Isn’t is designed not to “harm” the 1% as I read somewhere they are reptilian…

…Isn’t is designed not to “harm” the 1% as I read somewhere they are reptilian…

Monsanto’s Controversial Glyphosate Herbicide Is Being Sprayed in New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland

By Lorraine Chow, EcoWatch……..The herbicide was classified as "probably carcinogenic to humans” by the World Health Organization. ………..READ MORE»

…It is solely your responsibility to determine if the information offered is “vetted” authentically and sufficiently

…Ever wonder where our Allies might have learned these double-dealing … thuggish … rogue techniques….???

…Ever wonder where our Allies might have learned these double-dealing … thuggish … rogue techniques….???

Dump Our Double-Dealing, Thuggish ‘Allies’

 

04-29-2016 • nationalinterest.org  ….Indeed, one could argue that even during the Cold War, the United States was the most secure great power in history. How many other great powers ever enjoyed the luxury of two oceanic moats on its flanks and nothing more than weak and friendly neighbors on its other borders? Most confronted geostrategic situations that did not even faintly resemble such a benign environment. Moreover, although the Soviet Union was a credible military challenger, in the end, it proved to be a much weaker and more fragile great power than the image that members of America’s national-security bureaucracy had created.

It was a logical and moral stretch to justify some of the alliances that Washington forged with repulsive, autocratic regimes to wage the struggle against the Soviet Union. Decent Americans had to restrain their gag reflexes to see their government support the likes of the Shah of Iran, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, South Korea’s Chun Doo-hwan, or the Saudi royal family, given the massive human-rights abuses those regimes committed. With the dissolution of the USSR at the end of 1991, and the disappearance of even an arguable existential threat to America’s security, maintaining close relationships with corrupt, murderous autocrats became harder and harder to justify…..Read Full Story

…It is solely your responsibility to determine if the information offered is “vetted” authentically and sufficiently

e may have been a time when the New York Times was consider the “gold standard” of newspapers but that is no longer the case it’s just another daily rag … it is firmly in Hillary’s camp and times its missives on Bernie to do what it feels will be the most damaging…

…there may have been a time when the New York Times was consider the “gold standard” of newspapers but that is no longer the case it’s just another daily rag … it is firmly in Hillary’s camp and times its missives on Bernie to do what it feels will be the most damaging…

How the New York Times Helped Hillary Hide the Hawk

 

Timing is everything when it comes to responsible journalism.

By Russ Baker / WhoWhatWhy   …. This article was originally published atWhoWhatWhy.org.  Following a rough night in five East Coast primaries, Bernie Sanders’ path to the Democratic nomination is now more narrow and steep than it has ever been. But are these votes truly a referendum on who voters think the best candidate is—or are they merely a reflection of what the corporate media wants Democrats to think?

In our critique of the media, we tend to focus on The New York Times, because it purports to be the gold standard for journalism, and because others look to the paper for coverage guidance. But the same critique could be applied to The Washington Post, Politico, CNN, and most other leading outfits.

In prior articles, we noted how theTimeshelped Clinton walk away with most of the African-American vote—and therefore victory in many states—by essentially hiding Sanders’ comparably far more impressive record on civil rights.

We also noted how it seemed that every little thing the Clinton camp did right was billboarded, while significant victories against great odds by Sanders were minimized.

These are truly the kinds of decisions that determine the “conventional wisdom,” which in turn so often determines outcomes.

But there is more—and it is even more disturbing. Clinton’s principal reason to claim she is so qualified to be president—aside from being First Lady and senator—is her four years as Secretary of State.

What kind of a legacy did she leave? Perhaps her principal role was to push for military engagement—more soldiers in existing conflicts, and new wars altogether. WhoWhatWhy has written about these wars and their dubiousbasis.

Wars are good business for Wall Street, for corporations in general, and for others who have been friendly to her and her campaign.

Why was this never a bigger issue? Why was this not front and center with New York voters, a traditionally liberal group with a strong antipathy toward war and militarism? Certainly Sanders tried to bring up this issue, and doesn’t seem to have succeeded. But mostly, this was a failure of the media, whose job it is to shine a strong spotlight.

And why did The New York Timeswait until two days afterthe New York primary to publish its biggest piece on this, when it could no longer influence that key contest? (It appeared first on its website and later in its Sunday magazine.)

In fact, with the media declaring this probably now a Clinton-Trump race, highlighting her hawkishness turns it from a handicap to a strength. How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawkwas the digital equivalent of a huge front-page story.

What the article makes clear—shockingly clear—is that Hillary Clinton is the most militaristic of anyof the presidential candidates, even more than Ted Cruz.

Was this delay in publication just a case of poor scheduling? Was it to ensure that the paper could not be accused of influencing the primary outcome?

The Times’s editorials had already gotten behind her candidacy (without mentioning her refusal to release transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches, or her opposition to a paltry $15 an hour minimum wage). Would running Mark Landler’s critical piece when it mattered have seemed like an implicit rebuke of the paper’s own editorial board or interfered with its influence?

How ironic it is that “liberal” Hillary Clinton has never met a war she did not like, and has never been held responsible for the chaos they caused and the policies she advocated—yet it is Bernie Sanders whose policies are being described as “unrealistic” by the same people who are shielding Clinton from criticism.

What is the purpose of journalism if not to introduce material when it is relevant—and can have an impact? And one that is good for humanity—as opposed to the arms industry.

The Times, Judith Miller et al, have certainly had an impact. Go here for one ofWhoWhatWhy’s stories of some of the goriest details.

Russ Baker is editor of WhoWhatWhy.com and author of "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years."

…It is solely your responsibility to determine if the information offered is “vetted” authentically and sufficiently

is this supposed to be a surprise … hello … they live in dwelling most likely with little or no insulation … single pane windows … poor heating and cooling … so what would you expect…???

…is this supposed to be a surprise … hello … they live in dwelling most likely with little or no insulation … single pane windows … poor heating and cooling … so what would you expect…???

Study: Low-Income Households Spend More on Energy Than Others in the Same City

By Maria Stamas, NRDC  ………African-American and Latino households generally experience higher energy burdens when compared to the median household in the same city….. READ MORE»

…It is solely your responsibility to determine if the information offered is “vetted” authentically and sufficiently

No mention that the Republican/GOP/TeaParty stood by defiantly for 8 years to thwart anything Obama suggested America do…

…No mention that the Republican/GOP/TeaParty stood by defiantly for 8 years to thwart anything Obama suggested America do…

Obama Admits Couldn’t "Convince Americans Of Recovery", Bashes ‘The Big Short’

04-29-2016  •  http://www.zerohedge.com ……Despite his proclamation that he "saved the world from a Great Depression," the fact is that Obama will be the first President ever to not see a single year of 3% GDP growth – but only cynical fiction-peddlers would mention facts at a time 

…It is solely your responsibility to determine if the information offered is “vetted” authentically and sufficiently

would have you believe all health care issues are Obama’s fault

image…Waiting for the headline blaming this solely on Obama as corporate media and the GOP would have you believe all health care issues are Obama’s fault…

…It is solely your responsibility to determine if the information offered is “vetted” authentically and sufficiently

I thought as a holder of public trust you are held to a higher $tandard … OOP$ wrong S’s…

image…I thought as a holder of public trust you are held to a higher $tandard … OOP$ wrong S’s…

…It is solely your responsibility to determine if the information offered is “vetted” authentically and sufficiently