Friday, December 7, 2018

Heather O’Rourke: What Happened?

On November 9, 2017, under the headline “Today’s Blind Items — Molesters Killed Her,” an anonymous blogger (archive here) purporting to have information about the entertainment industry wrote a “blind item.”

The post starts out talking about the reasons why the 1980s were supposedly “peak child molesting time in Hollywood.” Essentially, argues the writer, it was routine for area parents to traffic their own children:
“ As sad as it is to say, there were a lot of parents who told their kids to go off with the nice man in the suit and do what he says.”
It seems we’ve heard so many stories about child actors’ lives being “ruined.” Yet those stories always seem somehow “inexplicable,” like it’s their fault for frittering away the gains of their youth.

What if we were to see the reality behind the glitz and the glamour? What if this blog post, with its horrific message about the reality of Hollywood 30 years ago, was true then and perhaps still true now?
“Children came to the set where they were left alone by their parents. For the next 8 hours they were subject to every kind of horrible thing….Drugs were….used to try and get the kids to not be so hysterical when being assaulted.”
Hollywood executives, says this writer, actually cast shows with pre-teens whether they’d be financially successful or not. It was all about the opportunity to prey on as many kids as possible.
“If someone pitched a show that involved a handful of tweens with a dozen tween extras per week, it would get a green light. Even if the show was going to suck, and everyone knew it was going to suck.”
The writer of this item portrays a coordinated effort by Hollywood executives to gain access to children sexually and to grant one another this access.

“The faster they filmed, the more time they would have to molest all the kids that would be hanging around….Executives would drive over to Hollywood right before lunch and would stay at the studio for several hours each day.”
This writer has just described a classic child sex trafficking network scenario. Per the U.S. Department of Justice:
“Offenders…target vulnerable children and gain control over them using a variety of manipulative methods….After cultivating a relationship….the trafficker will begin engaging the child in prostitution, and use…abuse to keep the child trapped.”
It’s been said that the average child sex trafficking victim lives seven yearsfrom the date they are first sold.

According to this blog, the victim was first molested at age 5 or 6.

We also know that Heather O’Rourke (shown here in Poltergeist, the role for which she was best-known) died at age 12.


But what does that prove? Some say claims about child sex trafficking, such as data about its prevalence, are unprovable.

Yet common sense tells us that such claims defy logic. Human trafficking is indeed the world’s third most prevalent form of organized crime, and 66% of the profit comes from sexual slavery. Hollywood is no different.

The writer of this anonymous post quotes an actress who is permanently traumatized by the scene as it unfolded that day. It’s not clear whether the actress knew the victim, but according to her, the pedophiles brought the child onto the stage in a bikini, shined bright lights, and performed sexual acts on themselves while making her strut and dance for them.

When that was finished, the girl disappeared from view as “three of the guys took her to a different area of the studio,” then reappeared after about 45 minutes to call an ambulance; something had been “inserted” in the child.

Is the story real? Was that child, as some have speculated, Heather O’Rourke?

We know that the young actress died at least partly because her intestines were obstructed. Notes People: “Heather died of cardiac-pulmonary arrest and septic shock, the result of an undetected intestinal blockage.”

A 2009 article in the journal Forensic Science International tells us that repeated anal rape can cause an obstruction in the bowel.

What happens if a child is anally raped repeatedly over a period of seven years, by one or more than one attacker at a time? What happens if the attackers are her traffickers?

Is it possible that they might make up a story, pay off or threaten the hospital employees, and do anything otherwise possible to make the whole thing “go away?”

In 2017, CNN posted a story about Karla Jacinto, a survivor who estimates she was raped more than 43,000 times during her four-year ordeal.

In Jacinto’s case, law enforcement is well-aware of the corridors that house and harbor child sex traffickers. But as CBS News reports, in other cases, such as “juvenile treatment facilities,” many people, including parents, have “no idea.”

Alyssa Beck was in one of these facilities when a “friend” lured her out to have some “fun.” Beck was quickly groomed and then trapped.

Many have made claims about being sexually abused in Hollywood. Certainly over the past year, the allegations against Harvey Weinstein opened the floodgates there, leading to a much larger “MeToo” movement that left its imprint worldwide.

Yet, as others have pointed out, the claims we have heard, as a mainstream audience, tend to focus on the experiences of adult women rather than children, which is a concern.

The #MeToo frenzy has also ignored the experience of children in the Hollywood entertainment industry specifically, whether female or male. In late 2017, after substantially quoting former child actor Corey Feldman, The Daily Beast called “preying on young boys” “Hollywood’s ‘Other Open Secret’Besides Harvey Weinstein.”

Child sex trafficking in Hollywood is real.There is ample evidence that young actors have paid the price for wanting to be in show business, and that the practice is as old as the industry itself.

Fox News’ “Judge Jeanine” Pirro, a former prosecutor, puts it this way:

“It is not just adult women, it is human trafficking, it is child sex trafficking, it is real pedophilia, in a town where there are no rules.”

In fact, Harvey Weinstein’s defense rests partly on the idea that women endured abuse for the sake of jobs; if they can’t get acting work any other way, this is arguably trafficking.

Given all of this, given how pervasive child sex trafficking is in America and all over the world, and given the inarguable nature of Hollywood as a central locus of this crime, it is very possible that a child star was raped to death in a Hollywood studio.

