Report: 80% of Women /Girls From Mexico To US, Raped Along The Way – powered by ise.media
Twitter Demands Allegiance to NATO? – powered by ise.media
Twitter recently deleted hundreds of accounts for the crime of “undermining faith” in NATO with the problem being that the accounts were linked to Russia, Iran and Armenia.
In my recent interview with Ricky Varandas on The Ripple Effect podcast, I enjoyed a great discussion on current and past events impacting the world and talked about the launch of my new platform, ISE Media. In this interview I was able to share some of my background in my 20 years of journalism and explained how 2012 in particular was an awakening to the way that mainstream media operates.
As we covered a number of topics ranging from issues stemming from the pandemic to widespread corruption in the media, I appreciated the opportunity to talk about the censorship sweeping across every tech platform and how ISE is poised to allow a space where facts and ideas can be freely discussed.
Ricky and I also talked about the equity crowdfund for ISE Media going on now. With the support of investors in this crowdfund our goal is to expand the platform; we launched this crowdfund to not only help our team continue development and building out the platform, but to allow our investors to actually own a part of ISE Media.
Our announcement video explains the platform launch and how crowdfund investors can own part of ISE Media. Click to watch here.
You can also register your ISE Media account right now by clicking here.
Learn more and invest in ISE Media by clicking here.
Content creators like Ricky, myself and many others are publishing and sharing important, quality content. While big tech platforms are determined to stamp out these voices that challenge mainstream narratives, we are fighting back with the ISE Media platform.
Thank you to Ricky and The Ripple Effect Podcast for hosting this in-depth discussion.
While the New York Times and other media outlets are deeply concerned about evidence lacking and unverified reports of Russian bounties on U.S. troops, they all but ignore that the U.S. Congress has once again sold out U.S. troops in a new vote that refuses to bring them home from Afghanistan. This, despite the publication of the Afghanistan War papers which prove that the 18-year war has always been unwinnable and yet the public has been repeatedly lied to about the war. And be sure to check out our sponsor for this episode, Create Tailwind, at https://createtailwind.com
********
Support Truth in Media by visiting our sponsors:
Create Tailwind: https://createtailwind.com
Pulse Cellular: Use code “TRUTH” for 10% off every plan for life.
https://truthinmedia.com/phone
Pure VPN: Military grade VPN protection.
Brave Browser: Open source and built by a team of privacy-focused, performance-oriented pioneers of the web.
The Trump Administration’s stance on Syria and Bashar al-Assad goes against President Obama’s and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s policy since 2011. In this episode, Ben takes a look at how this new policy is contrary to the media narrative about Syria over the past decade.
********
Support Truth in Media by visiting our sponsors:
Pulse Cellular: Use code “TRUTH” for 10% off every plan for life.
https://truthinmedia.com/phone
Pure VPN: Military grade VPN protection.
Brave Browser: Open source and built by a team of privacy-focused, performance-oriented pioneers of the web.
Just one day after YouTube removed video from his new conference, Dr. Dan Erickson speaks one on one with Ben Swann about the news conference in which he shared data about the actual mortality rate of the coronavirus. Since then, a number of baseless attacks have come against Erickson, including the claim that he incorrectly gathered data.
Leading House Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi plan to offer a resolution Wednesday condemning anti-Semitism in response to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s latest remarks on Israel.
House Republicans and others want Pelosi to go even further and for Omar to be removed from the House Foreign Affairs Committee all because she questioned the lobbying efforts of a foreign nation.
What did she say? How are those comments being twisted?
Let’s give it a reality check you won’t see anywhere else.
Is the U.S. military under the Trump administration about to forcibly create regime change in Venezuela?
For months I have been saying that would not happen but now, all signs seem to be pointing to this reality. Will the U.S. claim, just like we did in Libya, that a humanitarian crisis is underway and that a military intervention is the only way to protect the people of Venezuela?
I’ll explain in this reality check you won’t get anywhere else.
Once again the U.S. government is supporting and funding Al Qaeda fighters, this time in Yemen.
It is something we have seen before in Libya and Syria. So why does this continue to happen? Is it because the “War on Terror” is just a farce and is never meant to be won?
Lets give it a Reality Check.
The Polish Ministry of National Defense is seeking a permanent U.S. military presence in Poland. According to Politico, a defense ministry proposal was obtained by a Polish news portal, offering $2 billion for a permanent military base.
The offer may be reflective of a recent meeting between U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak on April 28th.
Defense News reported that Defense Minister Blaszczak said he was “an optimist regarding an increase of U.S. military presence in Poland.”
