What’s really happening in Syria? Hint: Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and the Mainstream Media have been lying to us.
Eva Bartlett is an independent journalist from Canada. She has traveled to Syria many times to investigate human rights violations and terrorism against Syrians. What she has found out is a truth completely opposite of what the Mainstream Media and governments claim, i.e. “Fake News”.
During a United Nations press conference, Bartlett sharply criticized Western governments, particularly the United States, for their efforts to effect regime change in Syria. Contrary to the Western narrative, she said, the people of Syria do not want a regime change. During her travels to and around the country, she had talked to Syrians, who widely expressed support for President Bashar al-Assad, whose army is battling a number of Western-backed terrorist groups.
Watch the video below to hear the true about what is really going on in Syria.
(NSFW Language)
This is what a real journalist looks like. You forget that living here in the US!
Western mainstream mediaâs coverage of the Syrian war is âcompromisedâ as their local sources are ânot credibleâ and, in the case of Aleppo, not even there, a Canadian journalist said in an emotional speech at the UN.
âIâve been many times to Homs, to Maaloula, to Latakia and Tartus [in Syria] and again, Aleppo, four times. And peopleâs support of their government is absolutely true. Whatever you hear in the corporate media is completely opposite,â Eva Bartlett, a Canadian journalist and rights activist, told a press conference arranged by the Syrian mission to the UN.
âAnd, on that note, what you hear in the corporate media, and I will name them â BBC, Guardian, the New York Times etc. â on Aleppo is also the opposite of reality,â she added. The mainstream media narrative, she argued, is meant to mislead the public about what is really happening in Syria by demonizing President Bashar Assadâs government and altering the facts on Russiaâs support for Damascus.
Bartlettâs statements did not seemingly play well with everyone in the room. A reporter from Aftenposten, Norwayâs largest print newspaper, challenged her and demanded Bartlett explain what she thought was the âagendaâ of Western mainstream media. âWhy should we lie, why the international organizations on the ground should lie? How can you justify calling all of us liars?â he said.
Bartlett, who has been covering Syrian events for several years since the outbreak of the civil war, noted that while there are âcertainly honest journalists among the very compromised establishment media,â many respected media agencies simply seem to avoid doing a fact-check.
She then asked her Norwegian colleague to name humanitarian organizations operating in eastern Aleppo. As the Aftenposten reporter stayed silent, Bartlett added that âthere are none.â
âThese organizations are relying on the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights [SOHR], which is based in Coventry, UK, which is one man. They’re relying on compromised groups like the White Helmets. Let’s talk about the White Helmets,â she went on.
Members of the controversial group âpurport to be rescuing civilians in eastern Aleppo and Idlib ⊠no one in eastern Aleppo has heard of them.â Meanwhile, she noted, âtheir video footage actually contains children that have been ârecycledâ in different reports; so you can find a girl named Aya who turns up in a report in say August, and she turns up in the next month in two different locations.â
âSo they [the White Helmets] are not credible. The SOHR are not credible. ‘Unnamed activists’ are not credible. Once or twice maybe, but every time? Not credible. So your sources on the ground â you don’t have them,â Bartlett concluded.
A journalist from Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera took a more measured tone and asked Bartlett to explain the difference between the Western and Russian media coverage, saying that Russian television channels report on humanitarian efforts and reconciliation instead of overt naming and blaming.
âYou ask why we aren’t seeing this,â Bartlett said. âThis relates to the other gentleman’s question about why most of the corporate media are telling lies about Syria. It’s because this is the agenda; if they had told the truth about Syria from the beginning, we wouldn’t be here now. We wouldn’t have seen so many people killed.â
Not only has Trump’s victory turned America around (it’s certain, even though he’s not in office yet), but Syrians can finally have their home, neighborhood, city, and country back.
If this is true, it’s is CHILLING! It means that all the Syrian refugees coming here and migrating throughout Europe are being dispersed for a reason. Can you say Trojan Horse?
In this video Sharyl Attkisson discusses Astroturf groups, the fake grass roots movements funded from above in order to influence media coverage of a political issue. It is a bit over 10 minutes, not an outrageous investment of your time compared to the valuable information it provides.
In this eye-opening talk, veteran investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson shows how astroturf, or fake grassroots movements funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages.
Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative journalist based in Washington D.C. She is currently writing a book entitled Stonewalled (Harper Collins), which addresses the unseen influences of corporations and special interests on the information and images the public receives every day in the news and elsewhere. For twenty years (through March 2014), Attkisson was a correspondent for CBS News. In 2013, she received an Emmy Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for her reporting on âThe Business of Congress,â which included an undercover investigation into fundraising by Republican freshmen. She also received Emmy nominations in 2013 for Benghazi: Dying for Security and Green Energy Going Red. Additionally, Attkisson received a 2013 Daytime Emmy Award as part of the CBS Sunday Morning teamâs entry for Outstanding Morning Program for her report: âWashington Lobbying: K-Street Behind Closed Doors.â In September 2012, Attkisson also received an Emmy for Oustanding Investigative Journalism for the âGunwalker: Fast and Furiousâ story. She received the RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Award for Excellence in Investigative Reporting for the same story. Attkisson received an Investigative Emmy Award in 2009 for her exclusive investigations into TARP and the bank bailout. She received an Investigative Emmy Award in 2002 for her series of exclusive reports about mismanagement at the Red Cross.
This is a classic example of “Fake News”. The Mainstream Media’s reporting of Trump’s interview with the New York Times says in that meeting he changed his mind on climate change. And if you read the transcripts, he didn’t. If you read the transcripts, he spoke like Trump always speaks. He didn’t commit himself to anything, and some of his answers were innocuous.