One of many similar crimes that never saw the headlines.

What isn’t clear is why the public’s legitimate concern about child sex trafficking is trivialized with headlines that focus only on unproven, outlandish claims, or why even well-known journalists who cover the story are silenced, censored, mocked, fired, harassed, and possibly even murdered.

Update: See in-depth research and discussion on Voat. (Trigger warning.)
___
Posted December 6, 2018 by Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal. Updated December 9 to include the link to discussion on Voat. All opinions belong to the person expressing them. All people are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This post is hereby released into the public domain. Photo via FindAGrave.com. Poltergeist photo via Wikipedia.

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

Tracy Jo Remington: Periscope Broadcast Transcript, December 4, 2018

Note: The following transcript is an excerpt of the main part of this broadcast. It has been lightly edited for readability. Follow Tracy on Twitter here.

My name is Tracy Jo Remington, it’s my first day on Periscope. Liz Crokin, you made the call, so here I am. The Clinton Foundation network is the largest child sex trafficking operation in the entire world. Liz Crokin is absolutely right.

I could lose my Twitter for this too, but I really don’t care Now my ex-husband Gregory (ver?) Remington in McMinnville Oregon was the Clinton Foundation network’s child pornographer.

I discovered he was producing pornography in 2008. We had an altercation, and I ended up…I actually shot past him with my Glock 19. I shot past him and I spent 16 and 1/2 months in jail, in prison for one gun shot. But he had beaten me for 6 days. I am the one that called the police, I am the one that went down in that town where the satanic cult of the Clinton Foundation was headquartered.

He was at the center of, he was in the center of the web okay? My ex-husband was their main child pornographer. His title was “The Baby King,” OK? A lot of people need to understand who he was.

There’s only seven people in here [in the Periscope broadcast] that’s fine. I just want to get this out to Twitter, to let you guys know that Liz Crokin is correct. Everything she says is right on.

Liz, I want to tell you if you listen to me right now, if you hear me, I want to tell you that I am sorry if I sent you too much stuff. But I was a private investigator (for) 4 years and you know when I see people like you, and I see people like Honeybee, I am the one that’s going to send you guys things…because I have been dealing with this for a very long time And I found out the FBI, the cops, the sheriffs in McMinnville Oregon were all a part of it.

I have lived through this, almost been killed for this, threatened stalked harassed GPS followed, you name it. The Illuminati chased me down. I packed two bags, shipped my car, bought a one-way ticket to Hawaii back in 2013. I have had to go off the grid twice just to survive these people. They wanted me dead.

….You know, Hillary is going down. Some people want to argue with this. Some people want to say “no, she’s not.” Some people want to say “no, it’s not going to happen.” But from my inside information that I do have with some really good investigators, the Clinton Foundation network is going to be outed. And I’m praying to God that McMinnville Oregon, the cops, the sheriff, all of them that are involved will go down, because I know who you are, I know who you f***ing are, do you get it?

These people have harassed me so bad I literally had to have no bank, no car, no insurance anything. I went off the grid completely and thank God I was safe. To this day I still move around because they threaten me. Yeah, Alex Jones….if you’re asking me about Alex Jones I have reached out to him. And he didn’t do a damn thing. It’s been Honeybee. Honeybee has been the one that’s helped me. I want to give some shout out to you, I want to shout out to you Zero, I love you dearly, you and Meg, Bronco, Fuctup mind, I love you, or excuse me FuctupMike, well you were both. Real Liz Crokin rocks, I love you. Emery (?) Danny and the Dragons, I love you guys, all of you guys.

You know my name, Panther7 means pain in her eyes, pain…my real name was Tracy Herman but I…yes He is, God is really exposing the truth.

And you know I’m going to put this on Twitter, and if I get (kicked?) out I don’t give a damn, I don’t care. Liz Crokin made a call, here I am Liz, I’m out there.

You know I look terrible…but I rarely sleep, knowing what’s going on…but my ex-husband is dead. I got to watch him. He dropped it on March, it was the 15th he died of an aneurysm. And within an hour I was on a flight to Oregon and my kids were there.

This is really hard because my kids, hi Jersey Girl, hi how are you? Is everybody good? Yes I agree, God is exposing the hidden works of darkness And if we don’t speak out, if we don’t say anything, people are not going to know. We’ve got to come forward and tell the truth Because the truth will set you free.

So you know, I really just want to say to you guys…what do you guys think about all of this stuff, do you think it’s really going down because I truly believe with all my sources that the Clinton Foundation is going to fall, Hillary is going down b***h.

You’re going down, you child raper molester, you evil wicked satanic witch, you are going to fall. And I am going to watch it, I’m going to watch your ass go down Hillary.

You are going to be held accountable for every child you’ve ever killed, murdered, raped, you and all of your f***ing cronies, your satanic evil wicked cronies.

How can I forgive somebody so wicked, you know? And how do I forgive my ex-husband, who threatened, stopped, harassed, GPSed, followed, I’m telling you guys, he was catering to the elite of the elite of the elite, ok? He was in with George Soros, Sony, Capitol Records Sirius XM, all of these f***ing Satanic rings.

My ex-husband, he was known as the “Baby King.” Okay, now I took a lot of heat from this from my own family. People don’t want to believe me, they don’t want to say, whatever — you can go to my Twitter, it’s Panther 7, and my stories are there.