The US Department of Defense appeared to hold similar optimism regarding the talks. In a press release by the DOD, Secretary Mattis applauded Poland’s commitment to reach a defense spending level of 2.5 percent of its gross domestic product by 2030 as part of a NATO pledge, saying that “These contributions, along with your hosting of NATO’s 2016 summit in Warsaw, illustrate Poland’s deep commitment to collective security, a commitment that includes the purchase of a Patriot air and missile defense system last month.”
“This proposal outlines the clear and present need for a permanent U.S. armored division deployed in Poland, Poland’s commitment to provide significant support that may reach 1.5 – 2 billion USD by establishing joint military installations and provide for more flexible movement of U.S. forces. Together, the United States and Poland can build an even stronger bond one which guarantees the safety, security, and freedom of its people for generations to come,” the defense ministry document stated.
The document takes a further step to entice the US into an agreement of the terms, stating:
“To share the burden of defense spending, make the decision more cost-effective for the U.S. Government and allay any concerns for Congress in uncertain budgetary times.”
Politico reported that the Polish Defense ministry press office confirmed the “Proposal for a U.S. Permanent Presence in Poland” is legitimate and genuine. The defense ministry also confirmed the proposal was sent to Washington without the consent or knowledge of President Andrzej Duda, Poland’s commander in chief.
The report directly names Russia as a reason for the US military base proposal. Poland is likely responding to continued Russian aggression and influence in Ukraine’s Crimea region and Georgia that occurred in 2014.
Russia has opposed initiatives for US military expansion into Eastern Europe. However, Poland seems to be attempting to invite further US influence in their region regardless, in defense of Russian aggression.
“Poland is a steadfast ally of the United States and is committed to advancing our shared interests and values, which are increasingly being threatened by Russian interference. A permanent U.S. presence in Poland will ensure that both nations can continue to advance, strengthen, and protect these values and interests,” the report stated.
Despite the fact that President Trump recently considered withdrawing U.S. forces from Syria, the United States— along with its allies the United Kingdom and France— are doubling down and expanding their military presence in Northeastern Syria by establishing new military bases near the town of Manbij. Reports of the bases first broke last month, but were recently confirmed by Reuters. The bases are believed to be part of a wider effort by the U.S./U.K./France coalition to aid its military proxy force in Syria, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in its “resistance” to the Turkish government.
Turkey has long maintained that the SDF, which is largely composed of members of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), are terrorists. The U.S. announcement earlier this year that they would be using the SDF to build a “border force” subsequently led Turkey to invade parts of Northern Syria previously controlled by the SDF with help from its own proxy force in Syria, the Free Syrian Army (FSA).
After Turkey took control of Afrin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that he was considering removing YPG/SDF forces from Manbij as well, prompting the coalition forces to consolidate their positions. With the coalition now beefing up its military presence to prevent Turkey from encroaching further, Syria is set to become a new sore point in Turkey’s relationship with NATO and the West.
According to reports, the military bases are located throughout the Manbij region, with the U.S. having at least two bases while the French are constructing one. The U.K. does not have its own base, but its soldiers are known to be present in the area and to work with U.S. and French troops stationed in Manbij.
Helil Bozi, the commander of the Military Council of Manbij of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), told Sputnik that “the U.S. has deployed its Special Forces units near the Sajur River thereby setting a red line the crossing of which will be seen by the [U.S.-led] coalition forces as an attack and will prompt retaliatory actions,” noting that the increase in the coalition’s military presence was a direct result of Turkey’s prior statements regarding Manbij.
Though locals have claimed that the presence of the coalition members of the military are aimed at Turkey, they are also likely to prevent Syrian government forces from retaking the area. Now that the Syrian government has successfully removed terrorist groups from Damascus as well as other key parts of the country, there has been speculation that the Syrian military would turn its focus to areas of the country occupied by foreign powers.
Indeed, the Syrian government is very interested in recuperating the area currently occupied by the coalition and nominally controlled by the Kurds as it holds 95% of the entire country’s oil and gas potential. Under Kurdish leadership, an unknown U.S. company is already extracting and selling oil in the region, thus making it unlikely that the U.S. would willingly leave the area. The U.S. is also unlikely to leave its investment in the SDF behind, having recently allocated $550 million to arm and train the group over the next year.
In addition, the area also boasts the country’s largest fresh water reservoirs and over 60% of its agricultural land, making it an invaluable bargaining chip in determining the future of Syria, a future that coalition powers hope will remove the current Syrian government from power and replace it with a more Western-friendly government.
However, the aims of the coalition appear directed more toward partition than regime change. The U.S. has long sought to divide Syria in order to take control of the country’s resource rich Northeast and to isolate the Syrian government and, by extension, its regional allies such as Iran.
