, and – in true dystopic manner – ‘develop and disseminate’ ‘fact-based narratives‘ to counter … propaganda.”

It continued, “In short, long before ‘fake news’ became a major media topic, the U.S. government was already planning its legally backed crackdown on anything it would eventually label ‘fake news,'” the site reported.

“Fake news” flashed across America only late this year as a new description of information that failed to follow the talking points of liberals who were fighting mightily to support now-twice-failed Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.

It was applied by various officials to Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of emails containing national secrets and such.

The sponsors of the plan claim it will “improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation from our enemies by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government.”

Video: Obama: U.S. and Australia Have 'Shared Values'

It will provide grants to “NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts” to influence thought.

“And so, with the likes of WaPo having already primed the general public to equate ‘Russian Propaganda’ with ‘fake news’ (despite admitting after the fact their own report was essentially ‘fake’), while the U.S. media has indoctrinated the public to assume that any information which is not in compliance with the official government narrative, or dares to criticize the establishment, is also ‘fake news’ and thus falls under the ‘Russian propaganda’ umbrella, the scene is now set for the U.S. government to legally crack down on every media outlet that the government deems to be ‘foreign propaganda,'” ZeroHedge warned.

At the Federal Papers blog, Kimberly Morin raised some of the obvious questions.

“Who is going to inoculate Americans against the propaganda from the U.S. government? Not only will this increase the size of government, again, but who exactly will be the people deciding what is propaganda and what is disinformation? The very same people in the federal government who push their own propaganda and disinformation onto the unknowing masses? All one has to do is look to the mainstream media to see massive propaganda and disinformation but, of course, the only people who grasp this are those who bother to do any research. The government is fully behind THIS type of propaganda and disinformation; it’s right up their alley.”

Obama boasted of the law’s provisions for pay and benefits for members of the military, and the creation of options for countering cyber-attacks, but didn’t discuss the propaganda arm of the federal government being created.

At the FreeThoughtProject blog, Annise Smith noted, “For all intents and purposes, the NDAA’s single phrase, ‘dissemination of fact-based narratives,’ summons a near specter to newspeak, the propagandic and revisionist language created by the Ingsox government’s Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s now eerily portentous 1984.

“Innumerable tongue-in-cheek references to that dystopian classic have been made in recent times, but the new law seemingly cements the parallels – naming the modern iteration of the Ministry of Truth an even creepier, Global Engagement Center.”

At the Federalist Papers, the worries continued, “With all the cries about ‘Fake News’ during the last election cycle, it’s interesting that this bill gets signed now, as Obama is about to leave office. The Obama administration is one of the biggest perpetrators of disinformation in United States history, along with the Democrat Party of course and their minions in left wing organizations like the Center for American Progress.

“This seems like yet another slippery slope (aren’t most federal government laws?) that will be used against the American people rather than to actually do any good for them.

“The ‘deciders’ of what is propaganda and disinformation will most likely be the very same people who push their own version of it.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/feds-to-counter-fake-news-with-stunning-propaganda-plan/#mmVp9o5rzBIDpchV.99

