It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That choir must be going through on hell of a mental Hell on Earth believing the propaganda while seeing nothing being done about it . I wonder if they ever stop to ask themselves why or do they look to the other talking heads to explain it and excite it to do some of the stuff we are witnessing . no need to answer ,I think most know the answer .
Just patiently watch. 2018 "Big Blue Wave" will actually be the GOP increasing their numbers in the Senate while suffering 7-10 net lost seats in the house. This "stop the pro-trump momentum" nonsense is only playing well in the districts that didn't vote for the GOP anyway. It's preaching to the choir.
originally posted by: Drque
originally posted by: rollanotherone
originally posted by: Drque
Why wouldn't they? Trumps a pos.
Yes. Your president.
You want my insight? Short version - No.
We now know Obama made it official that propaganda can be used on The American People now.
Identifying current and emerging trends in foreign propaganda and disinformation, including the use of print, broadcast, online and social media
the United States Government should develop a comprehensive strategy to counter foreign disinformation and propaganda and assert leadership in developing a fact-based strategic narrative
2. The 2012 Bill.—In 2012, Representatives Thornberry and Smith again introduced legislation repealing the domestic dissemination ban contained within the Smith–Mundt Act.106 This bill, entitled the “Smith– Mundt Modernization Act of 2012” (2012 Bill), was similar to the 2010 Bill except that it omitted the 2010 Bill’s prohibition on “propagandizing” and included clear carve-outs that permitted the government to broadcast relatively freely within the United States. Unlike the 2010 Bill, the 2012 Bill was marketed not as national security legislation, but as government transparency legislation. Belying its national security roots, however, the 2012 Bill was transposed into the voluminous “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013”108 (2013 Amendment), an omnibus defense spending bill.109 It is unclear why the 2012 Bill was inserted into this lengthy piece of legislation, but it may have been to avoid a contentious debate like that which preceded the passage of the original Smith–Mundt Act in 1948. Regardless of the actual reason, the tactic proved successful: the 2013 Amendment passed both Houses in late 2012,110 and on January 2, 2013, President Barack Obama signed the legislation into law.111 With that, the sixty-four-year-old domestic dissemination ban was suddenly and unceremoniously abolished.
The domestic dissemination ban in the Smith–Mundt Act is rooted in the Cold War. As with other vestiges of that era that have succumbed to technological and social modernity, so, too, has the domestic dissemination ban. The 2013 Amendment now allows the State Department and the BBG to better combat domestic terrorism, and also promotes greater government transparency. However, the 2013 Amendment creates new problems. Now, there is little preventing the State Department and the BBG from widely disseminating unattributed government-produced programming within the United States.
The danger of domestic dissemination does not lie in the dissemination itself; rather, it lies in anonymous dissemination. To curb the potential harm of covert government propaganda, there must be either legislation or a judicial doctrine that requires the State Department and the BBG to attribute their materials. The Truth in Broadcasting Act of 2005 provides an excellent template for a future bill that would require attribution on government-produced programming. Similarly, a judicially imposed attribution requirement under the government speech doctrine may also solve the problem. The Sixth and Ninth Circuits’ acceptance of Justice Souter’s reasoning in the Johanns dissent indicate that a judicially imposed attribution of government-produced programming may be forthcoming.
Be that as it may, it’s important to realize that one can be a liberal, not a Trump fan, AND be aware the media is biased, often propaganda, and not conforming with journalistic principles. I know, shocking.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: queenofswords
That's all that is .
And wishful thinking.
There is no list. Nothing is going to happen to the first amendment to quite journalists who tell the TRUTH about trump.
He wants to quite anyone who has something bad to tell about him. But the free press is protected. He's not going to shut them up.
He's not going to shut Mueller up either. Raises eyebrows.