….You know a lot of people don’t get that full story, because literally at the end of the day it was like a 3 hour conversation I had with Honeybee, okay? We talked for three hours, I told her everything in great detail. And this started for me a long, long, long time ago.

I got to give a shout out to Zero because back in 2016 when the Podesta emails came out, my ex-husband’s codewords led me directly into those emails. And I jumped on Twitter for the first time. And Zero, you, I give you Credit because you were the one, and I…really, really, really appreciated your help because I didn’t know Twitter at all.

… You know guys, seriously, the evil in this world, I am so thankful that George H.W. Bush is dead. Okay…I’m sorry people may not like that, you may think that disrespectful, he was (a) Skull and Bones Illuminati Satanic New World Order puppet, but he was a major player in that.

If you go and listen to those New World Order speeches, had Hillary gotten in, you guys, we would be France right now. We would be France, Germany, Sweden. We would be in trouble, big-time trouble, you know?

Thank God for President Trump. Thank you God for President Trump. I am grateful I am thankful he is our President. Yeah, okay, so maybe you don’t like it. But you know what Jersey? Thank God it’s not Hillary. Thank God it’s not Hillary.

They passed a law back in ’93 to take people’s children, and pay CPS (Child Protective Services) to do it. So you know I have to say, Maybe you don’t like him, but thank God it’s not Hillary, because she rapes, tortures, and murders children.

….You know you people have to understand, this is adenochrome. People don’t really understand vampirism. But it’s real, and what they do, they scare the hell out of their victims and the victims produce adenochrome. And then they sacrifice the child…a child or a person…that person begins to die, but they’re sucking the blood. That gives you the greatest high.

Have you ever seen Fear and Loathing…Okay we’re talking about Bush, glad got you Jersey, I’m talking so fast because literally there’s so much to say.

People, we need to start coming out. Yes it is about good and evil. It is about, this is about light versus darkness and I do you that Trump….whether people hate Trump or love Trump, he is truly doing everything he can. His life…murder, murder, murder, murder, they want to kill him.

But you know it’s only by God, and God alone that that man is alive. But he’s staying safe, I’m so thankful I am so thankful that he’s okay. You know you just gotta keep praying, give it up to God, because God is our only answer here.

Guys, it is Jesus Christ is the only answer we have in this lifetime. No matter what happens, we just got to keep thanking God, giving it all to God.

….You guys, I just had to jump on here and back up Liz Crokin. If you’re not following Liz, get on there and follow her, because she is A number one, they have tried to take her down again and again and again.”

_____

Posted December 4, 2018 by Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal. The purpose of this post is to transcribe a video testimony that may contain important information for law enforcement. All people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The opinions expressed here are those of Tracy Jo Remington. This content is hereby released into the public domain.

Monday, November 19, 2018

USAgov for Researchers




It is difficult to find official government information. Perhaps one solution could be to use USA.gov – jump from topic page.

 

  • Main page: https://www.usa.gov/topics
  • Icon: TBD
  • Topic name: Public Information
  • Description: Get official information on government data, statistics, audits, reports, federal court cases, file a Freedom of Information Act request, and more. 

 

Content: similar to https://www.usa.gov/laws - do a grid:

 

  1. Court Cases – Search Federal court cases – link to PACER.gov – https://www.pacer.gov/
  2. Official Data Sets – Search Data.gov – https://www.data.gov/
  3. Inspectors General reports –https://www.oversight.gov/
  4. GAO reports – https://www.gao.gov/
  5. FOIA - https://www.foia.gov/#agency-search – the portal already exists
  6. Fact Sheets – I don’t think we already have a super-portal, but we could create a search that crawls individual agency sites in the beginning (e.g. State https://www.state.gov/s/seci/c64446.htm,https://www.dhs.gov/news-releases/fact-sheets)
  7. Press Releases – same as above
  8. Historical Research – similar to NARAhttps://catalog.archives.gov/advancedsearch
  9. Government Photos – we could aggregate government photos in one place (perhaps start with Flickr)

 

This page would be enormously helpful to anyone seeking official information or validation from the Federal government.

 

It seems there already is a “For Media and Partners” page on USAgov https://www.usa.gov/media with feature articles https://www.usa.gov/features

 

However the researcher is likely to want to find their own data and then curate stories out of that.

 

It seems like we already have the data and the sites. Not too heavy a lift to bring it together.

____

Copyright 2018 by Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal. Public domain. All opinions are the author’s own. Photo by Dr. Blumenthal.

Sunday, November 18, 2018

The Terrifying Implications of “Human-Machine Teaming”

Terminator: Rise of the Machines (2003) movie poster

In 2015, the U.S. Department of Defense called for “human-machine teaming” as essential to national security.

This is the future, regardless of which political party is in charge, and it is both powerful and terrifying. We need to block abusers of this power.

To rephrase then-Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work, our defense has evolved from:
  • Beating their conventional weapons with our nukes
  • When nuclear parity was reached, achieving “near-0” targeting of their conventional weapons 
  • The man-machine warfighter.
Within the man-machine phase there is:
  • Improved machine learning
  • Intelligent machines guiding human decisions
  • Humans wearing electronics/apps in combat — using them to fight better
  • Humans and computers (robots) fighting together
  • Weapons that kill on their own
It is obvious that we have to have better fighting capabilities than our enemies if we are to resist an invasion. Having humans control the robots is ideal. Here is a 2015 example out of MIT — the “robot with human reflexes.

