Saturday 3rd of December 2016

Recent Comments

by Gus Leonisky on Sat, 2016-12-03 05:43

Almost as soon as Donald Trump wrapped up his ostensibly off-the-record meeting with TV news executives and anchors last week at Trump Tower, the New York Post’s scrappy gossip column, Page Six, had the first inside account.

It was like a f---ing firing squad,” an anonymous source told the column about Trump’s combative remarks. “The meeting was a total disaster.”

Hmm. “Total disaster.” Now who does that sound like?

And when Melania Trump decided she was staying in New York City rather than moving to the White House so that the Trumps’ young son, Barron, could finish the school year, the Post was first with the news, too. It was sourced to two unnamed people “familiar with the Trump transition.”

So far, so good in the Age of Trump for the 215-year-old tabloid. The paper and Trump go way back, to his days as an up-and-coming New York real estate developer and man about town. Long before he ran for president, long before “The Apprentice,” Trump was the star of hundreds of Post news stories, Page Six items and pieces by the paper’s longtime gossip columnist, Cindy Adams. 

During the soap-opera drama of his adulterous romance with Marla Maples in the early 1990s, for instance, Trump appeared on the paper’s cover for eight straight days. It was during this stretch that he was the subject of one of the most famous headlines in the paper’s history of famously colorful headlines: “Best Sex I’ve Ever Had,” based on an oversharing quote supposedly uttered by Maples.

The paper’s long-standing relationship with Trump may now be paying off with some inside tips about — or possibly even from — the new president-elect and his inner circle.

“It’s his hometown paper,” says a source in the upper reaches of Trumpworld. “He was an eccentric billionaire living in Manhattan. They’ve always had a sort of mutually beneficial relationship. It was proximity and convenience.” But this source, speaking anonymously so as not to get crosswise with either Trump or the paper, said a past relationship doesn’t guarantee a future one: “I don’t think one paper is better positioned than any other.”


Several of Trump's pick for his cabinet have connections with Uncle Rupe (including "Avatar"). Uncle Rupe owns the New York Post. Uncle Rupe was a confidente of George W Bush and Uncle Rupe has pushed some sensitive buttons in Obama's Presidency. Now Uncle Rupe would see that it would be more profitable to make business with Russia than have an all out war as La Clinton is still planning. Trump is in favour of dealing with Russia as well, but he has picked some hawks to lead the "foreign policies" and "defence". The idea here is to deal without loosing the eyes off the ball.

The NYP does not create Trump, but Uncle Rupe influences all the conservative country bumpkin papers in Central USA. He "owns" FOX... Does he tell his people what to do? Sometimes, but more often than not Uncle Rupe's people are picked FOR THEIR OWN VIEWS which are in tune with what he wants. Uncle Rupe also "owns" the WSJ and had (has) a hand in many conservative magazines and can influence online, like Breitbart.

From the start, Uncle Rupe saw that Trump was "unelectable" but worth a shot against a bad lot of candidates who would have bored him to tears, including Hillary, on whom, Uncle Rupe's troops would have more dirt than 10 Wikileaks...

As the Democrats and the press of the establishment are trying to reverse the Trump victory with recounts and changing the minds of delegates, there is going to be some mighty bloody fights ahead.

For all I know, Uncle Rupe is going to ignore this for a while and hold fire. And then...


See pictures from top... and read my "editorial" of 20 July 2016... Boy... Talk about Nostradamus Gus !

by Gus Leonisky on Sat, 2016-12-03 04:56

Countdown to disaster?

As the world media continues to eulogize Cuban leader Fidel Castro, the neocon-liberal establishment is quietly positioning their chess pieces for a power grab of epic proportions. As far as I can tell, there are three stages of this silent coup presently being carried out on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

The first step in the process was to perpetuate the news that although Donald Trump won the Electoral College (306-232), he failed to win the popular vote - reportedly by 2.5 million votes, at last count.