Though the U.S. has played on the hopes of Kurdish nationalists, it has long established plans for an authoritarian Wahhabist enclave in Northeastern Syria according to a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency document from 2012 and, more recently, courting the Saudis to “rebuild” the area. Furthermore, the fact that the SDF includes militias composed of “retrained” ISIS fighters also underscores that the coalition is more interested in controlling the region than aiding a Kurdish nationalism project.
Though advertised as an effort to “protect” the Kurds, the establishment of new American and French military bases in Northern Syria appear to serve as protection of the coalition’s regional ambitions and plans for the region.
On May 24, the White House and President Trump announced that the U.S. would be calling off the long-anticipated peace summit with North Korean and South Korean leadership in Singapore. According to a letter sent to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un from President Trump, the U.S. decided to cancel the summit, which would have taken place next month, due to the “tremendous anger and open hostility” of a recent statement issued by North Korea. While Trump has since hinted that the summit may yet happen, his letter deserves examination as his take on North Korea’s “hostility” lacks important context.
Indeed, the “hostility” of North Korea may be viewed as a direct response to statements made by high-ranking members of the Trump administration, including Trump himself, that explicitly referenced the so-called “Libya model” of denuclearization. The remarks referenced by Trump’s letter were aimed directly at Vice President Mike Pence, who had discussed implementation of the “Libya model” in an interview with FOX News last Monday, leading North Korea to call Pence a “political dummy” and his comments “stupid” and “impudent.”
Pence was the latest U.S. official to make such comments. In recent weeks, Trump himself stated that the Libya model “was total decimation. That model would take place if we don’t make a deal.” In late April, National Security Adviser John Bolton had been the first administration official to reference the “Libya model” where he mentioned Libya as the administration’s road map for the denuclearization of North Korea on several different television programs.
The reference to Libya provoked North Korean leadership given that the U.S. government supported the overthrow of Libya’s government after its former leader, Muammar Gaddafi, had dismantled its early-stage nuclear program at the behest of the United States. The destruction of Libya turned the country, which once boasted the highest standard of living in all of Africa, into a failed state and saw Gaddafi brutally sodomized with a bayonet before being shot by U.S.-backed jihadists.
“It is essentially a manifestation of an awfully sinister move to impose on our dignified state the destiny of Libya or Iraq, which had been brought down due to yielding the whole of their countries to big powers,” North Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan said in a statement.
[Read more: Obama/Clinton to Blame for Slave Markets in Libya?]
At the time of the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libya’s government, a North Korean official stated that “the Libyan crisis is teaching the international community a grave lesson,” namely that U.S.-brokered attempts at nuclear disarmament are ultimately “an invasion tactic to disarm” countries. The so-called “Libya model” has since been cited by U.S. officials as the likely motivation behind North Korea’s decision to become a full-fledged nuclear power.
The comments regarding Libya have not been the only actions recently taken by the U.S. that North Koreans have cited as provocative and unproductive in light of the peace talks. Indeed, another major point of contention has been the large military exercise currently being held by the U.S. and South Korea, which North Korea has claimed is an imitation of an invasion of its country and a “deliberate military provocation.” The exercise reportedly had initially included nuclear-capable B-52 bombers and F-15K jets.
While the widespread mention of the “Libya model” and the recent military drill together suggest that the U.S. may have sabotaged the talks, Trump seemed to walk back from suggestions that the peace talks would be canceled for good. A few hours after the letter was sent, Trump stated that he “held up hope” that the summit could be rescheduled for another date, leading some to suggest that Trump’s letter was a tactic aimed at giving the U.S. an advantage in future negotiations.
However, the Trump administration’s decision to cancel the summit indicates that its top officials prefer a military solution to tensions on the Korean peninsula. Chief among those officials is Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton.
In recent years, Bolton has repeatedly argued that “regime change” was the only “diplomatic” solution left that could be used to denuclearize the Korean peninsula and he is well known for his role in sabotaging past agreements aimed at denuclearizing North Korea while serving in the Bush administration.
Beyond Bolton, obstructions of the Korea peace summit have come from elsewhere such as the U.S. military. Were peace achieved, there would be little reason to maintain the 15 U.S. military bases in South Korea, along with the approximately 28,000 American troops currently stationed there; the removal of those troops would drastically reduce U.S. presence in the region. It would also be a loss to U.S. weapons manufacturers who have long supplied South Korea with armaments, including missile defense systems.
