Is Mainstream Media in the Western World Owned and Operated by Deep State?

Control of the media is the first thing a dictator does. Control the media, you control the people. We in the west have long criticized certain countries, especially Russia, of controlling their media, which they often do by rather brutal means. But, as this report indicates, the media can be controlled by more elegant, more covert means. They can be controlled by the same factions that control most western politicians - Deep State! While this report focuses on the UK, the same holds true for most western countries

How the UK press is misinforming the public about

Britain’s role in the world

By Mark Curtis

Britain’s national press consistently portrays Britain as a supporter of noble objectives such as human rights and democracy. The extraordinary extent to which the public is being misinformed about the UK’s foreign and military policies is revealed in new statistical research by Declassified UK.

The research suggests that the public is being bombarded by views supporting the priorities of policy-makers. It also finds that there is only a very small space in the British press for critical, independent analysis and key facts about UK foreign policy.  

The research, which analyses the UK national print media and does not include broadcasters such as the BBC, suggests that there is little divergence between the liberal and conservative press.  

This is the first of a two-part analysis of UK national press coverage of British foreign policy.  

Disappearing foreign policies 

Key British foreign policies, particularly in the Middle East, are being routinely under- or un-reported in the UK national press.  

The Egyptian regime under Abdel Fattah al-Sisi took power in a 2013 coup, which killed hundreds of people and has become increasingly repressive, jailing tens of thousands of opponents as well as journalists. During this period, the UK government has deepened military, trade and investment with the regime, in effect acting as an apologist for it.   

Yet a search for press articles in the two years ending in December 2019 finds none covering the full range of UK cooperation with the Sisi regime. A handful of articles (less than a dozen, mainly in the Independent and Guardian) occasionally mention an aspect of UK support for the regime. But this number is very low given 1,018 articles mentioning Sisi during the same period, Egypt’s long historical relationship to the UK and the fact that the UK is the largest investor in Egypt.  

The lack of press reporting is especially striking given that the government has itself been consistently announcing its support, especially in military relations, for the Sisi regime. 

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi delivers a speech at the UK Africa Investment Summit in London, Britain,

20 January 2020. Declassified searched for press articles in the two years ending in December 2019 and found

none covering the full range of UK cooperation with the repressive Sisi regime. (Photo: EPA-EFE / Andy Rain)

The UK has also deepened its military cooperation with Israel in recent years, a highly controversial policy while it continues serious human rights abuses and illegal settlement building in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Britain’s Royal Navy has conducted exercises with the Israeli navy and provides military training to Israeli officers.  

Yet no articles could be found in the UK national press in the last five years mentioning either of these policies, despite being covered in some Israeli media and in the UK outlet, the Jewish Chronicle. 

Israeli newspaper Haaretz has reported on “a time of unprecedented British-Israeli military cooperation”. Yet when the Israeli air force completed its first-ever deployment of fighter jets to Britain in September 2019, which was widely reported by the Israeli press and the MOD, there was no coverage in the UK national press that could be found. Neither was there coverage in the press of the UK’s admission in parliament in July 2018 that the UK was providing military training to Israel.  

Similar silence prevails in other key British relationships, such as Oman, an authoritarian state which is one of the UK’s closest allies in the Middle East. Sultan Qaboos, who died in January 2020, had been installed by covert UK forces in a 1970 palace coup. His death was mourned by British officials and the press alike.  

Analysis by Declassified showed that British journalists emphasised the alleged popularity of Qaboos and repeated sympathetic lines from British officials who went to extraordinary lengths to praise the dead dictator and support his unelected successor, his cousin Haitham.

A search for articles on Oman in the five years until December 2019 reveals only around half a dozen mentioning UK military training, with none revealing the extent of UK military and other support for the regime. This is despite over 900 articles mentioning Oman. 

Files revealed by Edward Snowden show that the British intelligence agency, GCHQ has a network of three spy bases in Oman, codenamed Timpani, Guitar and Clarinet. These stations process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic, which are then shared with the US National Security Agency. 

The existence of these bases was first revealed by the Independent in 2013, which, however, did not give their code names or say they were located in Oman. Details of the Snowden release were written up by investigative reporter Duncan Campbell in The Register. 

Since then, however, the UK national press has never named these bases. Only two articles could be found (in the Express and Times, written by the same author), mentioning that GCHQ has “three bases” in Oman.

Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II, left, and Qaboos bin Saed, the late Sultan of Oman, right, during an official reception at Al Alam Palace in Muscat, Oman, 26 November 2010. Analysis by Declassified showed that upon his death British journalists emphasised the alleged popularity of Qaboos and repeated sympathetic lines from British officials who went to extraordinary lengths to praise the dead dictator and support his unelected successor, his cousin Haitham. (Photo: EPA / Hamid al-Qasmi)

Saudi silence

Many aspects of UK relations with Saudi Arabia have also gone under-investigated by the press, despite the special relations between the two countries. Saudi Arabia is by far the UK’s closest military and arms relationship, but various components of this barely exist in the mainstream media.  

In September 2019, Declassified UK revealed details of a £2-billion UK programme in Saudi Arabia – the Saudi Arabia National Guard Communications Project (known as Sangcom) – which has operated since 1978. The programme implicates the UK in the defence of the House of Saud and in the war in Yemen, where the National Guard is also active. 

Sangcom has been specifically mentioned twice in the press in the past five years (in the Times and Financial Times), and only 11 times in the past 20 years. There have been some reports of the bribery scandal surrounding the programme, which was publicised by whistleblower Ian Foxley, but very little has been written on the military support project itself. 

Declassified UK also revealed how soldiers in the British Military Mission (BMM) in Saudi Arabia are embedded in the country’s National Guard and commanded by the Saudi military while providing training on “internal security”. The BMM has been specifically mentioned once in the British press in the past five years (in an obituary in the Telegraph). 

Both Declassified investigations were undertaken using open source information. The paucity of coverage highlights a lack of interest on the part of journalists to expose key aspects of UK foreign policy. Neither of the stories was picked up by the mainstream media in the UK. 

Inconvenient truths 

Inconvenient truths are regularly downplayed or buried. Six years ago, the US media organisation The Intercept revealed files from Snowden on a secret British GCHQ unit called the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG), showing how it attempts to inject false material onto the internet. This online covert action can involve “false flag operations” (falsely attributing published material to someone else), and “fake victim blog posts” (seeking to destroy the reputation of an individual by pretending to be his/her victim). 