It’s also critical to have robots that can assist in times of disaster — they are powerful, efficient and can save the lives of rescuers who would otherwise be at risk. An example is the Atlas robot, funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and announced in 2013.

But it is also obvious that in the wrong hands, these kinds of weapons can easily be used against citizens.

Protecting citizens against tyrannical leadership is the essence of the Second Amendment. It’s not only about guns.

If the government has these weapons which can be turned upon the people, the people must have a means of self-defense.

Obviously there is no way to provide literal arms to the people equivalent to government power.

But it is possible to address the pressing issue of government abuse of power through the use of machines. This is not the technocracy of Silicon Valley but rather the Enemy of the State scenario. Or even, as some speculate, the deliberate destruction of democracy under the belief that the technologically literate are superior.

A “soft” risk is that humans will become dependent on machines for everything from identity to companionship to actual cognition.
  • How do you authenticate your identity? Google, Facebook, Amazon.
  • How do you connect? Facebook, Twitter.
  • How do you learn? “Google” it. 
“Freemium” is the classic marketing technique where you give it away to create dependence, much like selling illicit drugs. Think of iPads in kindergarten.

The (perhaps unanticipated) problem with machines becoming smart is that humans become correspondingly dumb, because of “distributed thinking.” Basically, we shut off part of our brains because we don’t need to make the effort anymore.

What happens when bad people are in charge of the technology that guides everything from education to entertainment? When they censor a wide range of opinions, leaving only a choice between vanilla, strawberry and chocolate ice cream?

What happens when Google itself is buying the robots?

What happens when the computers are loaded up with “data” — socially constructed — that you use to make decisions about other things besides fighting an adversary? What is the difference between “education” and “advocacy?”

When President Trump says “fake news is the enemy,” the implications are much deeper than it seems on the surface.

All combat, all self-defense, begins in the mind.

Alex Jones is right: There is a war on for your mind.

Maybe that is why they “deplatformed” him.

__________________

By Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal. This content is hereby released into the public domain.

Friday, November 16, 2018

Combating Disinformation: An Essential Role For The Civil Service

We should use government funds for government-funded broadcasts, clearly attributed, that offer the official stance on matters of public interest or areas of misinformation or disinformation

Did you know that the U.S. government has an anti-disinformation service, that it's called Polygraph, or that this website operates jointly with a Russian-language site called Factograph?

Polygraph is operated by the Voice of America, which claims editorial independence. So does Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Both are funded by the U.S. government (see graphic adapted from the U.S. Agency for Global Media website).

Just a cursory review of the discussion around these sites seems to indicate a focus on Russia and Russian disinformation campaigns. (Here is an example of Polygraph at work. Here is an example of controversy around its activity.)

Perhaps we haven't heard much about Polygraph here in the U.S. because the audience is not domestic. It is permissible for us to see it, though, because the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 made it permissible for State Department and then-Broadcasting Board of Governors materials (now Agency for Global Media) produced specifically for non-U.S. audiences to be shown domestically.

This passage from p. 30 of Seventy Years of the Smith-Mundt Act (University of Southern California, Center on Public Diplomacy, 2018 — free PDF online) captures the mainstream media firestorm that ensued when the "modernization" of Smith-Mundt became law:
BuzzFeed was first to raise the alarm in advance of the bill’s passage. A website that epitomizes the contemporary media ecosystem, it published an article about the proposed legislation that declared, ‘An amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences is being inserted into the latest defense authorization bill…’ Politico soon followed suit, writing, ‘The new law would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public.’ Also weighing in on the subject, a reporter for The Christian Science Monitor tweeted, ‘What I want is to make it harder, not easier, to propagandize our citizens.’ And an academic with a widely read blog focused on foreign policy asserted that the legislation would ‘allow the Department of Defense to subject the U.S. domestic public to propaganda.’”
Even without Smith-Mundt, the most obvious question that comes to mind is how any government-funded broadcaster can expect a claim of objectivity to be credible -- whether the product is or not. (In fact, because of the Gillett Amendment, it is illegal for government agencies to produce domestic propaganda or self-promotional communication.)

One might point to legal "firewalls" that prevent this from happening, but the reality is that in the U.S., federal agencies have found numerous workarounds for this prohibition, such as calling public relations specialists by other titles.

This deliberate murkiness has made it notoriously difficult to standardize anything to do with federal communication; in the perverse world of bureaucrats, "what isn't measured cannot be managed." The 1969 classic, Toward a Theory of Street-Level Bureaucracy (free PDF) amply demonstrated how the administrative state maintains its authority through adroit invisible maneuvers.

The simple fact that the administrative state refuses through passivity to classify, quantify and name what federal communicators actually do suggests a certain level of disingenuousness when we refer to any law, regulation, policy or "firewall" actually protecting editorial independence in practice. Perhaps recognizing this with respect to the supposedly illegal practice of public relations in government, even the Government Accountability Office recently used the term "public relations specialists" in a recent study of government spending on these activities.

There is an entire field of study dedicated to the need for persuading people to adopt healthier behaviors -- social marketing. It is obvious that the government can and should engage in this activity at times, if only to reduce unnecessary spending on damage caused by counterproductive social behaviors.