Ultimately, peace on the Korean peninsula appears to be attainable. North and South Korea have successfully held two productive meetings this year: following the historic meeting in April between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in vowing to end war and denuclearize, the two held an unannounced meeting on Saturday to continue further dialogue. Moon subsequently confirmed that Kim supports denuclearization and a summit with Trump, stating that “Chairman Kim and I have agreed that the June 12 summit should be held successfully, and that our quest for the Korean Peninsula’s denuclearization and a perpetual peace regime should not be halted.”
Moon also said that Kim “once again has made clear his will for the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and expressed his intent to settle the history of war and confrontation, and to cooperate for peace and prosperity through the success of the North Korea-US summit.”
During a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a well-known conservative think tank in Washington, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo laid out a laundry list of demands to Iran on Monday, just a few short weeks after the U.S. pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – better known as the Iran nuclear deal.
The demands, described by Pompeo as “basic requirements,” include Iran’s full withdrawal from Syria, the release of all U.S. citizens imprisoned in the country, the end of Iran’s support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen, ending the “enrichment” of uranium, allowing “the IAEA with unqualified access to all sites throughout the entire country” and promising to never process plutonium.
Pompeo also noted that a Iran’s failure to comply with these demands would result in the “strongest sanctions in history” being imposed on Iran that would cause the country to struggle to “keep its economy alive.”
“The sting of sanctions will be painful if the regime does not change its course from the unacceptable and unproductive path it has chosen to one that rejoins the league of nations. These will indeed end up being the strongest sanctions in history when we are complete,” Pompeo said.
This strategy, the Trump administration’s “Plan B” for dealing with Iran following its withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, has been regarded as unachievable and unrealistic as Iran is all but certain to reject the ultimatum.
Indeed, Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council asserted that Pompeo’s “requirements” are intentionally unrealistic as his speech was “clearly designed to ensure there cannot be any new negotiation.”
“If you maximize pressure and set unachievable demands, you solely pave the way for war. That is the objective of Trump, and that’s been the objective of his cheerleaders in Saudi and Israel,” Parsi added.
Parsi’s concerns appear warranted given one of Pompeo’s questionable demands that Iran end military support of Yemen’s Houthi rebels. Though long labeled an Iran “proxy” by the corporate media, the Houthis are a movement unique to Yemen that share a religious identity with Iran and little more.
Thomas Juneau, a former analyst for Canada’s Department of National Defence, wrote in the Washington Post that “Tehran’s support for the Houthis is limited, and its influence in Yemen is marginal. It is simply inaccurate to claim that the Houthis are Iranian proxies.” He further stated that Iran’s assistance “remains limited and far from sufficient to make more than a marginal difference to the balance of forces in Yemen, a country awash with weapons.”
Even the U.S. State Department has acknowledged that the Houthis have not been not armed by Iran but are instead largely armed by purchases from the black market and the Yemeni military. Furthermore, the Saudi blockade of Yemen ensures that support from Iran, were it to be offered, would not even be able to make it into the Houthi-controlled portion of the country.
Given his “wildly unrealistic” list of policy demands, Pompeo’s speech has largely been regarded as further evidence that the Trump administration has adopted a “regime change” policy towards Iran. This has been expected for some time, as news broke last week that National Security Adviser John Bolton had been circulating a plan throughout the National Security Council that calls for making regime change an explicit part of the administration’s Iran policy.
Pompeo, as well as Bolton, have long been advocates for regime change in Iran, as have other powerful figures closely connected to the Trump administration such as former mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani who now serves as one of Trump’s lawyers.
Earlier this month, Giuliani openly stated that Trump and his administration were “committed” to bringing regime change to Iran during a speech to the Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK), a “cult-like” group of Iranian exiles that was listed as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” by the U.S. until 2012 for its use of terror tactics that have resulted in the deaths of both Iranians and Americans. During his recent speech to the group, Giuliani led a chant of “regime change,” underscoring the desired result of the MEK and its contacts in Washington.
Bolton also recently spoke to the MEK during a gathering of the group in France last year. In that speech, Bolton told members and supporters of the group: “The declared policy of the United States should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran. […] The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and, therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself. […] And that’s why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!”
Pompeo’s recent speech seems to be an indication that Bolton, with help from other like-minded officials in the Trump administration, is seeking to fulfill his regime change promise sooner rather than later.
(Newsy) She had a tough nomination and confirmation process.
This is a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.
A new report shows that the U.S. has spent some $60 million on building totally useless power lines in Afghanistan. The effort, overseen by the army corps of engineers, was intended to help rebuild the country.
