SC Police Execution – Why the Official Story Always Needs to Be Questioned

by Kit Daniels | Infowars.com | April 9, 2015

Media never questioned police version of shooting – until video
Walter Scott Shooting: Why You Must Always Question the Official Story

The mainstream media never questioned the false police version of the Walter Scott shooting until a video emerged showing North Charleston, S.C. police officer Michael T. Slager shooting Scott in the back five times.

The video, recorded by 23-year-old Feidin Santana, shows Slager firing the first of eight shots only after Scott had ran at least 10 feet away from the officer, but we never would have known that based on the news coverage of the shooting without the video.

Take a look at this article from the Charleston, S.C. ABC affiliate WCIV:

040915wcivscreenshot

“Police and witnesses say Scott tried to run from Slager before turning to fight for the officer’s Taser,” WCIV’s Greg Woods reported. “It was during that scuffle that the officer fired his service weapon, fatally wounding Scott.”

That’s not what the video shows.

“Woods did not, in any of his reports, actually quote any witnesses saying they saw a ‘fight,’” media analyst Adam Johnson asked in his scathing report. “What appears to have happened is that Woods was told by police there were witnesses and he reported it, uncritically.”

The police also said “the dead man fought with an officer over his Taser before deadly force was employed,” a statement which was also refuted by the video.

“Police allege that during the struggle the man gained control of the Taser and attempted to use it against the officer,” The Post and Courier reported before the video was released. “The officer then resorted to his service weapon and shot him, police alleged.”

040915policestory

040915policestory2

Lastly, take a look at this article from WCSC, which, like the others, was also published before the video.

040915wcsc

“[NCPD spokesman Spencer] Pryor said Scott was fatally shot following a struggle for the officer’s Taser weapon,” the article reported.

This is exactly why you must question the official story of everything, from police shootings to the Boston Bombing and 9/11.

RELATED ARTICLE

Media Were Already Running With Police Fantasy When Video Exploded It

Liberal Media in Denial: Suspected Chapel Hill Shooter’s Leftist Ideology not Important

“Right-wingers” absurdly blamed despite suspected killer’s leftist beliefs
Liberal Media: Suspected Chapel Hill Shooter's Leftist Ideology not Important

by Mikael Thalen | Infowars.com | February 15, 2015

Left-wing media outlets wasted no time in blaming Tuesday’s tragic Chapel Hill shooting on their political adversaries after the ideological leanings of suspected shooter Craig Stephen Hicks became apparent.

Hicks, who is charged with the brutal murders of three Muslims in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, was found to be a hardened atheist, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) supporter and Rachel Maddow fan after investigators and reporters began searching for a motive this week.

According to multiple online news sites such as Salon and Raw Story, who carried an Alternet article entitled “Angry, armed and white: The typical profile of America’s most violent extremists,” Hicks’ ideology is a completely irrelevant point.

“On Thursday, GOPUSA.com sought to replay that script and portrayed Hicks as a liberal, by reporting his Facebook likes included Rachel Maddow, gay marriage groups, Neil deGrasse Tyson and others,” the article states. “That relabeling is absurd on many levels, because Hicks appears to fit the psychological profile of violent extremists—regardless of their ideological stripes—and that includes many white Americans.”

Alternet instead argued that the suspected shooter’s white skin and history of gun ownership were the only data points worth examining.

“Hicks had a state-issued concealed handgun permit and was a ‘champion of Second Amendment rights,’” says the article.

Using statements from the SPLC, while conveniently ignoring the suspected shooter’s support for the group, the article continued by desperately and falsely connecting Hicks’ to the “radical right.”

“‘… perpetrators spend many years on the radical right, absorbing extremist ideology, before finally acting out violently,’” an SPLC quote from the article states. “That summation strongly resembles Craig Stephen Hicks.”

According to the author, the obvious remedy to the horrific incident would be stricter gun control and a greater focus on “right-wingers” by law enforcement.

“Just as the Violence Policy Center hopes the Chapel Hill killings will push politicians to reconsider concealed handgun permit laws, SPLC hope the threat of lone-wolf violent extremists—especially white right-wingers—will prompt police and mainstream media to stop demonizing Muslims,” the article says.

The SPLC also made no mention of the fact that Hicks’ followed their organization on Facebook when commenting on the shooting Friday.

“Hicks’ Facebook page was filled with statements against religion of all types, although Islam was not particularly singled out,” the SPLC wrote. “Hicks also was a gun enthusiast, as evidenced by his many postings on gun websites and also an Amazon ‘wish list’ that included such items as rifle scopes.”