That said, there is no need for civil servants to justify in rosy terms -- as opposed to simply explaining intelligibly -- what the government does; that kind of activity does not serve the public interest. Yet the line has routinely been crossed, with numerous examples available from years past. The issue is not only a simple repeal of "outdated" law, but whether government-funded communication can ever be said to be unbiased in nature.

More to the point: Unbiased communication means "telling both sides of the story." Is it routine for federal communicators to criticize the policies of the agencies they serve in the course of carrying out their duties? Is waste, fraud and abuse a part of official communication, or is it siphoned to the side in Inspector General Reports and GAO audits, rarely alluded to officially because these are not a "good news story?"

A related issue has to do with civil servants who are lawyers. Is the federal agency their "client," or do they serve the public at large? The obvious answer, of course, is "the public," but the challenge is always how to implement this ideal in practice, so that the people drawing their paychecks from a federal agency are not overtly or subtly coerced into protecting it from the consequences of its own misconduct.

Here's another problem when the government claims to fund unbiased news: We actually need biased communication at times for the sake of national security. The Department of Defense is very open about this specialty, which is called "psychological operations." The Army recruits such specialists on its own website.
"PSYOP Soldiers typically operate in small, autonomous teams or with other Special Operations forces to develop relationships with a country’s civilian population, government figures and military and law enforcement agencies."
What happens when DOD operations "provide support" to Department of State "public diplomacy" efforts, which obviously include broadcasts funded by the U.S. Agency for Global Media?
"PSYOP Soldiers’ primary missions include Military Information Support Operations (MISO), Civil Authority Information Support, Military Support to Public Diplomacy, and Military Deception (MILDEC)." (Emphasis added)
It gets even more complicated than this. What happens when the enemy you're fighting is actually a U.S. citizen who is colluding with a foreign government on domestic soil? What are the rules of engagement for the Department of Defense in countering traitors who are engaging in disinformation efforts under the guise of acting as ordinary U.S. citizens, or even the media?

We cannot solve all the problems of the world at once. But we can take a step forward, and reconceive of the government communication function itself. We should use government funds for government-funded broadcasts, clearly attributed, that offer the official stance on matters of public interest or areas of misinformation or disinformation. This idea is nothing new; the UK tried this in 2018 with a "rapid response social media capability," and the future of this unit is uncertain.

The world is watching. Students are deeply engaged in the effort to identify, classify, and study what fake news is (free PDF). Things are set to get even worse as technology makes it possible to produce authentic-seeming fake video, setting the stage for fake news that can be "verified" and "sourced" as absolutely real.

It seems a weak remedy, as Sweden does, to tell citizens to "avoid propaganda in a crisis." (English version of brochure is here.)

One study this year, of 600+ Dutch civil servants, noted their concerns about disinformation. It is unclear to me why we steadfastly refuse to use the U.S. government to combat it, especially when you consider that fake news directly interferes in the democratic process, including interfering in elections.

Indeed, in 1993, the National Partnership for Reinventing Government brought hundreds of U.S. civil servants together, detailed from their home agencies, to support a massive efficiency/effectiveness initiative “focused on how the government works, not on what it should be doing.” This led to the launch of the Federal Communicators Network in 1996.

Can the government launch a coordinated effort to combat disinformation with fact? Perhaps at the very least we could establish an easy-to-search portal combining federal court cases, Government Accountability Office reports, Inspectors General reports, Open Data, "Myth vs. Fact" documents such as this and this, and training documents and videos that help citizens learn how to find the information they're looking for.

Much ado has been made about "QAnon" -- both pro and con -- who claims to be a kind of government communicator, stating: "We serve at the pleasure of the President." But regardless of where you stand on the matter, it should concern you that the lack of credible, relevant, and easy to access-and-understand federal communication is so pervasive that an impossible-to-trace person (or group) was named among the "25 most influential people on the Internet" by Time.

Even more troubling from the perspective of media reliability, Q purports to tell us the reality of current events, while also stating openly that "disinformation is real."

There is no question that America faces determined enemies, people who would like nothing more than to show that they were powerful enough to destroy us.

The modern method of conducting warfare is to destroy the minds of the people first.

We cannot let our enemies to win the war by refusing to show up on the battlefield.
___

By Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal. All opinions are the author's own. This content is hereby released into the public domain. Creative Commons photo by Yomare via Pixabay.

Thursday, November 8, 2018

A Prayer To God. Please Protect & Defend the Children

Ten years ago God blessed me.

He sent me forward with a mission that I did not understand at the time. That I still do not understand, but I know when it feels close. Something like - “tell the truth to free the kids.”

There is a small group of terrible people who have reigned on this earth for far too long. They are nothing more than demons with flesh.

For whatever reason, this is the time, God has heard the cries of their victims. The children they brutally rape and control. The workers they exploit for any purpose they can think of.

We, the public, know that these demons exist. 

We, the public, are standing up to them. Not for the first time. But maybe for the first time together, as a planet.

They have lied and cheated and tricked innocent people into believing the mask they wear is authentic.

We, the public, know that there is nothing behind that mask except rotting filthy garbage. 

May God protect the masses and masses of people on this planet who are innocent. 

May He subtract this plague from our midst.

Let the next generation blossom. Let them, and their children, be young and happy and free.