Back in 2013, the U.S. army corps of engineers awarded an Afghan company $116 million to design and build phases two and three of the north east power system, or NEPS, in Afghanistan. According to the report, published by SIGAR, or the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the $60 million spent on a power transmission project is, quote, “not operational.”
Not operational, because the contract was poorly written. The afghan government was supposed to buy land in the path of the project, allowing the contractor to build phase. They didn’t, and yet the U.S. army corps of engineers gave the contractor clearances to move ahead with construction.
The contractor’s approved plans did not include connecting the power transmission project to the power source. The army corps of engineers approved a submittal for a temporary connection, but those plans didn’t match the configuration of the power source. So there’s no way to test, let alone go live, with the project.
If the contractors can’t get the plans right, what about the construction of the project?
Well, according to the report, the project’s power towers foundations are already crumbling. Plus, they were built in loose soil, on embankments that are likely to erode. Near where people live.
According to TruthInMedia.com, our government spent $160 million on a failed electronic payment system for the afghan government to collect taxes. SIGAR also identified $93 million spent on “forest” camouflage gear for Afghan troops, when there are very few forests in the country.
The irony here: the USAID published a video in 2011 promoting the NEPS project as a way to create efficiency and reduce cost.
What you need to know is that in the 17 years of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, it’s estimated that our government’s reconstruction effort has cost taxpayers $1 trillion. And the occupation continues.
President Trump authorized a troop surge in Afghanistan, bringing the total number of U.S. military there to 14,000. And that’s just military.
While attending the Libertopia festival in San Diego, Ben Swann was interviewed by Josh Sigurdson of World Alternative Media to discuss longstanding troubles within the mainstream media including the massive spread of misleading reports and how they manipulate the public.
Swann and Sigurdson talked at length about questionable practices of corporate media including how news stations often follow certain narratives in unison and frame critical issues as a question of winners-vs.-losers rather than right-vs.wrong, and the broader issue of sensationalizing information. Swann offered his views on the solutions to these problems and discussed how Dash Digital Cash has had a critical role in facilitating the rapid progress of decentralized media.
The full interview is available above.
(Reuters) White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders says President Donald Trump is preparing to impose new sanctions on Iran, perhaps as early as next week, to ensure it does not develop nuclear weapons.
Rough Cut (no reporter narration).
.
Washington, D.C. – Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) publicly rebuked the recently-proposed Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), warning about the bill’s potential dangers and how its passage could further codify war-making powers in the hands of the executive branch. In an op-ed published Monday, Paul explained how passage of the AUMF, Congress is abdicating authority to prevent unlimited war, and is instead going to codify the “unacceptable, unconstitutional status quo.”
“It is clear upon reading the AUMF, put forward by Senators Tim Kaine and Bob Corker, that it gives nearly unlimited power to this or any other president to be at war whenever he or she wants, with minimal justification and no prior specific authority,” Paul wrote in an op-ed in the American Conservative.
“Under this bill, Congress could only disapprove of war, turning the Constitution on its head,” Paul claimed. “Even worse, any resolution of disapproval could be vetoed, meaning two thirds of Congress would need to disapprove of a war, rather than a majority to approve of one. That’s a huge, unwise, and unconstitutional change.”
[Related: Civil Liberties Advocates: Proposed AUMF Gives President “Blank Check” War Powers]
Sen. Paul declared that passage of a proposed new AUMF would serve to further remove Congress from the equation in terms of declaring war, and that this combats the checks and balances put in place by the Founding Fathers to prevent consolidation of power within the executive branch.
“That isn’t an AUMF. That isn’t Congress reclaiming its constitutional duties. That’s a complete rewriting of the role of the executive and of the constitutional separation of powers.”
The Kentucky senator noted that the Founding Fathers knew of the tendency of the executive branch to launch wars, so they built in checks to prevent it. Currently, the War Powers Act is supposed to limit the use of force by the executive, with the exception of a national emergency or an imminent attack, but rarely does so in the modern era. As Paul wrote, “For some time now, Congress has abdicated its responsibility to declare war. The status quo is that we are at war anywhere and anytime the president says so.”
Paul warned that “If this AUMF is passed, Congress will have chosen to make itself irrelevant on the issue of war.”
Read the full op-ed by Sen. Rand Paul here.
(Reuters) The White House criticizes China’s efforts to force foreign airlines to change how they refer to Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau, calling Beijing’s latest effort to police global language about the politically sensitive areas “Orwellian nonsense.” Ryan Brooks reports.
.
(Reuters) U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has concluded his second secretive visit to North Korea with the release of three American prisoners: Missionary Kim Dong-chul, and teachers Tony Kim and Kim Hak-song. Matthew Larotonda reports.
.