Clinton’s alleged victory in the popular vote count, which continued for three weeks after Nov.9 (keep in mind that most of the vote monitors had already went home as these votes were being quietly tallied), could present serious complications for Trump and his chances of entering the White House, as will become clear a bit later.

Meanwhile, the blatantly anti-Trump media is conducting “thought experiments” to show how Clinton would have, could have, should have won the Electoral College if only the Electoral map had been spliced and diced here and there across the nation. The implicit media message behind all of this tomfoolery, of course, is that Wall Street-approved Clinton deserves her coronation, because, well, that is what the elite want, democratic procedure be damned.

This ongoing campaign on behalf of Clinton is much more than just sour grapes; in fact, it is a war of attrition designed to exert undue pressure on the Electoral College, the rickety institution that got Trump elected in the first place. And although it has never robbed an election from a candidate who has gained the majority of Electoral College votes, there is a possibility – and a very high one in this particular battle - of so-called “faithless electors” tipping this contest in Clinton’s favor.

This represents the second stage of Clinton’s attempt at reversing the results of the presidential election in her favor.

Will the Electoral College go rogue?

The Electoral College is scheduled to meet on December 19 to perform what, under normal circumstances, would be a mere formality of voting for either Clinton or Trump, according to the will of their constituents.

Needless to say, we are not dealing with “normal circumstances.” 

The 2016 presidential campaign represents an epic power struggle that will determine the trajectory of US domestic and foreign policy like no other contest in recent history. No surprise, then, that neo-liberal lobbying groups have been exerting immense pressure on these electors to ignore the will of the people and “vote their conscience.”

read more:




by Gus Leonisky on Sat, 2016-12-03 04:42

From the Gadfly...

The Serbian community in Sydney sure knows how to have a smashing time. What better way to have a fun evening than invite Tony Abbott along to join 26 dancers on stage in a Serbian jig at the Bonnyrigg Sports Club?

The merriment didn’t stop there, because Australia’s former prime minister then took to the microphone for a rousing speech about the achievements of his government. In particular, he extolled family values, by which he said he did not mean “two men and a poodle”, but a man and a woman with children, who went to school where boys are boys and girls are girls. 

Whatever, it struck a chord with the Serbian bishop who praised an increasingly demented-looking Abbott as an upholder of Judeo-Christian values. He was presented with three books, including one on the history of Serbian wars – but maybe not war crimes. Abbo was sent home with a standing ovation ringing in his jug ears. 

A politician who never tires of dancing and spruiking at ethnic community festivities surely has his eye on a bigger prize.


see toon at top...

by Gus Leonisky on Fri, 2016-12-02 22:11

Dear Mr. Trump,

Your election has raised hopes that easing of tensions, between U.S. and Russia, and peacemaking in Europe in general is achievable. Settlement of the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine and lifting the sanctions against Russia which is vital for the world community has a realistic chance now.  With this in mind, there is also hope for a higher quality investigation into the disputed downing of MH17, as you expressed your doubts in an October 2015 interview, regarding the proof of Russian guilt:

“They say it wasn’t them. It may have been their weapon, but they didn’t use it, they didn’t fire it, they even said the other side fired it to blame them. I mean to be honest with you, you’ll probably never know for sure.“ (MSNBC)

Indeed, we agree with you, we will never be sure, with the kind of investigation we have seen over the past two years.  The official investigation of the “Dutch Safety Board“ (DSB) and the “Joint Investigation Team“(JIT) was neither independent nor convincing.  This kind of investigation forms a huge burden particularly to the families who lost their loved ones in the downing of MH17.  They need to know the truth.

WE ARE ASKING YOU, TO PLEASE PUSH FOR A NEW INVESTIGATION.  This could happen within an international framework like the U.N. comprising the following aspects:

(1) A team of international, independent scientists who would be able to exclude veto power for any government.  This exclusion of veto is especially important, due to the overwhelming role of one of the involved parties, Ukraine.  The main source of information to the DSB and JIT used for their official investigations was SBU, the Ukrainian secret service.