JTRIG has been specifically mentioned less than a dozen times in the national press since the Snowden revelations, all brief mentions in articles on other subjects, with only a few mentions since 2016. This is in sharp contrast to the vast attention paid to Russian covert programmes. 

While the British press frequently highlights UN reports about torture or imprisonment of journalists in foreign countries, it tends to publish fewer UN concerns about similar conduct closer to home. The UN’s special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, recently wrote to the UK government calling for officials to be investigated for possible “criminal conduct” in their stance towards WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, who, he has repeatedly said, is being subjected to “psychological torture” by the UK. Melzer added that UK policy “severely undermines the credibility of [its] commitment to the prohibition of torture … as well as to the rule of law more generally”.  

No UK press outlet has covered Melzer’s assertion of possible UK criminal activity.

A slide produced by the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG), a unit of Britain’s signals intelligence agency GCHQ. Its existence and controversial operations were revealed in Edward Snowden’s leaks, but Declassified found JTRIG has been mentioned fewer than a dozen times in the national press since. (These are the 'Five Eyes' Countries)

Cutting the UK from the Yemen war 

Britain’s role in the devastating war in Yemen, which began in 2015, has also been notably under-reported. In the first two years of the conflict, few articles mentioned the British role, despite much evidence on this in the public domain, notably from answers by ministers to parliamentary questions.  

Since then, many articles have covered UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia, with some noting British training of Saudi pilots and British officers’ presence in Saudi war operations rooms. Yet the UK’s military role goes deeper, with Britain storing and issuing bombs for Saudi aircraft and maintaining warplanes at key operating bases.  

“The Saudi bosses absolutely depend on BAE Systems,” John Deverell, a former MOD official and defence attaché to Saudi Arabia and Yemen, told freelance journalist Arron Merat, writing in the Guardian. “They couldn’t do it without us.”  

Yet, such articles are rare. For example, no articles could be found mentioning the UK role in supporting the “safe storage and issue of weapons”, for Saudi aircraft, as the government revealed in parliament in June 2018.  

Very few articles describe the Yemen conflict for what it is given the extent of the UK’s military role — a British war. The term “British war in Yemen” (or variant search terms such as “Britain’s war in Yemen”), yields no search results in the text of any article in the past five years. The closest results are one article in the Independent headlined: “The government has finally admitted that Britain is at war in Yemen” (written not by a journalist, but by opposition MP, Diane Abbott), and two in the Guardian titled: “Britain is at war with Yemen”  and “Britain is behind the slaughter in Yemen”. 

 The most significant piece of research published on the extensive UK role in the war in Yemen is a report of April 2018 by independent investigators Mike Lewis and Katharine Templar.  Widely covered in alternative media, the report has been mentioned just once in the UK national press (in the Guardian, in the same article noted above).  

The report revealed that UK support to Saudi Arabia involves about 7,000 employees of arms firms, civil servants and seconded military personnel. It also provided evidence of UK military commitments to Saudi Arabia that have never been disclosed to the public or parliament. 

The national press generally promotes the line that Britain has simply been supporting the “Saudi-led coalition”, which mirrors the government’s false claim that it is “not a party” to the war – an assertion likely made for legal reasons to avoid being held complicit in war crimes.

Yemeni children perform in a sketch during a rally protesting a Saudi-led airstrike which killed more than

50 people three days before, in Sanaa, Yemen, 12 August 2018.  Britain’s role in the devastating war in Yemen,

which began in 2015, has been notably under-reported. (Photo: EPA-EFE / Yahya Arhab)

Misreporting Syria  

Britain’s role in the war in Syria has been distinctly under-reported and mis-reported and has overwhelmingly followed the priorities of British governments. While the press has widely reported UK military operations against Islamic State in Syria, its covert operations against the Assad regime have received much less attention.  

Evidence suggests that Britain began covert operations in Syria in late 2011 or early 2012. The Times and Telegraph have reported sporadically on this involvement in the war. However, the mantra repeated in the Guardian and its sister paper, the Observer is that Britain has “failed to act” in Syria. An Observer editorial in August 2019 was entitled “the west’s shameful failure to act” and described “Western governments’ neglect of the eight-year war”.  

Similarly,in 2019, Guardian columnist Simon Tisdall wrote, “The US has largely stood aside from Syria, confining itself to anti-ISIS [Islamic State] counter-terrorism operations and occasional missile strikes. So too, for the most part, have Britain and Europe.”

However, veteran US journalist Seymour Hersh had already revealed that in early 2012, a secret “rat line” of shipments began to supply weapons to Syrian opposition groups, in which MI6 was closely involved. This “rat line” has been mentioned only six times in the British press since 2012 – according to the research – all in the Independent and Guardian. The low figure is noteworthy given that over 150,000 articles have mentioned Syria in the same period.  

In July 2014, BBC TV’s Newsnight reported that the UK sold components to Syria in the 1980s which could have been used to make the deadly nerve agent, sarin. Since then, there have been 985 press articles mentioning “Syria and sarin” which, it is alleged, has been used by the regime to attack targets. But the UK exports have been mentioned in only seven articles (ie. less than 1% of the total coverage), according to the research, the last one being in April 2017.  

When the US and UK governments accused the Bashar al-Assad regime of using chemical weapons in Douma, near Damascus, in April 2018, the UK press largely accepted the claims with certainty –as though the fake story of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had never occurred. The press has maintained its position even as evidence has mounted throwing doubt on the claims, which has also been largely unreported.  

In October 2019, WikiLeaks published evidence from a whistleblower at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), showing that the international body had suppressed evidence suggesting that the Syrian government had not mounted the Douma attack. It quoted former OPCW director Jose Bustani saying that “the convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had”.  

Bustani’s comments have been mentioned in only one press outlet – the Mail on Sunday, by journalist Peter Hitchens.  

Benevolent Britain 

The national press routinely conveys the view that Britain is a supporter of noble objectives such as human rights, democracy and overseas development in its foreign policy. Almost no articles suggest that Britain might generally oppose these principles. 

The press largely reflects the view of the Conservative Party, outlined in its 2019 election manifesto: “we view our country as a force for good … From helping to end the slave trade to tackling modern slavery, the UK has long been a beacon of freedom and human rights”. 

