How Often Does the Government Use Disinformation?

This is something I've been wondering about for a little while now. So, how often does the Government use disinfo to screw up the rest of the population?

Is it so prevalent that you shouldn't believe anything the Main Stream Media has to say, and for that matter, are any MSM channels better than the others? I appreciate any and all answers, whether or not they are just your opinions.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by ineverknew]

reply to post by ineverknew


A Litmus Test I have always used, is if you can see their lips move, they're lying.

Juuuuuuuuuuust my humble little opinion, of course.

reply to post by mikerussellus


your humble opinion is as good as anyone's (that's why I gave you a star). keep 'em coming!

how often do they tell the truth? rarely, so disinform, welll quite often.

There is no payoff for being honest in politics. As long as people cant easily see its lies, they get away with it.

Weapons of Mass Destruction


[edit on 20-9-2009 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


that's a great video, especially because of "the Killers" song in the background! bravo

Originally posted by Copernicus

There is no payoff for being honest in politics. As long as people cant easily see its lies, they get away with it.

Weapons of Mass Destruction


[edit on 20-9-2009 by Copernicus]

With politicians, shouldn't it be. . .

Weapons of Mass Distraction

just a thought. . . . .

I believe their biggest weapon is not the lies or slight truths they spread. It is their not covering the real news. e.g. the 9/12 protest, the real economic numbers, 7 military bases in Brazil, etc etc.

The only way to get real news now is by word of mouth here on the net. Let us hope they cannot take control of it or shut it down.

[edit on 9/20/2009 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


that's a really good point, how many people were at the 9/12 protests? not the number that the MSM reported, I can tell you that!

HOW OFTEN ??????????????????????????
is every day enough............? is enough.

Originally posted by ineverknew
reply to post by endisnighe

 

that's a really good point, how many people were at the 9/12 protests? not the number that the MSM reported, I can tell you that!

If you just went by the talking heads about the number of people that showed up for the 9/12 ralley, you'd think that seven drunk klansmen and some housewife named Doris (who had a van) were the only ones there.

reply to post by mikerussellus


ha, that's great. i know a gal that went, but her name wasn't Doris!

reply to post by mikerussellus


Here are some more.

There were 57 people at the protest today...............in front of 1.5 million.

Obama had a healthcare rally and 1.5 million showed up in support.

Yeah there was like 18k.

You should have seen that video on youtube it was hilarious. Trolls Galore. Once it got to 285,000 views boom it was gone. Could not find it on any of the lists.

Disinformation is used constantly to manipulate the public.

An example is the move to create a "Food Monopoly"
If you want an abundant cheap and safe food supply I suggest you pay attention because it is about to be taken away from us. The Ag cartel and Congress has intentionally allowed food poisoning, the media has hyped it and Congress is using the public outrage to push laws designed to remove independent farmers from their land.

Farmers have been called "misinformed, their e-mails read, media sources are told they are kooks/dangerous. One lady found her state Ag department told a farm show lies to get her kicked out. Others have had the homes broken into and computers trashed. Others who are opposed find the can not post articles to the internet. Worse farmers have had swatt team raids and been held under armed guard in their homes for up to a couple of weeks! A must read on the history of what has been done to the US food supply and farmers is HERE I have been reading up on the subject for a couple of years yet this article still shocked me as it laid out the cold blooded 50 year attack on our food supply. I never realized the Council on Foreign Relations had a a sister organization, called the Committee for Economic Development, formed to influence domestic policies in the same way that the CFR has influenced US foreign policies.


Here are the last couple of moves. The Ag cartel pushed the WTO Agreement on Ag in 1995


KEY PLAYERS
To consolidate their death grip on the food supply, agribusiness insisted that agriculture be put on the international trading table for the first time at the GATT talks in Uruguay. Key players in this little drama are VP of Cargill, Dan Amstutz who wrote the draft Agreement on Agriculture for the World Trade Organization(WTO AoA), Monsanto (Calgene) employee Ann Veneman who lead the GATT trade delegation for much of the time, and Mickey Kantor, another US trade representative for much of the Uruguay Round, who subsequently became a Monsanto board member. Back at home Clinton's Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations was lead by Robert Shapiro, chairman of Monsanto at the time WTO was ratified in 1995. Marcia Hale, a former assistant to President Clinton and director for intergovernmental affairs, was director of international government affairs for Monsanto.


The food borne illnesses making headlines in recent years, did not happen by chance.
The food safety bills are not about protecting consumer health. The full horror of these bogus Food Safety bills can not be appreciated until it is understood that greedy corporations and corrupt government officials have colluded so that a select few can profit from the pain, and suffering caused by illness and by the starvation of children around the world! Worse our main safeguard against unethical corporate behavior and government corruption, the mass media, sold us out for the price of their advertising dollars. Despite clear evidence that Con-Agra was shipping E. coli-tainted burger, the USDA and Congress ignored John Munsell's pleas for an investigation until several months later when a woman died and they had to investigate. John said a top newspaper's reporter interviewed him for several days, the article was written and ready to print when the owners of the “press” stepped in and suppressed the article in fear of corporate retaliation. Monsanto had two reporters in Florida fired and has broadcaster Derry Brownfield kicked off the air.