This is my prayer to God tonight.

Please, dear God, help us to protect the young.

__________
Copyright 2018 by Dr. Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal. All opinions are Dr. Blumenthal's own. Creative Commons Photo by Gellinger via Pixabay. This post is hereby released into the public domain.

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

Stop Giving Yourselves Awards

Your work sucks. Stop congratulating each other for it.

Here is an interesting statistic — a bit dated, but useful for conversation purposes nevertheless. Writing at Forbes, Josh Bersin notes that as of 2012, companies spent $46 billion per year on employee recognition awards. While the outlay was almost nothing (1–2% of payroll), it was a total waste of money strategy-wise: 87% of programs reward someone for simply being able to “hang in there.”

Rewarding people for their ability to stick around is not just unproductive, of course. It’s counterproductive. It tells people that their greatest contribution to the enterprise is the ability to “go along and get along,” even if they contribute nothing to the bottom line and even subtract from it — complaining, wasting people’s time in meetings, or creating make-work to keep themselves employed.

Bersin offers a number of alternative approaches to employee rewards that are more profitable. Basically they focus on rewarding performance, not longevity — noticing and calling out behaviors that have a positive impact on the bottom line. Having peers recognize each other, rather than only executives recognizing staff. Storytelling. Building recognition into the system. And linking it to the achievement of company goals.

But there is a larger problem here: For one thing, rewards and recognition are nice, but when they rise to front and center of the employment experience, something is very “off.” They are icing on the cake, not the cake itself, and in the rush to recruit mad talent the distinction can easily get lost.

A separate problem has to do with the dismantling of the value experience for the customer. By that I mean that “employee awards” has grown into this monstrous complex of Hollywood awards, industry awards, government “patting ourselves on the back” awards, nonprofit awards, on and on and on and on and on and on ad nauseam. Not only are these awards frequently questionable in terms of the achievements they’re celebrating (like who exactly decides which movie gets to be “the best of the year,”) but often they stand in marked contradistinction to what the customer actually wants and buys.

In a world where people can simply “decide” on their own reality — including the idea that awful work is actually good — maybe we should consider a refocus on what the customer wants and needs. And get away from giving so many awards to ourselves.
___

Copyright 2018 by Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal. This post is hereby released into the public domain. Creative Commons image via Pixabay.

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

More Khashoggi Questions (10/23/2018)

Questions about the “body double”—

1. Why wait until 10/20 to release that info? If the cover story was that Khashoggi left, why not say so by 10/6 or so?

2. Why is the footage selective?

3. The 2 men don’t look alike. The shoes don’t match.

About the supposed Saudi “coverup”—

1. Are the Saudis so incompetent their body doubles wear mismatched shoes?

2. Are they so incompetent they kill in broad daylight?

3. They couldn’t have gotten to him in the US????

What about the timeline leading up to Khashoggi’s disappearance?

9/28 - Saudi consulate visit #1

9/29 - London conference - on camera

10/1 - BBC NewsHour interview

10/2 - Back in Istanbul

That’s some fast airplane!

More questions—

1. MBS knows him - called him “Jamal” to Bloomberg on October 6. He didn’t react like Khashoggi was an enemy.

2. Why aren’t any other suspects or plots being considered? All of a sudden we trust Turkey?

3. He is friend of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood. Not a hero.

Finally, this morning 10/23/18–

“.@BouchardButch “Several Turkish media say it’s not even him on video” (the body double).

Link: https://twitter.com/bouchardbutch/status/1054687311194189826?s=21

Is #JamalKhashoggi dead?

What is the 9/11 connection?

What about the October 12 video by @thehill - is that him?

“Convoy for Pastor Andrew Brunson leaving courthouse after being freed by Turkish court hill.cm/yr53qIs

Link:

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1050781199029813248?s=21

And why is the head of the CIA personally going to investigate this?

Unanswered questions.
____

By Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal. Opinions are the author’s own. Public domain.















Sunday, October 21, 2018

Jamal Khashoggi Is Very Much Alive and Well and In A Video By The Hill

Saudi journalist, Global Opinions columnist for the Washington Post, and former editor-in-chief of Al-Arab News Channel Jamal Khashoggioffers remarks during POMED’s “Mohammed bin Salman’s Saudi Arabia: A Deeper Look”. March 21, 2018, Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED), Washington, DC. Photo by POMED, CC BY 2.0.

Introduction

American media outlets are reporting on the apparent disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi national who allegedly disappeared from the country's consulate in Istanbul, Turkey on October 2, 2018 and has not been seen since. This post is a review of some of the direct evidence in this case.

Chronology

Friday, September 28, 2018

BBC reported: "He first visited the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 28 September to obtain a document certifying that he had divorced his ex-wife, so that he could marry his Turkish fiancée."

Later, on October 19, VICE News interviewed a friend of Khashoggi who said that the Turkish staff at the consulate was told to take several days off in advance of his return.

Saturday, September 29

One day after visiting the consulate, Khashoggi was speaking in England at "Oslo at 25: A Legacy of Broken Promises," an event sponsored by Middle East Monitor.  (Screenshot is from the video posted online at the event website.) The event ran from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. local time. 

Monday, October 1

BBC Interview: On the heels of his talk at the Middle East Monitor event, Khashoggi gave an interview to the BBC's NewsHour, which airs at 9:06 a.m. and 4:06 p.m. local time, about his thoughts on the Oslo Accords, the topic of his talk in London. 