Mentions of the term “Britain’s reputation” in press articles highlight how journalists regard the UK. Some 500 articles mention the term in the past five years. Recent editorials note “Britain’s reputation as a positive global influence” (Independent), “Britain’s reputation as a beacon of liberty and liberal values” (Daily Mail) and “Britain’s reputation for honest government” (Financial Times).  

Rachel Sylvester in the Times notes “Britain’s reputation as a force for stability in the world” while Tim Stanley writes in the Telegraph of “Britain’s reputation as a force for human rights”. A Mail on Sunday article refers positively to “Britain’s reputation across the Middle East and Africa”. Numerous recent articles also refer to Brexit damaging “Britain’s reputation” in the world, which is always assumed to be positive.  

Our research finds very few mentions in the past five years of major negatives concerning “Britain’s reputation” in the world. A rare exception is “Britain’s reputation as a haven for dirty money”, mentioned in the Financial Times in 2018.    

No articles could be found specifying a “British reputation” for violating international law or the UN, promoting wars or supporting human rights abusing regimes.  

Champion of human rights 

When ministers’ claim they support human rights in their foreign policy, they are rarely challenged in the press. Articles on UK arms exports to repressive regimes are fairly common and often highlight contradictions with upholding human rights. However, they regularly take for granted that the UK otherwise supports human rights in those countries and elsewhere. 

Press articles regularly assert that the UK supplies arms to regimes “despite” repression and human rights abuses. Yet UK policy in various countries is focused on maintaining favoured regimes in power and on enabling them to counter opposition.  

In the Gulf, for example, promoting “internal security”– a euphemism for ongoing repression – has long been a key feature of British support for states such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The UK’s export of surveillance technology to repressive regimes, the provision of military training and its regular failure to censure states, or change policy, over human rights abuses, can all help regimes to repress opponents.  

Press articles rarely intimate that British policy is about supporting repression of pro-democracy activists or movements. As a rough indicator, the research finds no articles mentioning the phrase “Britain’s support for repression” (or variants of this term) in the past five years. 

The UK is also widely seen in the press as a champion of global development, echoing government claims. A Guardian editorial in 2016 noted, for example, “One of the things modern Britons can be proudest of is their country’s achievements in international development”.

By contrast, almost no articles could be found suggesting the UK might oppose international development or be a significant contributor to global poverty. One rare exception in the Guardian in 2016, written by Jason Hickel of Goldsmiths, University of London, was sub-headlined: “we need to stop pretending that the United States, France and Britain are benevolent champions of the poor”. 

Britain’s large aid programme, which supports some worthy projects, is significantly designed to promote UK foreign policy goals and British business interests. The government has openly stated that aid promotes the UK’s “influence in the world” and to “deliver influence in Africa” as well as helping to “further UK strategic interests”. UK aid also promotes British commercial interests by pressing for the privatisation of education in developing countries and by funding projects supporting pro-British repressive regimes. 

Moreover, various broader UK policies undermine global development. The UK’s network of tax havens, involving the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands, for example, is responsible for over one third of global tax avoidance – amounting to about £115-billion a year, eight times larger than its aid budget. In addition, many UK companies, notably in the mining and extractives sectors, are involved in human rights abuses or environmental damage overseas. 

While stories on these examples are sometimes covered in the press (though often are not), they almost never disturb the generally promoted view that the UK champions global development.  

The term “rules-based international order” has entered the political lexicon in recent years and refers to international relations that are supposedly upheld by international law and accepted standards. The term is mentioned in 339 press articles in the last five years. The UK is invariably seen as a supporter of this order while those seen by the UK government as opponents, such as Russia and Iran, are conveyed in the press as the challengers.  

An Observer editorial in July 2019 noted “the international rules-based order that post-war Britain has spent decades building and nurturing”. The Times defence correspondent Lucy Fisher contrasts Britain with “other nations less inclined towards a rules-based international order”. 

Yet the UK is as much a violator of international rules as any official enemy. Declassified recently documented 17 British policies violating domestic or international law and the UN. This did not include UK policies in the recent past, such as the military interventions in Iraq and Libya.  

Nowhere in the national press is the UK regarded as a “rogue state” in its foreign policy, the research finds. A search for the term “rogue state” in press articles over the past three years reveals a large number of mentions – 1,023 – regularly referring to North Korea, Iran and Russia, even with the occasional mention of the US under Donald Trump. The UK is not mentioned, however, apart from one article mentioning prime minister Boris Johnson as a “one-man rogue state”. Neither are allies such as Israel or Saudi Arabia termed rogue states.

An editorial in the Daily Telegraph notes, “The drone attacks on Saudi Arabian oil facilities have been blamed by America on Iran, confirming the country’s rapid descent into the ranks of rogue states”. To Telegraph editors, the US administration labelling Iran a rogue state is “confirmation” that this is true.  

While serving to regularly misinform the public, the reach of the national press remains enormous. Alternative media are proliferating but monthly website visitor numbers to the national press are far larger: 310-million for the Guardian, 304-million for the Mail and 88-million for the Independent. These compare to 1-million visits per month for the Canary, the alternative digital news site in the UK with the most visitors. DM

Research covered the period to the end of 2019 using the media search tool, Factiva. It analysed the “mainstream” UK-wide print media (dailies and Sundays), over different time scales, usually two or five years, as specified in the article. Media search engines cannot be guaranteed to work perfectly so additional research was sometimes undertaken.  

Mark Curtis is the co-founder and editor of Declassified UK, an historian and author of five books on UK foreign policy. He tweets at: @markcurtis30

This Week's Global Terrorism Stories 20-9 - Israel-2, Netherlands, Syria, Tunisia, Afghanistan

55,000 Students Miss School as Rockets Rain Down
on Southern Israel

By JNS, 25th Feb 2020

I will send down fire upon the wall of Azza, And it shall devour its fortresses; Amos 1:7 (The Israel Bible™)

A ball of fire and smoke rises above buildings during Israeli airstrikes in the southern Gaza Strip after a slew of
14 rockets were launched towards southern Israel, on Feb. 24, 2020. Photo by Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90.

At least 14 Palestinian rockets rained down on southwestern Israel on Monday, with one striking and damaging a playground in the town of Sderot and another shattering a car windshield in Nir Am.

Twelve of the rockets intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome air-defense system, according to the Israel Defense Forces. The rocket fire was a continuation of Sunday’s attacks, which saw some 30 projectiles launched at Israel. The attacks were claimed by Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).