What were the key issues place on the table at GATT?
First open borders and no tariffs so cheap tax subsidized grain from the EU and USA would bankrupt third world farmers. Second worldwide patents on plants and animals allowing corporations to control all food production. Third unlike other trade agreements, WTO was given teeth by way of trade sanctions for enforcement and a complete blackout on any information leading to the sanctions placed by the three WTO judges. Fourth and the worst for the US consumer, was the replacement of the “precautionary principle” (do no harm) with “scientific risk based assessment” or the “if it doesn't look like it will kill anyone go for it” principle. The last issue was “harmonization” of food safety regs. That means the US, Europe and third world countries must bring their food safety regs in line so they are essentially the same. In other words the EU and USA are expected to lower their food standards so they can be met by third world members of WTO!

During the debate on approving the WTO Agreement, Congress was justifiably worried that the multinational pact was in conflict with U.S. Sovereignty. Arguments for ratification were vehemently endorsed by Clinton Administration officials who were eager to get the agreement passed Congress. Congressional fears were lulled by pointing out Congress is ultimately responsible for changing the laws of the United States; and second, the U.S. is entitled to withdraw from the WTO. Also a feature of the Uruguay Round agreements are described as follows:

The URAA puts U.S. sovereignty and U.S. law under perfect protection. According to the Act, if there is a conflict between U.S. and any of the Uruguay Round agreements, U.S. law will take precedence regardless when U.S. law is enacted. § 3512 (a) states: "No provision of any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect." Specifically, implementing the WTO agreements shall not be construed to "amend or modify any law of the United States, including any law relating to (i) the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health, (ii) the protection of the environment, or (iii) worker safety", or to "limit any authority conferred under any law of the United States, including section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974." www.eastlaw.net...

Now we have this statement by the FDA showing how they out right LIE

The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.

The second action taken in 1996 was the adoption of the international HACCP rules. HACCP replaces the old US government's hands on in your face type inspection. Now the corporation are doing the testing and government inspects corporate paperwork instead of product. Since corporations are now the inspectors,is it any wonder that in July 2003, after the Con-agri E. coli recall, GAP released a major report titled "Shielding the Giant: USDA's 'Don't Look, Don't Know' Policy for Beef Inspection. Or that Mr. Stan Painter, Chairman, National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals testified during the Congressional investigation into the Hallmark/Westland downer cow scandal
It (the recall of Hallmark/Westland Meat) highlights one of the problems that we have attempted to raise with the agency ever since 1996 when the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) inspection system was put in place. There seems to be too much reliance on an honor system for the industry to police itself. While the USDA investigation is still on going at Hallmark/Westland, a couple of facts have emerged that point to a system that can be gamed by those who want to break the law. It (HACCP) shifted the responsibility for food safety over to the companies . domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov...

Yet despite government investigations, and “Over 1000 non-compliance reports – weighing some 16 pounds” no one—least of all Sec of Ag Ed Schafer—is sitting in jail!!! Instead, we are getting “new food safety laws” that just happen to conform with the World trade Organization wishes. The USDA insists the USA conform with WTO “traceability” by making small US farmers ( but not the corporations) individually tag and track their livestock and by allowing plants and animals across the border from countries known to have disease. The FDA whines we must “harmonize” our laws with the international laws or face terrible consequences, ALL conveniently forgetting
URAA § 3512 (a) states: "No provision of any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect."

Did Cargill and Monsanto profit? “Cargill’s net worth over the last five years has gone from U.S. $5,942 million in 1996 to U.S. $7,888 in 2000, at a time when commodity prices have reached their lowest level in well over 100 years (source: www.cargill.com...).” and “Monsanto announced record profits today, citing $2 billion for the 2008 fiscal year compared to $993 million in 2007.” while food riots breakout all over the world. www.competitivemarkets.com...

reply to post by endisnighe


absolutely. have you ever used reddit before? i have; they actually have a voting system for articles put up where, if you vote it up, the article also gets an automatic down vote:

violentacrez.pbworks.com...

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by ineverknew

 

A Litmus Test I have always used, is if you can see their lips move, they're lying.

Juuuuuuuuuuust my humble little opinion, of course.

Dead on! I was going to post the same thing just from reading the title.

2nd line

I wasn't awsre that their were actually any legitimately honest politicians or State/Federal agencies.

If you know of any, please tell them I want all of my misused money back along with the rest of the American citizens.

Disinformation is everywhere and you must keep an eye open. All eyes and ears!

Of course they use misinformation, and do it quite effectively. I recall that several years ago, the federal government tried to justify massive expenditures, only to get caught. Then they come out and say, yes the public was right we were wrong. Then get slapped on the hand and start up with something else. It is an ongoing thing.
My mother tells me a story about how she and my father, and my fathers parents and one of their friends were sitting around talking. One of their friends was sherriff of a town, and my grandmother asked, do all politicians lie. The answer was yes they do. So the only way you can keep the politicians honest is to watch, investigate (Thanks to the freedom of information act) and call them on it if they misbehave.