Travel from UK to Turkey? It is not clear when Khashoggi traveled from the UK to Turkey after his Saturday talk. He may have gone right away and done the BBC interview remotely, or he may have left on October 1.


Logistically, it takes four hours at a minimum (sometimes as much as 30 hours) to travel from Turkey to the UK, and Turkey time is 2 hours later.

Add to that the necessity of arriving early for check-in and going through security on the way into the country, and one would imagine at least an eight hour trip if not more.

If Khashoggi was in the UK on October 1, he would not have had much time to catch a plane if his appointment in Turkey was at 1:30 p.m. the next day.

Tuesday, October 2

3:29 a.m.: A plane arrives in Turkey.
9:40 and 9:55 a.m.: Six men are "shown" leaving "a Turkish hotel," but there is no CCTV recording timestamp on either frame.
12:14 p.m.: Diplomatic vehicle or vehicles arrive at the consulate. They are sedans, not vans.

Important note regarding all closed camera television recording, at the consulate and elsewhere: It can be selective. As Dr. Majed Aleisa notes: "The leaked video images of Khashoggi entering the consulate is available but there are no ongoing raw video of the consulate door for a few hours. Which leads us to believe that we are only being shown CCTV footage of what supports their goal of setting up Saudi Arabia. We believe he has exited the consulate and he was abducted away from the consulate."

Here is another view of an arriving vehicle, a sedan.
1:14 p.m.: Khashoggi enters Saudi Arabia's consulate in Istanbul, Turkey a second time. Now a van is parked in front.

3:07 p.m.: "They then drive to the consul's residence about 200 meters away" (.12 mile, or just a couple of minutes) where the van goes into the garage. Despite the close distance, how could the same exact van depart the consulate a minute AFTER it arrived somewhere else?
3:08 p.m.: Van leaves consulate (15:08:18) somehow a minute AFTER it arrives at its destination. How is this scientifically possible?

On Twitter, Emre Uslu spotted this as well: "It seems that Saudies found the time machine. The balack van leaves the consulate at 15:08 but arrives the counslar's house at 15:07 :)) The distance between the two is aproximately 2 km which does not matter anyway. This is how pro-goverment media reports in Turkey" (sic)


On further review, the "time machine" issue is a pretty big laugh for other as well. Sultan S. Assiri writes"Believe it or not , Saudis used a time machine to travel fom the Consulate at 15:08 and to arrive at 15:07 i kept my snapshots as is to show the time this phenomena appears.. Another rumor busted in action about #Jamal_Khashoggi"


(Someone else notes that different CCTV machines may have the time set differently.)

5:33 p.m.: Surveillance camera shows fiance milling about the exterior of the consulate. 

(No timestamp): The Guardian reports that "some of the alleged Saudi team appear to leave their hotel for the airport."

Saturday, October 6

Per Reuters, two Turkish sources come forward with information. One states that Turkish police have preliminarily determined that Khashoggi was killed in the consulate and his body taken out: “The initial assessment of the Turkish police is that Mr Khashoggi has been killed at the consulate of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul. We believe that the murder was premeditated and the body was subsequently moved out of the consulate."

Meanwhile, in the same article, Saudi Arabia reportedly completely denied the Turkish statement: "A Saudi source at the consulate denied that Khashoggi had been killed at the mission and said in a statement that the accusations were baseless....Saudi Arabia’s consul-general told Reuters earlier on Saturday that his country was helping search for Khashoggi, and dismissed talk of his possible abduction.

Friday, October 5

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman tells Bloomberg: "My understanding is he entered and he got out after a few minutes or one hour. I’m not sure."

Sunday, October 7

Per Al Jazeera, Saudi Arabia refutes the allegation that Khashoggi was killed in their consulate in Istanbul.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post demands answers from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United States. This despite noting that there was no evidence of a crime, that Saudi Arabia said Khashoggi left the consulate on his own, and that Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's president, had not confirmed that any crime occurred either.

The Post further reported that "15 Saudi officials entered Istanbul, 'specifically for the murder,” according to sources quoted by The Post’s Kareem Fahim.' Yet security cameras only captured six.

The paper asserted definitively that "Mr. Khashoggi entered the consulate again last Tuesday and did not come out."

October 11

Al Arabiya posted an article by Emre Uslu detailing numerous other inconsistencies in the account, including selective posting of security camera footage

"Every inch of that street is recorded by cameras. Yet, Turkish intelligence footages shared with the media have not shown alleged Saudi team's movement from hotel to the consulate, why? They need to show this to make their claim convincing."


October 12

Twitter user @badrah2030 brought up Al Jazeera's first reporting on the matter, stating that Khashoggi indeed left the consulate after just 20 minutes: "This is the 1st tweet aljazeera wrote about #Jamal_Khashoggi , they said that he left  the consulate after 20 minutes and CAMERA DOESN'T LIE, I used this method of translation "word-for-word" to let you know what exactly is written about him."

This point is also brought up by Dr. Majid Aleisa in his October 18 analysis.

October 15, 2018

A detail in the narrative concerning Khashoggi's Apple Watch becomes an issue.