Iron Dome is only activated when an incoming missile is predicted to be heading towards a populated area.

The rocket launches sent thousands of residents of Sderot, Sha’ar HaNegev and Netiv Ha’asara scrambling for bomb shelters.

Due to the Sunday night attacks, the IDF on Monday morning had already ordered closures of areas and roads adjacent to the Gaza border fence, as well as Zikim Beach between Ashkelon and Gaza.

Following a directive from Israel’s Home Front Command, the school was canceled on Monday for 55,000 students in Ashkelon, Netivot, Sderot, Hof Ashkelon, Eshkol Regional Council, and Sha’ar HaNegev.

Israelis were allowed to go work as usual, provided that shelters were immediately available.

Israel responded to the attacks by launching airstrikes on PIJ sites in both the Gaza Strip and Syria, reportedly killing two members outside Damascus and another four pro-Iranian militants.

“IDF fighter jets struck terror sites belonging to the PIJ terror group south of Damascus in Syria, as well as dozens of PIJ sites throughout the Gaza Strip,” the IDF said in a statement.

According to initial reports, the IDF apparently did not target Hamas sites.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Radio Jerusalem on Monday morning that Israel might have no choice but to launch a major military operation, bigger even than 2014’s “Operation Protective Edge.”

“If Israel is in the position of entering a large-scale military operation, we will have to deal a bigger blow than ‘Cast Lead,’ ‘Pillar of Smoke’ and ‘Protective Edge,’ ” he said. “It could very well be that we may have to carry out—I don’t really want to say it, but ‘the mother of all operations.’ ”

The rocket fire comes after Israeli troops killed two Gazans on Sunday who was attempting to plant a bomb along the Israel-Gaza border. Video uploaded to social media showed IDF troops using a military bulldozer to retrieve the terrorists’ bodies, under a hail of stones from Palestinian rioters. The Israeli military argues that the bodies of terrorists can be used as bargaining chips in negotiations with Gaza terror organizations, which currently hold two Israeli civilian hostages, along with the bodies of two IDF soldiers.

“I am sick of the hypocritical left-wing criticism of the ‘inhumanity’ of using a bulldozer to bring us the body of a terrorist who tried to murder (!) Israelis,” Israeli Defense Minister Bennett wrote on Twitter.

“Hamas is holding the bodies of [fallen soldiers] Hadar Goldin and Oron [Shaul],” he said. “I back the IDF [forces] that killed the terrorists and collected the body. This is how we should and will act.”

Man goes on trial for terrorism in

Dutch tram shooting that killed 4

By Sommer Brokaw

A handout photo made available by the Utrecht Police last year shows Gokmen Tanis, whose terrorism trial is going on this week in connection to the tram shooting on March 18, 2019. File Photo courtesy of Utrecht Police/EPA-EFE

March 2 (UPI) -- A terrorism trial began Monday for a man who confessed to a shooting aboard a tram in the Netherlands last year that killed four people.

Gokmen Tanis, 38, of Turkey, faces four counts of murder with terrorist objective, along with 17 counts of making terrorist threats.

The deadly shooting occurred March 18, 2019, aboard a tram in the city of Utrecht, Netherlands, about 20 miles southeast of Amsterdam. A few days later Tanis confessed to the shooting, saying he acted alone, but the defense is likely to dispute the alleged terrorist motive.

Tanis underwent a psychiatric evaluation, which concluded he had low mental capacity. The court assigned a lawyer, Andre Seebregts, after he was not present at a hearing in September and refused legal representation. Tanis was obliged to attend the trial in Utrecht, RTL Nieuws reported.

The trial will begin with victim testimony and digital reconstruction of events surrounding the shooting before the prosecution makes its sentencing request Thursday. Then, the defense team will give its response to charges.

The verdict is expected to be delivered March 20.

Tanis told authorities he committed the attack, which occurred a few days after a shooting at two New Zealand mosques killed 51 people, out of anger about violence against Muslims and Islam being mocked.

PETER HITCHENS: Today, I’m publishing the document
that could save us from war

By PETER HITCHENS FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY

Long ago, a wise teacher told me to remember these words: ‘Truth is the Daughter of Time, not of Authority.’ I had no idea how important they were. Now, after many years of experiencing official dishonesty, they are my motto.

One day, a lot of other people, in the media and politics, will accept that in the past few months they have failed in their duty to the truth, by staying silent or – worse – joining in a braying attempt to suppress crucial facts.

But by then it is quite possible that the peoples of the Western world will have been whipped into a warlike frenzy by false information, just as happened in the Iraq disaster 17 years ago. Because if nothing is done about the scandal I have been writing about, such an outcome is highly possible, even likely.

A few months ago I was told of an attempt by authority to suppress an important truth about an alleged atrocity in Syria. Claims that poison gas had been used by the Syrian state at Douma in April 2018 were not, in fact, confirmed by the scientific evidence.

This was deeply embarrassing to three governments – our own, France’s and the USA, all of which had bombed Syria soon afterwards in the unchecked belief that the claims were true. 

A few months ago I was told of an attempt by authority to suppress an important truth about an alleged atrocity in Syria.
Claims that poison gas had been used by the Syrian state at Douma in April 2018 were not, in fact, confirmed by the
scientific evidence. (This image released early on April 8, 2018 by the Syrian Civil Defense White Helmets
shows a child receiving oxygen through respirators following the alleged poison gas attack)

This was deeply embarrassing to three governments – our own, France’s and the USA,
all of which had bombed Syria soon afterwards in the unchecked belief that the claims were true.
(Pictured, an RAF Tornado over Damascus during the coalition attack)

All three are members of the UN Security Council, and are supposed to uphold international law with special care. But the facts suggested they had all violated that law.

I did not much welcome the knowledge. It was frightening to possess it. I knew that if I published it, I would face trouble. But I had to.

And I duly did. I was immediately smeared on social media as a ‘war crimes denier’, an absurd accusation. I was falsely accused of being a patsy for the horrible Assad regime in Syria, despite my record of hostility to the Assads going back more than 20 years.

I actually have a more consistent anti-Assad record than the British Government, which in 2002 compelled the poor Queen to invite President Bashar Assad to Buckingham Palace.

The vicious slanderers who attacked me paid no attention to my rebuttals, and repeated the smears, from behind false names. Their purpose was to scare others away from the story.