Despite their constant and obsessive attempts to link nearly all violent extremism to “patriot groups,” actual extremists have admitted to using SPLC information when searching for victims.

In 2012, a Washington, D.C.-based Christian organization came under fire after the gunman learned of the group on the SPLC’s website.

Speaking with the FBI in custody, the shooter stated that he targeted the organization after seeing it listed as an “anti-gay” hate group by the SPLC.

The fact that left-wing organizations constantly attempt to link any and all violence to the political right, but claim such links are unimportant when the violence comes from a fellow leftist, shows that such groups are not truly interested in stopping hate. Instead they are only interested in demonizing all opposition by ignoring logic and capitalizing on violence.

Exclusive: Interview with investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson

by Jon Rappoport

April 25, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Before her recent resignation from CBS, Sharyl Attkisson was a mainstream news star. Multiple Emmys. CNN anchor, CBS anchor on stories about space exploration. Host of CBS’ News Up to the Minute. PBS host for Health Week. Investigative reporter for CBS.

Attkisson dug deep into Fast&Furious, Benghazi, and the ill-effects of vaccines. Too deep. Her bosses shut her down and didn’t air key stories.

She now has her own website, sharylattkisson.com. She is writing a book, Stonewalled: My Fight for the Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.

It’s not every day that a major mainstream journalist leaves the fold and then seeks to expose the corruption that impinged on her work.

She agreed to do an email interview. Some of the questions I sent went to the heart of her book-in-progress, so she declined to answer them. However, her answers to my other questions were revealing and explosive.


I know you’ve had problems with your Wikipedia page. What happened there?

Long story short: there is a concreted effort by special interests who exploit Wikipedia editing privileges to control my biographical page to disparage my reporting on certain topics and skew the information. Judging from the editing, the interest(s) involved relates to the pharmaceutical/vaccine industry. I am far from alone. There is an entire Wikipedia subculture that exists to control pages and topics, and another one that watchdogs all that’s gone wrong with Wikipedia (Wikipediocracy). It’s a fascinating subject.

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, 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?

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 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.

You’ve revealed serious problems caused by vaccines. Have you run into opposition as a result of covering these stories?

This is a long discussion but yes, it is one of the most well funded, well orchestrated efforts I’ve ever seen on a story. Many reporters, if not all, who have tried to factually cover this topic have experienced the same opposition as have researchers who dared to uncover vaccine side effects. Those who don’t want the stories explored want to censor the information from the public entirely, lest the public draw the “wrong” conclusions about the facts. The media has largely bought into the conflicted government, political and medical complex propaganda on the topic that marginalizes researchers, journalists and parents who dare to speak to the scientific facts they’ve uncovered or to their own experiences. It’s a giant scandal of its own.

In an interview with Real Clear Politics, you suggested that the website, Media Matters, has been targeting and attacking you. Why have they gone after you? Because of your work on the Fast&Furious story? Do these people just reflexively react whenever a reporter writes something that casts a negative light on the Obama White House?

I didn’t interview with Real Clear Politics but maybe they quoted my interview with CNN. MediaMatters is well known to be a left wing propaganda group that acts as a pro-Obama surrogate to attack journalists that threaten the agenda. It works in concert with federal officials who withhold public information from the press and the public but then share it with MediaMatters so that the “talking points” of the day can be controlled and manipulated. (One example: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/emails-reveal-justice-dept-regularly-enlists-media-matters-to-spin-press/) The group works with other surrogates such as Talking Points Memo to controversialize and harass reporters to intimidate them and try to stop their damaging coverage. None of that is surprising or unexpected. They are simply using a media campaign to try to squelch the journalists who they believe could damage the interests of those they serve. The only strange part of the equation is that the “mainstream” press at times almost treats these paid opinion bloggers as if they are objective media watchdogs. I don’t see these news organizations respond to the right wing counterparts with the same deference. They news media typically doesn’t quote conservative media ‘watchdogs’ or question journalists about the conservative watchdogs’ criticisms and observations. Just the liberal ‘watchdogs.’

At this moment in time, because you’re not employed by a major news network, are you viewed by the media establishment as a loose cannon? Are you being painted as an outsider, a weirdo, a chronic dissenter with an axe to grind?

All of the above, I suppose, but I don’t pay attention that. It’s expected. I have heard from many colleagues at various networks who are happy that I’m in a position to speak freely of things that they, too have experienced and observed but cannot say publicly.