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 12/28/2016 9:49:12 AM
	Court Rules Police Can Legally Execute Your Dog If It Does Anything But Sit Silently DECEMBER 24, 2016 By Jack Burns The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded Monday that police officers are justified in killing citizens’ pets — even if those animals are not attacking or attempting to attack them. Judges MOORE and CLAY (Circuit Judges), and HOOD (District Judge) heard an appeal from the plaintiffs Mark and Cheryl Brown, of Battle Creek, Michigan. The Browns filed a lawsuit against the BATTLE CREEK Police Department, the City of Battle Creek, and officers Jeffrey Case, Christof Klein, and Damon Young for the death of their beloved dogs at the hands of sadistic cops. The incident occurred on April 17^th, 2013, when police were attempting to execute a search warrant on the home where the Browns were living because a police informant reported another man, Vincent Jones, was distributing heroin, cocaine, and marijuana from the residence. Jones was apprehended before police arrived on the scene. Mark Brown, who was not a suspect in the search, had gone home on his lunch break to let out his two pit bulls. After doing so, he locked the door and headed back to work when police arrived and detained him. He told them he had a key, and that they didn’t need to destroy the front door to gain entry into the home. But destroy it they did. The Browns dispute the claims by police that the dogs were barking. Mark Brown even testified the smaller of the two dogs had “never barked a day in her life.” Officer Klein said the larger dog was barking and “lunged” at him, but later admitted the pet “had only moved a few inches.” Despite there being no attack, Klein fired a round at the dog. Both dogs ran away from the officers to the basement, obviously fleeing in fear. There, the two dogs were shot and killed by the officers who felt that they could not properly clear the room and effectively execute the search warrant on the home, explaining they “did not feel [the officers] could safely clear the basement with those dogs down there.” Going further, the officers stated the “basement was loaded. You’ve gotta look under beds, you’ve gotta do everything, and [the dogs] basically prevented us from doing that, and they were protecting that basement.” Klein testified the smaller pit bull was “just standing there” when it was shot and killed. In spite of these sadistic admissions, the appellate court ruled in favor of the officers, the police department, and the other defendants. They agreed with the lower court ruling that the police officers were covered under “doctrine of qualified immunity” and were therefore not liable for compensating the plaintiffs in the case. The precedent has now been set. Cops can legally kill your dogs for the sole act of being a dog. If your dog moves, it is dead. If your dog barks, it is dead. If your dog does anything but sit silently in the other room, it is dead. However, as the above case illustrates, even if they are silent in the other room, police can still kill them — just to make their search for arbitrary substances deemed illegal by the state — that much easier. Jack Burns writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared (activistpost.com)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 12/28/2016 10:27:43 AM
	WND EXCLUSIVE FEDS TO COUNTER 'FAKE NEWS' WITH STUNNING PROPAGANDA PLAN New center gets money, authority to decide what's truth, what's not Published: 1 day ago BOB UNRUH Barack Obama has signed into law a bill authorizing some $611 billion in funding for the U.S. military for 2017, but hidden inside the massive governmental document is a provision that is alarming free-speech and limited-government advocates: authorization and funding for a new center to decide what is truth. The newly approved Center for Information Analysis and Response, or as it’s been dubbed, the “Ministry of Truth,” is being given power to not only make those determinations, but also do what’s needed to influence the American public to believe it. “Here are a few highlights,” wrote a a blogger who focuses on government indoctrination through its Common Core education mandates, at What is Common Core: “The new center will ‘counter propaganda and disinformation’ as defined by the center. … The new center will use ‘covert or clandestine special operators and agents to influence targeted populations. … The new center has 10 million dollars to pay select members of academia and journalism to ‘proactively promote fact-based narratives and policies,’ and ‘to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation’ – as defined by the center.” In fact, the law calls for the center to “provide grants or contracts of financial support to civil society groups, journalists, nongovernmental organizations, federally funded research and development centers, private companies, or academic institutions.” Aaron Kesel wrote at We Are Change that, in layman’s terms, “the act will allow the government to crack down with impunity against any media outlet it deems ‘propaganda.’ The next piece of the legislation will provide substantial amounts of money to fund ‘counter propaganda,’ to make sure the government’s approved stories drown out alternative media and journalists who question the status quo.” He continued, “Welcome to 1984.” At the Zerohedge website, Tyler Durden wrote about Obama’s announcement regarding the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. Obama blamed the GOP for Guantanamo’s continued operations, and he criticized Congress for failing to reduce wasteful spending. “But … the biggest news is what was buried deep inside the provisions,” he wrote. “As we reported in early June, ‘a bill to implement the U.S.’ very own de facto Ministry of Truth had been quietly introduced in Congress.'” It was from several members of Congress, including Sen. Rob Portman, who cited the concern that there was “no single U.S. governmental agency or department charged with the national level development, integration and synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation.” Reported ZeroHedge, “Long before the ‘fake news’ meme became a daily topic of extensive conversation on such discredited mainstream portals as CNN and WaPo, H.R. 5181 would task the Secretary of State with coordinating the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to ‘establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response,’ which will pinpoint sources of disinformation, analyze data, and – in true dystopic manner – ‘develop and disseminate’ ‘fact-based narratives‘ to counter … propaganda.” It continued, “In short, long before ‘fake news’ became a major media topic, the U.S. government was already planning its legally backed crackdown on anything it would eventually label ‘fake news,'” the site reported. “Fake news” flashed across America only late this year as a new description of information that failed to follow the talking points of liberals who were fighting mightily to support now-twice-failed Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. It was applied by various officials to Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of emails containing national secrets and such. The sponsors of the plan claim it will “improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation from our enemies by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government.” Video: Obama: U.S. and Australia Have 'Shared Values' It will provide grants to “NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts” to influence thought. “And so, with the likes of WaPo having already primed the general public to equate ‘Russian Propaganda’ with ‘fake news’ (despite admitting after the fact their own report was essentially ‘fake’), while the U.S. media has indoctrinated the public to assume that any information which is not in compliance with the official government narrative, or dares to criticize the establishment, is also ‘fake news’ and thus falls under the ‘Russian propaganda’ umbrella, the scene is now set for the U.S. government to legally crack down on every media outlet that the government deems to be ‘foreign propaganda,'” ZeroHedge warned. At the Federal Papers blog, Kimberly Morin raised some of the obvious questions. “Who is going to inoculate Americans against the propaganda from the U.S. government? Not only will this increase the size of government, again, but who exactly will be the people deciding what is propaganda and what is disinformation? The very same people in the federal government who push their own propaganda and disinformation onto the unknowing masses? All one has to do is look to the mainstream media to see massive propaganda and disinformation but, of course, the only people who grasp this are those who bother to do any research. The government is fully behind THIS type of propaganda and disinformation; it’s right up their alley.” Obama boasted of the law’s provisions for pay and benefits for members of the military, and the creation of options for countering cyber-attacks, but didn’t discuss the propaganda arm of the federal government being created. At the FreeThoughtProject blog, Annise Smith noted, “For all intents and purposes, the NDAA’s single phrase, ‘dissemination of fact-based narratives,’ summons a near specter to newspeak, the propagandic and revisionist language created by the Ingsox government’s Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s now eerily portentous 1984. “Innumerable tongue-in-cheek references to that dystopian classic have been made in recent times, but the new law seemingly cements the parallels – naming the modern iteration of the Ministry of Truth an even creepier, Global Engagement Center.” At the Federalist Papers, the worries continued, “With all the cries about ‘Fake News’ during the last election cycle, it’s interesting that this bill gets signed now, as Obama is about to leave office. The Obama administration is one of the biggest perpetrators of disinformation in United States history, along with the Democrat Party of course and their minions in left wing organizations like the Center for American Progress. “This seems like yet another slippery slope (aren’t most federal government laws?) that will be used against the American people rather than to actually do any good for them. “The ‘deciders’ of what is propaganda and disinformation will most likely be the very same people who push their own version of it.” Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/feds-to-counter-fake-news-with-stunning-propaganda-plan/#mmVp9o5rzBIDpchV.99
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 12/28/2016 10:43:18 AM