I was falsely accused of being a patsy for the horrible Assad (pictured last November) regime in Syria, despite my record of hostility to the Assads going back more than 20 years. I actually have a more consistent anti-Assad record than the British Government, which in 2002 compelled the poor Queen to invite President Bashar Assad to Buckingham Palace

I suspect there have been, and will be, other consequences. I have annoyed some powerful people. But I was a minor victim of this spiteful rage. 

The brave dissenters who had protested against the hiding of the truth are very serious men, totally unpolitical scientists who simply could not abide the suppression of the evidence they had gathered and examined. They have been hosed down with slime by their former employers.

They have also been attacked by a slippery operation known as Bellingcat, which far too many journalists and politicians treat with wide-eyed indulgence, as if it was a brave independent enterprise. 

Why do they never mention that it is partly funded by the US government, through its front organisation the National Endowment for Democracy? Could it be that it would not be quite such a convincing source if it was known to be subsidised by Donald Trump? I imagine so.

The two scientists remain absolutely confident that their doubts are justified.

But their reward was to be severely, publicly attacked by their former employers, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Again, a lot of people lazily or weakly accepted this official attack on powerless individuals as true. They did not notice, or did not care, that the two men had been given no opportunity to defend themselves, that the resulting indictment was completely one-sided.

Well, it is now my privilege to publish their defence in detail.

It is on the Peter Hitchens Blog at hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/02/a-and-b-respond-to-the-opcws-attacks-on-them-the-full-rebuttal.html

I hope it will stand as a vital resource for anyone seriously interested in the truth about what I regard as the biggest scandal of its kind since the dodgy dossiers and non-existent WMD that were used to hurry us into invading Iraq.

I, and others who have read it, have found it impressive and powerful. I do not think that anyone could read it without seeing that something has gone seriously wrong. Let us hope that we have enough time, before the next war, for the truth to prevail.

We can always hope, Peter, but truth is getting more rare and more difficult to discern.

You can search this blog for 'Douma' for several stories on this subject including other journalists who agree with Peter. 

Jerusalem – Watch: 3 masked Muslim terrorists arrested by Border Police undercover forces in Silwan

BY BTNEWS · MARCH 5, 2020

BREAKING: Border Police “Mista’aravim” undercover forces arrested three masked Muslim terrorists who attempted to murder Jews by throwing rocks at security forces and civilians in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan.

IDF, Border Police and Civil Administration forces demolished overnight the homes of two Muslim terrorists who planted a bomb near the Jewish community of Dolev and murdered 17-year-old Rina Shnerb while she was hiking with her family in August 2019.

video 0:35

Violent riots broke out during the demolition of the terrorists’ homes in Ramallah and Bir Zeit, with Muslim terrorists throwing rocks and firebombs at forces operating in the area.

Policeman killed, several injured as militant bombers blow themselves up in front of US embassy in Tunis

6 Mar, 2020

The scene outside the US Embassy in Tunis after Friday's explosion © AFP / Fethi Belaid

One policeman died and several others were injured when two suicide bomber blew themselves up in front of the US embassy in Tunis, in the most serious attack in Tunisia in months.

Tunisian authorities said the attackers arrived at the site on a motorbike and detonated explosives. The embassy was placed on lockdown pending an investigation into the incident.

Images taken at the scene show a street littered with fragments as well as vehicles and a road barrier charred by the blast.

The embassy confirmed there was an explosion near the compound and advised people to avoid the area, but wouldn’t immediately offer any details.

"Emergency personnel are responding to an explosion that occurred near the US Embassy in Tunis. Please avoid the area and monitor local media for updates," it said in a statement.

While there was no immediate confirmation that the bombing was terrorism-related, Tunisia has seen a spike in terrorist incidents in recent years.

In June 2019 two suicide bombers targeted officers of the law in two parts of Tunis, killing one person and injuring nine others. The terrorist group Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack.

Dozens killed as Afghan ceremony attacked while peace council chairman delivered speech

© Credit: Tolo News

At least 27 people were killed and 29 wounded in an attack at a ceremony in the Afghan capital Kabul. The High Peace Council Chairman, Mohammad Karim Khalili, was forced to flee as the incident erupted while he made a speech.

Tensions have risen in the country in recent weeks, as Abdullah Abdullah, Chief Executive of the Unity Government, has challenged the results of the September 2019 presidential election which elected the incumbent Ashraf Ghani. Abdullah also declared victory. His spokesman said that Abdullah was present at Friday’s ceremony, but escaped unharmed.

Eyewitness footage from the scene shows former Vice President Khalili interrupted during a commemoration ceremony for the killing of Abdul Ali Mazani, a leader of the predominantly Shia Hazara ethnic group in 1995.

"The attack started with a boom, apparently a rocket landed in the area, Abdullah and some other politicians ... escaped the attack unhurt," eyewitness Fraidoon Kwazoon said.

Meanwhile, Afghan President President Ashraf Ghani called it a “a crime against humanity and against the national unity of Afghanistan.”

No group has claimed responsibility for the assault yet. The Taliban recently resumed attacks against government forces despite signing a peace agreement with the US, but the group has denied involvement in the incident.

An update says that 32 people were killed and an ISIS affiliate has taken responsibility.

Top Scientist: UN “Climate Finance” Is Subsidy for Kleptocracy

This story is a bit dated (2016), nevertheless, an eminent scientist tells it like it is

Also, several great links below

Written by  Alex Newman
The New American

PARIS — The international wealth-redistribution schemes of the United Nations, justified under the guise of battling alleged man-made global warming, are really a massive subsidy to kleptocrats ruling poor countries paid for by the poor and middle classes of wealthier and freer nations, according to internationally renowned physicist Dr. Fred Singer.  

On top of that, the professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia said, the burden of proof in attributing climate changes to human activities is on man-made global-warming theorists seeking to regulate and control carbon dioxide, and not on skeptics. And so far, the alarmists have failed to demonstrate that mankind is responsible for any measurable impact on the climate, he said.    

Speaking at the Heartland Institute's “Day of Examining the Data” conference in Paris, which took place during the UN's COP21 climate summit last month, Singer and other scientists from around the world denounced the global-warming alarmism coming out of the nearby UN confab. Among other concerns, the experts said there was no climate crisis — much less a man-made one — and that the real agenda of the UN involves primarily money and power, not the climate.

