The CIA’s Dirty Tricks Against American Democracy

Accuracy in Media


There is an easy way to determine who is a faithful Democratic Party hack in the media and who on the left maintains at least some independence from the party line. Long-time Democrat Bill Moyers thinks it’s an open-and-shut case that Russia’s Vladimir Putin intervened in the election to help Trump and that our democracy is in peril. The Intercept thinks the evidence is weak, and that the CIA may have some other reason for “squaring off directly against Trump.” What could that possibly be?

Could it be that CIA Director John Brennan fears that Trump as president could order an investigation into what the CIA has been up to under President Obama? What could that be? Could the CIA have been interfering in foreign elections, and if so, could such efforts have provoked Russian retaliation?

The folks at the Intercept are on the far-left, but have decided to maintain some semblance of objectivity when it comes to sensational claims of foreign interference in the 2016 campaign. However, the idea they propose—that the controversy can be solved by President Obama declassifying evidence—is not practical. Obama won’t do it, because the intelligence agencies always claim that disclosure will reveal sources and methods. If they do release “evidence,” it will be vague and mostly worthless, just like the stories in The Washington Post and New York Times, where these allegations initially surfaced. These stories are impossible to confirm or deny.

The CIA will want to hide its hand, not because the evidence may implicate Russia in election interference, but because the evidence we do have demonstrates that the CIA is currently interfering in the results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. That’s the story that cannot be told, and the one which threatens our democracy. The Times and Post are vehicles for this insidious effort.

Continue reading

Obama’s Legacy: America’s Perception of Terrorism

image via

Family Security Matters


One of Barack Obama’s first actions as president was ensuring the American public understood what terrorism does not involve.

Obama’s Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, quickly sought to dumb down the public’s perception on terrorism. While most Americans recognized terrorism as involving the use of violence and intimidation to pursue one’s political goals, Napolitano sought to impart a “kinder, gentler” perspective on it.

When asked, after addressing Congress for the first time in 2009, why she never mentioned the word terrorism, Napolitano responded it was preferable to call such acts “man-caused” disasters. She suggested doing so “is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

Of course, in the aftermath of years of terrorist attacks against American targets – such as the 1983 bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen and the 9/11 attacks, all performed by Islamic extremists – we thought we already had a pretty good handle as to what terrorism was and who, primarily, was responsible for it. Apparently, we did not.

Continue reading