	Russia calls U.S. move to better arm Syrian rebels a 'hostile act' By Andrew Osborn ReutersDecember 27, 2016 In this Sunday Feb. 15, 2015 file photo and provided on by the Syrian anti-government activist group Aleppo Media Center (AMC), which has been authenticated based on its contents and other AP reporting, shows Syrian rebels firing locally made shells against the Syrian government forces, in Aleppo, Syria. Islamic State militants entered a Syrian opposition stronghold in the country's north on Saturday, clashing with rebels on the edges of the town as the extremist group built on its most significant advance near the Turkish border in two years, Syrian opposition groups and IS media said. (AP Photo/Aleppo Media Center, AMC, File) By Andrew Osborn MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia said on Tuesday that a U.S. decision to ease restrictions on arming Syrian rebels had opened the way for deliveries of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, a move it said would directly threaten Russian forces in Syria. Moscow last year launched a campaign of air strikes in Syria to help President Bashar al-Assad and his forces retake territory lost to rebels, some of whom are supported by the United States. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the policy change easing restrictions on weapons supplies had been set out in a new U.S. defense spending bill and that Moscow regarded the step as a hostile act. U.S. President Barack Obama, who has been sharply critical of Russia's intervention in Syria, signed the annual defense policy bill into law last week. State Department spokesman Mark Toner dismissed the Russian charges, saying the administration remains opposed to providing portable anti-aircraft missiles, or MANPADS, to Syrian opposition groups. "Our position on MANPADS has not changed. We have a very deep concern about that kind of weaponry getting into Syria," Toner said, referring to fears that portable anti-aircraft missiles could end up in the hands of Islamist militants and be used against civilian airliners. The National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law by Obama on Dec. 23, appears designed to assuage the administration's misgivings but imposes a new layer of congressional oversight on any presidential decision to provide them. A provision bars the U.S. Defense Department from spending funds on MANPADS for Syrian rebel groups until the secretaries of state and defense submit a report to congressional committees explaining the decision to do so. The report would have to include which groups would receive the weapons, intelligence analyses on the groups and the kinds and numbers of MANPADS to be supplied. Moscow cast the bill as lifting restrictions on the provision of such weapons to Syrian rebels. "Washington has placed its bets on supplying military aid to anti-government forces who don't differ than much from blood thirsty head choppers. Now, the possibility of supplying them with weapons, including mobile anti-aircraft complexes, has been written into this new bill," Zakharova said in a statement. "In the administration of B. Obama they must understand that any weapons handed over will quickly end up in the hands of jihadists," she added, saying that perhaps that was what the White House was counting on happening. The U.S. decision was a direct threat to the Russian air force, to other Russian military personnel, and to Russia's embassy in Damascus, said Zakharova. "We therefore view the step as a hostile act." Zakharova accused the Obama administration of trying to "put a mine" under the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump by attempting to get it to continue what she called Washington's "anti-Russian line." The Obama administration has in recent weeks expanded the list of Russians affected by U.S. sanctions imposed on Moscow over its actions in Ukraine. Trump, during his election campaign, said he was keen to try to improve relations with Moscow and spoke positively about President Vladimir Putin's leadership skills. A back-and-forth exchange between Trump and Putin over nuclear weapons last week tested the Republican's promises to improve relations with Russia however. The Obama administration and U.S. intelligence officials have accused Russia of trying to interfere with the U.S. election by hacking Democratic Party accounts. "The current occupants of the White House imagined that they could pressure Russia," said Zakharova. "Let's hope that those who replace them will be wiser." (Additional reporting by Peter Hobson in Moscow and Tom Perry in Beirut and Jonathan Landay and Lesley Wroughton in Washington; Editing by Raissa Kasolowsky and Alan Crosby) (Yahoo News)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Menu

Forums

BRIEFLY

Stuff that matters

Dan Rather has a new name for climate deniers — and they probably won’t like it.

BRIEFLY

Stuff that matters

Dan Rather has a new name for climate deniers — and they probably won’t like it.

Court Rules Police Can Legally Execute Your Dog If It Does Anything But Sit Silently

WND EXCLUSIVE

FEDS TO COUNTER 'FAKE NEWS' WITH STUNNING PROPAGANDA PLAN

New center gets money, authority to decide what's truth, what's not

Russia calls U.S. move to better arm Syrian rebels a 'hostile act'

Like us on Facebook!