Dr. Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist with unassailable scientific credentials, told The New American in an interview after his speech that climate science was far from settled, and that taxpayer money distributed by governments was buying the cooperation of scientists. He also suggested that human impacts on the climate, if there are any, are likely to be so tiny as to be completely insignificant.

“The climate has always been changing — warming and cooling, warming and cooling,” Singer said. “So we assume that this is a continuing process. The fact that we are now fairly well advanced in the industrial revolution — it has no influence on natural forcing, we don't affect what the sun does, we don't affect the volcanoes. So the null hypothesis, which means the normal way events go, we would assume that all changes in climate, even today, are due to the same kinds of natural forcing.”

The burden of proof, then, is on the alarmists demanding trillions of dollars and vast new controls over humanity under the guise of battling alleged anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) — not the other way around. “The null hypothesis that has to be disproven or amended is that natural forcings are changing the climate, simply because it's always been that way and we would assume that it would continue that way,” Singer emphasized. “So the burden of proof definitely has to be on the people who want to control CO2.” Other speakers at the summit emphasized that CO2 is the gas of life, not pollution.

And overcoming that burden will be a very tough, assuming it is even possible. “In all honesty, I will tell you that they have a very difficult job, I don't want that job of having to prove that,” said Singer, founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). “We're quite open to the idea that maybe CO2 does have some influence, but it has to be demonstrated,” he continued. “So far, they have not been able to demonstrate uniquely to our satisfaction that CO2 has any measurable influence.”

In his personal view, Singer continued, he believes CO2 probably has “some kind of a role,” because after all, it is a greenhouse gas, and its concentration in the atmosphere is increasing. However, the atmosphere is very complicated, and the effects may be “extremely small, and virtually undetectable.” “In that case, it has no practical significance,” he said. “Effects too small to measure are too small to have any political influence, but this doesn't seem to bother the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] or the UN. They continue to propagate the idea that you have to control CO2.”

As for why the UN would want to control CO2, and what the implications would be, Singer said control was the key word. “Now, control of CO2 means, essentially, control of energy, and that means control of economies,” he told The New American at the summit, which brought in skeptic and realist scientists and experts from around the world. “So it's a matter, really, of trying to control things, I think, more than anything else.” Literally every human activity, including breathing, produces CO2, which is required by plants and has been present in far higher concentrations in the past. Mutliple experts even said life on Earth is "starving" for more CO2. 

As always, money is also central. “Money is involved in various ways,” said Singer, who has a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University and served as a distinguished research professor at the Institute for Space Science and Technology. “First of all, each government pays large sums of money to its scientific fellows and essentially it buys their cooperation.” Numerous other scientists at the counter-UN summit echoed those remarks, saying that billions in “climate funding” from government was being abused to purchase compliance or at least silence from the scientific community on the increasingly obvious problems with AGW alarmism.

There are also forces that critics often denounce as “crony capitalists” at play — forces hoping to profit from government subsidies linked to climate alarmism. “There's a large industry trying to produce energy to replace fossil fuels, but they're not doing very well,” Dr. Singer explained. “Both solar and wind are unreliable, intermittent, and expensive. I doubt whether you could replace fossil fuels. The only thing I see on the horizon is nuclear.” Still, vast sums of public wealth are flowing into the coffers of “green energy” cronies such as bankrupt solar company Solyndra, a company controlled by large Obama donors that received about half-a-billion tax dollars from the Obama administration before going bust.

Finally, there is the international wealth redistribution from richer nations to the governments and dictators ruling over poorer ones. “In addition to the scientists and to the energy sources which some hope will replace fossil fuels, like solar and wind, there's the matter of paying money to less-developed countries,” he said, touching on a theme that was central to the UN COP21 summit. “This is a direct subsidy to, frankly, to kleptocracies. We know what happens to that money. It goes into the pockets or bank accounts of the people who run these countries — it's been happening all the time, and I think it will continue to happen. So, as someone put it, it's a matter of the poor in the rich countries supporting the rich in the poor countries.”

Obama has pledged billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to the UN Green Climate (slush) Fund, and despite tough talk from some GOP lawmakers about blocking the funding, the Republican-controlled Congress recently passed a budget that will reportedly allow the global wealth redistribution to proceed. The UN and the largely autocratic regimes hoping to benefit from the transfers are demanding $100 billion per year to start, eventually hoping to secure trillions in handouts from Western taxpayers under the guise of climate reparations.

In addition to the qualifications already described, Dr. Singer also has a long history of public service, including time serving as the chief scientist at the U.S. Department of Transportation. He also served as the vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) and as deputy assistant administrator for policy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Before that, he served as deputy assistant secretary for water quality and research at the U.S. Department of the Interior. He was also the first director of the National Weather Satellite Service in the 1960s.

Singer's academic career is also more than impressive. In addition to his professorship in environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, he served as founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at University of Miami. He also served as the director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics at University of Maryland for almost a decade. Singer has published hundreds of scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals, including many of the world's most prestigious scientific publications.

During his speech at the Heartland Institute summit in Paris, Singer emphasized just how wildly inaccurate the “climate models” relied upon by the UN have been when compared to the observable data from the real world. He also highlighted the ongoing “pause” in global warming, now about 18 years and counting, that has so befuddled the climate alarmists. The NIPCC he founded has examined the peer-reviewed literature on climate and reached drastically different conclusions than the UN and its increasingly discredited IPCC.

Other scientists and experts speaking at the summit echoed Singer's concerns and debunked various elements of the climate hysteria. Another counter-COP21 summit in Paris, this one organized by French realists, also brought together prominent scientists to challenge the UN and its alarmism. For more on the counter-COP21 summits, the UN conference, and climate change generally, check out the related articles below.

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Related articles:

In Paris, Scientists Debunk UN “Climate” Hysteria

UN Climate Summit: Shackling the Planet to “Save” It

Dictators Demand Trillions in “Climate” Loot From West

Greenpeace Co-Founder: Climate Alarmists Would Kill Civilization

At Climate Summit, Scientist Touts CO2, Slams Media “Lies” (Video)

At Anti-UN Climate Summit, Scientist Slams Alarmist “Religion”

In Paris, Astrophysicist Exposes UN Climate Models as Wrong (Video)

Hiding the Hiatus: Global Warming on Pause

At UN Summit, Obama Blames America for Global Warming

Documentary “Climate Hustle” Exposes Global-warming Con Job

PARIS: Scientists Hold Alternative Conference, Challenge UN Agenda (Video)

"Climate Monarch" Slams UN Global Warming Hysteria in Paris (Video)

Major International Climate Report Challenges UN Alarmism

Climate Alarmists Have Been Wrong About Virtually Everything

Whistleblowers Defend Themselves Against OPCWs Sleazy Smear Campaign on Douma False Flag Op.