Trump actually cited ClimateGate, restated skepticism of âGlobal Warmingâ.
The âfake newsâ that Trump had somehow moderated or changed his âglobal warmingâ views was not supported by the full transcript of the meeting.
Heartland Institute President Joe Bast had this to say about the full transcript of Trumpâs meeting: âThis is reassuring. The Left wants to drive wedges between Trump and his base by spinning anything he says as âretreating from campaign promises.â But expressing nuance and avoiding confrontation with determined foes who buy ink by the barrel is not retreating.â The Heartland Institute released their skeptical 2015 climate reportfeaturing 4,000 peer-reviewed articles debunking the UN IPCC claims.
Trumpâs climate science view that there is âsome connectivityâ between humans and climate is squarely a skeptical climate view. Trump explained, âThere is some, something. It depends on how much.â
Trumpâs views are shared by prominent skeptical scientists. University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has said: âThe fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2) is as misguided as it gets.â âItâs scientific nonsense,â Stott added. Stott is featured in new skeptical climate change documentary Climate Hustle.
Trump cited his uncle, a skeptical MIT scientist: âMy uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was ⊠a long time ago, he had feelings â this was a long time ago â he had feelings on this subject.â (Yes, other MIT scientists are very skeptical as well. See: MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks 97% Consensus: âIt is propagandaâ
It is also worth noting that Trumpâs often cited 2012 tweet about climate change stating âThe concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,â was clearly a joke and he has said it was a joke. It is further worth noting that climate skeptics do not believe the conecpt of âclimate changeâ was âcreatedâ by China.
And in what has been described as âfake newsâ, the publisher of NYT tried to sell CO2-induced storms to Trump; but Trump refused to accept the claim.
NYTâs Arthur Sulzberger: âWe saw what these storms are now doing, right? Weâve seen it personally. Straight up.â Trump countered: âWeâve had storms always, Arthur.â
The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 â the longest spell since the Civil War.
Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.
Trumpâs claim to have an âopen mindâ on U.S. climate policy and his comment that âIâm going to take a look atâ withdrawing from the UN Paris agreement are more nuanced than his previous blunt statements that the U.S. will cancel the UN agreement. But those comments in the context of the interview are hardly a flip-flop or major signal of changing views on the issue.
University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted in 2014, âNone of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.â
In laymanâs terms: All of the so-called âsolutionsâ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!)
[âŠ.] THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, opinion columnist: Mr. President-elect, can I ask a question? One of the issues that you actually were very careful not to speak about during the campaign, and havenât spoken about yet, is one very near and dear to my heart, the whole issue of climate change, the Paris agreement, how youâll approach it. You own some of the most beautiful links golf courses in the world âŠ
FRIEDMAN: But itâs really important to me, and I think to a lot of our readers, to know where youâre going to go with this. I donât think anyone objects to, you know, doing all forms of energy. But are you going to take America out of the worldâs lead of confronting climate change?
TRUMP: Iâm looking at it very closely, Tom. Iâll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. Weâre going to look very carefully. Itâs one issue thatâs interesting because there are few things where thereâs more division than climate change. You donât tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, donât even âŠ
SULZBERGER: We do hear it.
FRIEDMAN: I was on âSquawk Boxâ with Joe Kernen this morning, so I got an earful of it.
[laughter]
TRUMP: Joe is one of them. But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And Iâm going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and weâre going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.
SULZBERGER: Well, since weâre living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? Weâve seen it personally. Straight up.
FRIEDMAN: But you have an open mind on this?
TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And weâve had storms always, Arthur.
SULZBERGER: Not like this (sic!).
TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind. (Note: EPA Says That The Worst Heat Waves Occurred in The 1930s) My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was ⊠a long time ago, he had feelings â this was a long time ago â he had feelings on this subject. Itâs a very complex subject. Iâm not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, whatâs this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.
And you know, you mentioned a lot of the courses. I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. Iâve received so many environmental awards for the way Iâve done, you know. Iâve done a tremendous amount of work where Iâve received tremendous numbers. Sometimes Iâll say Iâm actually an environmentalist and people will smile in some cases and other people that know me understand thatâs true. Open mind.
JAMES BENNET, editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean youâre just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isnât connected?
TRUMP: I think right now ⊠well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much itâs going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.
Theyâre really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that weâve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: âThat must be a typo. It canât be 70, you canât have 70,000, you wouldnât think you have 70,000 factories here.â And it wasnât a typo, itâs right. Weâve lost 70,000 factories.
Weâre not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. Weâre not competitive for a lot of reasons.
Thatâs becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we do business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they donât adhere to the deals, you know that. And itâs much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So Iâm going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big voice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that donât believe in it. And weâll let you know.
FRIEDMAN: Iâd hate to see Royal Aberdeen underwater.
TRUMP: The North Sea, that could be, thatâs a good one, right?
[âŠ]
MICHAEL D. SHEAR, White House correspondent: Mr. Trump, Mike Shear. I cover the White House, covering your administration âŠ
TRUMP: See ya there.
[laughter]
SHEAR: Just one quick clarification on the climate change, do you intend to, as you said, pull out of the Paris Climate âŠ
They are going to constantly do what they can to stir things up and try to get people to turn against him. They didn’t get their way, were made to look like fools, so now they have to sensationalize everything to get people spreading lies and hate. Which is no surprise since it is a majority of liberals who work in this industry.
And they’re counting on all of us uneducated deplorables to believe their BS