My comment on Attkisson’s answers: Her discussion of the endlessly corrupt CDC is remarkable. The most hyped “epidemic” in recent history, Swine Flu, had absolutely no basis in fact. It was one more effort to promote vaccines and scare the public. And the harassment of mainstream reporters who question the sacred conventional wisdom about vaccines is another piece of the story.

What really happened to Sharyl Attkisson at CBS News?

by Jon Rappoport

First posted on April 12, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Sharyl Attkisson, CBS’s top investigative reporter: gone, resigned, floating free, unchained, now viewed by the news establishment as an outsider, a defector, a weirdo with an axe to grind.

Among the controversial stories she covered at CBS: Benghazi. Just as she was digging below the surface of the Obama coverup, she was cut off and shut down by her network bosses.

Here’s the crux. The Rhodes brothers.

Ben Rhodes, David Rhodes.

Ben is a deputy national security advisor to Obama and writes speeches for him. In September 2012, Ben was “instrumental,” according to ABC News, in changing the White House talking points (the story) on what happened in Benghazi.

Ben’s brother, David, is president of CBS News. Attkisson was working for David. She was investigating all the changes (12) in the Benghazi talking points. She was shut down.

Nothing to see there, move along, eyes straight ahead, go back to sleep, zombie-zombie, it’s all good don’t worry, be happy, hope and change, the audacity of whatever.

Now, on top of this, Attkisson’s computers, at work and at home, were hacked while she was still at CBS. The network acknowledged this and said “they were investigating.” They’re still investigating. So are other unnamed entities.

Who hacked her computers? CBS? The White House? NSA?

Attkisson covered other stories at CBS that were highly problematic for the White House. Fast&Furious, for example. And in the summer of 2009, Attkisson struck gold on Swine Flu. You know, the pandemic that wasn’t. She discovered that the CDC, which is tasked with tracking numbers of cases of outbreaks, had, get this, stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Stopped.

But the CDC was still trumpeting the extreme danger of Swine Flu, with no way to measure its true impact.

Dr. Peter Doshi, long after the whole Swine Flu dud was over, wrote a stunning report for the British Medical Journal Online. Seems that every year, hundreds of thousands of samples from suspected and diagnosed flu patients are sent to labs for analysis—and only about 16% of these samples turn out to be positive for the flu.

That’s a killer of a revelation. Among other things, it means that most people who are told they have the flu couldn’t possibly have been protected by any flu vaccine, even assuming the vaccines are useful and effective…because these people don’t have the flu.

I wrote Attkisson about Dr. Doshi’s finding, and she got back to me, in essence saying, well, yes, this is why the CDC stopped counting Swine Flu cases.

Huge numbers of people who were being diagnosed with Swine Flu didn’t have any kind of flu at all.

CBS shut down Attkisson on both the Fast&Furious story and the Swine Flu story.

Here’s an interesting bombshell. On April 1, 2011, Attkisson authored a piece for CBS News, “Vaccines and Autism: a new scientific review.” She dispelled the notion that the vaccine-autism connection was a dead issue. All sorts of red flags went up the flagpole. Mainstream media are supposed to treat vaccines, all vaccines, as holy sacraments of the medical cartel. Praise them, bow down to them, never accuse them of doing harm of any kind.

Sumner Redstone, the executive chairman of CBS, Attkisson’s employer, has a very significant stake in vaccines. His Foundation, on its site, states: “The Sumner M. Redstone Foundation’s contribution to the Global Poverty Project raising $118 million in pledges for vaccines…”

Redstone’s Foundation has also donated $1 million to a charity called Autism Speaks, which supports genetic testing for the diagnosis of Autism. You can be sure this charity has zero interest in reviving the vaccine-Autism debate and exposing the fact that there is most definitely a connection.

So Attkisson was stepping on Sumner Redstone’s toes with heavy boots.

Attkisson is now writing a book about her career. When published, it’ll land in the mainstream news cycle for a week or two at the most. Doesn’t matter how explosive its revelations are. She’s an outsider now. She isn’t in the loop. She isn’t playing the game according to the rules.

Therefore, my advice to her: come out swinging. Blast the whole rotting news establishment.

However, if Attkisson is angling for a new job at, say, FOX, or even CNN, whose ratings have gone down the toilet, she’ll have to pull her punches. Every major news outlet sits on its own reporters and gags them when things get too hot.

The first casualty in mainstream news is the truth.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. 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. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com