OPCW whistleblowers wrote to watchdog chief,

say it ‘defies all logic’ that they’d ‘go rogue’ for no reason

© AFP / ANP / Bart Maat

The whistleblowers who accused the OPCW of covering up evidence on the Douma chemical weapons investigation have accused the watchdog of trying to “smear” their reputations, after it ignored them as disgruntled former employees.

In letters sent to the OPCW Director-General and obtained by The Grayzone, the two whistleblowers demand that their findings – which contradicted those that made it into the OPCW’s official report – get a fair and scientific hearing.

Veteran OPCW official Ian Henderson and an individual referred to as ‘Alex’ were sidelined from the investigation into the alleged chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburb of Douma in April 2018, after they produced evidence indicating the incident – which was used to justify US missile strikes – was in fact staged by anti-Assad jihadist militants.

The OPCW dubbed the pair ‘Inspector A’ and ‘Inspector B’ and framed them as disgruntled former employees who simply “could not accept that their views were not backed by evidence.” 

In his letter to OPCW Director-General Arias, Henderson (‘Inspector A’) defended himself and ‘Alex,’ writing that they both had “reams of documents” including performance appraisals, letters of commendation and others that reflect “a history of service at the highest level in terms of qualifications, skills, expertise, leadership, integrity and professionalism” at the chemical weapons watchdog.

“Does this not place the efforts by some to smear our reputations, on questionable ground?” Henderson asked, questioning why two top inspectors with “impeccable records” would suddenly “go rogue.”

“Our sole duty is to be true to the facts and the science, and once that has been achieved, we will gladly accept the proven and agreed scientific outcomes,” he added. Henderson also accused the organization of “sleaze” in seeking to diminish or cast doubt on his level expertise, given that he was described as one of the watchdog’s “best” inspectors in previous performance records.

While the official OPCW report concluded that gas cylinders were likely dropped on Douma from the air (presumably by Assad’s forces), Henderson concluded there was a “higher probability” that they were “manually placed” – potentially by anti-Assad rebels in a false-flag operation. Henderson claims no explanation was ever offered as to why his significant findings were excluded.

The letter from ‘Alex’ (‘Inspector B’) assured the OPCW that there was no intent to cause harm to the organization and echoed the disbelief that two experts would go rogue “at the autumn of our careers, with nothing to gain and everything to lose,” saying such a suggestion “defies all logic.”

Despite the OPCW’s claims that the men’s assertions were not backed by evidence, a third whistleblower came forward in February to corroborate their complaints that evidence was suppressed, saying his time at the OPCW was “the most stressful and unpleasant” of his life and that he was “ashamed” for the organization. 

Retired British general John Taylor Holmes, who was on a panel of experts who heard testimony from ‘Alex’ also told RT that the whistleblowers’ evidence was “very convincing.”

Western media has barely given any attention to the scandal and appears largely to have accepted the organization’s shaky claims that the whistleblowers are not credible. 

Of course, any other approach would force mainstream journalists to reexamine their coverage of the Douma incident, which helped drum up support for airstrikes carried out by the US, UK and French militaries – before OPCW inspectors had even arrived at the scene to investigate.

Marijuana is Nothing Like it Used to Be - Says Mom of 19 y/o Who Suicided

A mom whose 19-yr-old died by suicide has a vital message for parents about marijuana today

Annie Reneau

Laura Stack/Facebook

Laura Stack's son Johnny lost his life to suicide three months ago when he was just 19 years old. Though she says the grief of his death is "still fresh," Stack took to Facebook to share something that happened three days before Johnny died, hoping it will help other parents whose kids may be at risk.

She wrote:

"On Sunday, November 17, 2019 around 5:30 PM, he came over for dinner. He lived in our condo a couple miles down the street and would often pop in for a home-cooked meal. This evening, he was a bit agitated but lucid. 'I need to tell you that you were right,' he told me. 'Right about what?' I asked. 'Right about the marijuana and the drugs. You told me weed and drugs would hurt my brain, and it's ruined my mind and my life. You were right all along. I'm sorry, and I love you.' He died by suicide three days later."

Stack explained that Johnny had "dabbed" since he was 15 or 16. "Do you understand the difference between smoking pot (and some edibles) and dabbing high-THC wax, shatter, or butter?" she asked. "Most of my friends look at me blankly when I say these words and say, 'I've never even heard about this.' If you don't know what cannabis extracts are, and you have children, grandchildren, sisters, brothers, nieces and nephews between the ages of 14 and 24, PLEASE keep reading."

"I am NOT talking about those of you who are supporters of legal recreational marijuana for adults over 21 years old—it's your life—do what you want," Stack clarified. "I know some people who take it successfully for specific medical purposes, so please don't write comments in my post about my personal experience. I'm specifically talking about illegal usage by children and young adults under 21, whose adolescent brains are still forming. You may be thinking, 'C'mon, Laura, it's no big deal – it's just pot.' 'Pot's legal, so it must be safe.' Or 'I did pot when I was a kid, too, and look, it didn't hurt me.'

Well, have you recently studied TODAY'S pot, and have you personally seen its effects on your children like I have?"

Stack explained why today's recreational cannabis is so different:

"First, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a crystalline compound that is the main active ingredient of cannabis that gives the 'high,' is extracted out of the cannabis so that it's nearly pure. THC is the principal psychoactive constituent of cannabis. Then a butane torch is used to heat the crystals (similar to beeswax) or oil in a 'rig' (just google it), or a vaping device with a heating element called a dab pen can be used. Forget the 'grass' or 'papers' that were rolled in the 70s and 80s. The pot we grew up with (10% or less THC content) is HUGELY different than today's high-concentrate extracts (often 80% THC content or higher)."

She also explained why young people tend to be affected more by these high THC concentrations, and that the earlier they start the more likely it is that they'll develop a disorder.