As CNBC notes, "A report from the pro-government Turkish newspaper Sabah said journalist Jamal Khashoggi used an Apple Watch to record audio of his alleged killing by Saudis inside their consulate in Istanbul. The way the report described how Khashoggi recorded the audio is at odds with how the Apple Watch actually works. It would have been nearly impossible for Khashoggi to record audio and upload it to his iPhone or the internet, and it raises questions as to how Turkish officials obtained the audio and video evidence of the alleged killing."

October 17

The New York Times quoted "Turkish officials" to state that Khashoggi was cut up into little bits and pieces--without actually having any evidence to prove that this was true. "Saudi agents were waiting when Jamal Khashoggi walked into their country’s consulate in Istanbul two weeks ago. Mr. Khashoggi was dead within minutes, beheaded, dismembered, his fingers severed, and within two hours the killers were gone, according to details from audio recordings described by a senior Turkish official on Wednesday."

This was widely reported as fact.


October 18

In "How to Spot a Fake Fiancée: The Khashoggi Case," Dr. Majed Aleisa (yes, Dr. Aleisa is a real person, whose Twitter account is suspended; you can find him on Gab at @MajedAleisa and @MEGuardians; Poynter and Buzzfeed call him fake news) pointed out a number of troubling inconsistencies in the narrative. (Note: The article was updated after Saudi Arabia took responsibility for the matter on October 19.)

To run through some of his key points:

"The picture circulated by news outlets CNN and The Washington Post of Hatice taking a selfie with Saudi Journalist Jamal Khashoggi is not real. Hatice was inserted in the photo!"

Indeed, you can see in the photo that the picture of Khashoggi is identical to his Washington Post author profile picture. However, the backgrounds are different; the exterior of nature and the fiancee's face could easily have been edited in. Aleisa's article makes reference to some technical points, such as the way her image looked as though it had been expanded to match the size of his face. Aleisa also notes that his shirt is "saturated, and changed from an original color," among other things.

Aleisa suggests that "the fabrication of the photo was because of another tweet on October 8th in which we questioned the nonexistence of any photos of the two sitting by each other or in a private setting."
Also troubling, notes Aleisa, is the fact that Khashoggi apparently never told his son Abdullah about his supposed fiance. There is no engagement celebration to be found, no engagement ring, no photos of them alone and only one mention of her by him on Twitter (versus 10 times she mentioned him). Even more telling, the supposed fiance Tweets that she is planning a 60th birthday party for him when his own passport shows that this birthday had already passed by 10 months.


Other Twitter users called her out on that.

What troubled me, personally, the most on reading about the fiancee is that she posts about him on Twitter, but does not have any "couple photos" that I can find. She declined an invitation from President Trump. And in a case of circular logic, the New York Times states that Khashoggi has a fiancee, then sources the information to an article written by the fiancee.

October 19, 2018

Saudi Arabia releases a statement. Hassan Hassan, Senior Research Fellow, Program on Extremism at George Washington University, translates: “discussions that took place between citizen Jamal Khashoggi & the persons who met him during his presence at the consulate in Istanbul led to a fight & quarrel by hands, which caused his death.”



More specifically, reported Bloomberg, "Khashoggi died after he was placed in a choke hold, a person with knowledge of the Saudi probe said." To discipline those involved and investigate further, reported the news outlet, "King Salman removed a top adviser...and prosecutors detained 18 people involved in the case."

The Huffington Post acknowledges how unsatisfying and hard to believe this statement is: "Intelligence gathered by the U.S. and allies ― in addition to clues pointing directly to the regime ― make it unlikely the statement will fully quell worldwide outrage over the kingdom’s treatment of Khashoggi and questions about whether the West is complicit in massive human rights violations. Saudi Arabia and its powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, have faced a spiraling international crisis over the apparent murder."

October 20, 2018

After Saudi Arabia appeared to admit its responsibility for the murder, Bloomberg reported that some of its citizens were "shocked" and angry: “A very sad day for this nation, to see what the country had descended into,” said one Saudi man, who spoke on condition of anonymity to criticize a government that tolerates virtually no dissent. “No country is perfect, but used to be proud that the country had a certain morality that aligned with Arabian values. We lost that forever unfortunately.”

October 21, 2018

Could this man be Khashoggi? It appears to be him, in a video posted to Twitter on October 12, 2018 by The Hill.  He enters the frame at 8 seconds and appears to be rushing somewhere, perhaps trying to avoid the cameras. His beard appears dyed. (This information was posted on October 17 by Brenden Dilley.) 



Political Impact

On October 17, Vanity Fair intimated that there was some sort of payoff involved as the United States received a $100 million payment from Saudi Arabia while President Trump defended the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. 

On October 19, Democratic member of Congress Rep. Joaquin Castro suggested to CNN, without any evidence, that Jared Kushner may have planned the hit

An Unsatisfying Conclusion

Instead of trying to resolve this by quieting it down, I think the United States should get to the bottom of it. Lying is only going to unfairly smear Saudi Arabia, and that in the long run will make things worse.

Senator Lindsey Graham stated on October 19: “To say that I am skeptical of the new Saudi narrative about Mr. Khashoggi is an understatement."

President Trump put it more bluntly on October 20: "Obviously there’s been deception, and there’s been lies.”
__________

Copyright 2018 by Dr. Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal. All opinions are Dr. Blumenthal's own. This post is hereby released into the public domain.