"The brain is still developing through a person's 20s, and psychotic disorders typically develop in the late teenage years. During brain formation, heavy cannabis use has been shown to have a negative effect on the formation of neural pathways. It can also lead to heavier drug use. While the vast majority of marijuana smokers never experience CIP, researchers have found that the earlier and heavier someone starts dabbing, the more likely it is that they will develop a disorder at some point (often years later). We must educate our children when they are young (10-12 years old) and use hyper-vigilance in the early teen years, which we found was much easier before the age of 16, when they could drive. We couldn't lock him up or monitor him 24/7. Keep talking and keep trying!!

The harmful combination of a still-forming mind, high-potency THC products, and a high frequency of use = Cannabis-Induced Psychosis. Yes, that's a real diagnosis (or High-THC Abuse – Severe). Repeated CIP incidents can trigger schizophrenia or other mental illness, and even when the cannabis is withdrawn, the psychosis doesn't go away. This is what happened to my beautiful boy. When he died, the toxicology report showed he had ZERO drugs in his system. He wasn't depressed, neglected, drugged, or unloved. He was psychotic, paranoid, and delusional by the time he reached 19, and he refused the anti-psychotic drugs that he now needed, because he thought he wasn't sick (common to schizophrenia)."

It's so easy to think that marijuana use isn't that big of a deal, especially since some states (and Canada) have begun legalizing the drug for recreational use and many people see it as "natural." But the mild, laid-back high many people picture with pot use is not the reality of many of today's marijuana products or methods. Parents need to be aware of the dangers cannabis-derived drugs pose to their children's mental health and educate them as early as possible.

Stack included the following links to articles and studies backing up what she's learned about today's THC products. These are things we all should read and share, as this knowledge and awareness could literally save someone's life.

Potent pot, vulnerable teens trigger concerns in first states to legalize marijuana - The Washington Post

The contribution of cannabis use to variation in the incidence of psychotic disorder - The Lancet Journal

Association of Cannabis Use in Adolescence and Risk of Depression, Anxiety, and Suicidality in Young Adulthood - Journal of the American Medical Association

Dabs, Wax, Vaping Weed, Edibles and the Real Impact of High Potency THC Products: What Parents Need to Know - Resources to Recover

How Marijuana May Damage Teenage Brains in Study Using Genetically Vulnerable Mice - Johns Hopkins

Significant link between cannabis use and onset of mania symptoms – Science Daily

Cannabis-induced psychosis: A Review – Psychiatric Times

Summary of literature on marijuana and psychosis - Moms Strong

'Cancel Culture' When it Comes to Inconvenient Truth in the Media

Fans rage at Hallmark after ‘Unplanned’ actress claims

film was cut from awards show

FILE PHOTO: Actress Ashley Bratcher and "Unplanned" co-stars accept a film award onstage during the 7th Annual K-LOVE Fan Awards at The Grand Ole Opry House in Nashville, Tennessee. ©  AFP / Getty Images North America / Terry Wyatt

Fans of the Abby Johnson biopic ‘Unplanned’ were aggravated when star Ashley Bratcher, who plays the main character in the movie, alleged that the Hallmark Drama Channel cut all references to the film out of the broadcast.

‘Unplanned’ is a Pure Flix feature that tells the true story of former Planned Parenthood staffer Abby Johnson, who became a pro-life advocate after she witnessed an abortion via sonogram, where she says she witnessed the baby struggle against the procedure.

“Outraged,” Bratcher wrote on Twitter. “Movieguide awards recently aired on @hallmarkdrama & @UnplannedMovie & I were nominated. We were the ONLY nominees who were not recognized. Hallmark has ERASED us from the show and refused to acknowledge us as nominees. This is completely UNACCEPTABLE.”

Ashley Bratcher
@_AshleyBratcher
Outraged. Movieguide awards recently aired on @hallmarkdrama & @UnplannedMovie & I were nominated. We were the ONLY nominees who were not recognized. Hallmark has ERASED us from the show and refused to acknowledge us as nominees. This is completely UNACCEPTABLE. @hallmarkchannel

video 0:37

The film was nominated in three categories at the Movieguide Awards, an annual event that awards movies based on Christian and family-friendly entertainment.

One Twitter user asked the actress if she and the film were “nominated and a part of the awards, but when it was aired, you were cut.”

Bratcher replied, “Yes. That’s exactly what happened. If you watch the televised show it’s like we don’t exist despite our 3 nominations and time on stage.”

As her tweet went viral, fans expressed both their support for the movie and outrage over the alleged omission.

“Hallmark you are losing your viewers day by day,” one wrote. “Not to accept nominations that were done, it's a shame and an outrage to all of us who think that Unplanned is a movie on a very important issue of our time. And the main character deserves to be recognized as any other nominee.”

“It's almost like there's a political agenda involved…” one Twitter follower replied.

JSchmalstieg
@texrdnec
Replying to @_AshleyBratcher and 3 others
it's almost like there's a political agenda involved...


Another agreed, “Done with Hallmark!!! You are still winners to us!!!”


Laurie Hoffman
@LaurieJazzysam
Replying to @_AshleyBratcher and 4 others
Done with Hallmark!!! You are still winners to us!!!👍🏻


One fan posted a link to Hallmark Drama's tweet announcing the Movieguide Awards, encouraging fans to “ask why the blackout?”


Woke Bob Butterbur
@ersatzkulak
Replying to @_AshleyBratcher and 3 others
Everyone should ask why the blackout in the replies to this tweethttps://twitter.com/HallmarkDrama/status/1231987704872787968?s=19 …


Hallmark Drama
@HallmarkDrama
Watch the 28th Annual Movieguide Awards tonight at 11pm/10c with host @jen_lilley and for a night filled with Hollywood charm as we celebrate some of your favorite movies on @HallmarkDrama!


Neither Hallmark or Movieguide has issued a comment on Bratcher's accusations.

Hallmark has positioned itself as a channel that promotes films and television shows focused on family-friendly content, garnering a large conservative following. However, the network came under fire after they agreed to run a Zola bridal registry ad featuring a same-sex kiss. At first, Hallmark agreed to pull the ad, but reinstated it, prompting a boycott. They were criticized again for refusing to air ads regarding ‘Unplanned’ during its theatrical run.

It would appear that Hallmark has been infiltrated and taken over by LGBTQ proponents, so they no longer celebrate family-friendly content, nor do they serve their primary audience. They, like much of the media, are now only interested in furthering LGBTQ interests, abolishing Christianity, and indoctrinating people into their #PCMadness culture.

I think there is probable cause for a lawsuit.