(2) Keeping all scenarios on the table.

(3) Declassifying and releasing “available satellite images” claimed by Secretary of State, John Kerry, on 20th of July 2014; or (if not) disclaiming their existence.

(4) Conducting forensic examination of impact holes (for metal residues) in the MH17 wreckage and reproducing the same pattern of damage by shelling tests (as usually done in crime cases). Completing key information fields, such as body forensics, voice recorder, radar data etc.

(5) Prior construction of, a clear path to an international, objective trial in the U.N. framework with judges from countries which are not connected with the crash.

FURTHERMORE, WE ARE ASKING YOU TO PLEASE INITIATE PEACE TALKS WITH ALL PARTIES CONCERNED (including but not limited to Russia, Ukraine, and the EU) aiming at settling the dispute and establishing a reconstruction plan for Eastern Ukraine including the compensation of the MH17 families.

Thank you so much, in advance, for your attention to this matter.

Independent journalists & experts on MH17,

  • MARK BARTALMAI, journalist & Ukraine documentaries producer, GERMANY
  • DR. THIERRY BAUDET, journalist, publicist & initiator of Dutch referendum on EU/Ukraine association agreement, NETHERLANDS
  • BERND BIEDERMANN, missile defense colonel ret., military attaché ret. & book author, GERMANY
  • CHRISTOPHER BLACK, international criminal lawyer, CANADA
  • NORBERT FLEISCHER, investigative journalist, GERMANY
  • PROF. DR. ELMAR GIEMULLA, lawyer of German MH17 victims, GERMANY
  • DR. HERMANN HAGENA, airforce general ret. & author of MH17 military study, GERMANY
  • PETER HAISENKO, journalist, publisher & former “Lufthansa” pilot, GERMANY
  • JOHN HELMER, longest-serving foreign correspondent in Russia, UNITED STATES
  • FRANK HÖFER, journalist & film producer, GERMANY
  • DIETER KLEEMANN, airforce colonel / trainer ret. & book author, GERMANY
  • PATRICK LANCASTER, investigative journalist with 100s of hours on MH17 site from day one & U.S. Navy veteran, UNITED STATES
  • DR. JAMES O´NEILL, barrister on human rights & geopolitical analyst, AUSTRALIA
  • JOOST NIEMÖLLER, journalist & MH17 book author, NETHERLANDS
  • GRAHAM PHILLIPS, investigative journalist, UNITED KINGDOM
  • PROF. DR. KEES VAN DER PIJL, political scientist, peace activist & author, NETHERLANDS
  • HECTOR REBAN, political analyst & blogger on MH17, NETHERLANDS
  • NORBERT K. REISBERG, Lt.-Col. ret., airforce pilot ret. & military scientist, GERMANY
  • DAN SHEPPARD, private MH17 researcher, AUSTRALIA
  • JOACHIM SIEGERIST, journalist, publisher & author, GERMANY
  • BILLY SIX, investigative journalist & book author, GERMANY
  • MAX VAN DER WERFF, blogger & private MH17 investigator, NETHERLANDS
  • PROF. KAREL VAN WOLFEREN, journalist, political analyst & book author, NETHERLANDS
  • MOHD AZAHAR ZANUDIN, technician, supplier for army/police & blogger on MH17, MALAYSIA

by Gus Leonisky on Fri, 2016-12-02 16:58

Freedom of information

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has responsibility for regulating and providing advice on the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). The FOI Act is the legislative basis for open government in Australia and covers Australian Government ministers and most agencies.

Individuals have rights under the FOI Act to request access to government documents. The FOI Act also requires agencies to publish specified categories of information, and allows them to proactively release other information.

This section is concerned with the FOI Act as it applies across the Australian Government. Information about making a freedom of information (FOI) request to the OAIC is available on the Access our information page.

by Gus Leonisky on Fri, 2016-12-02 16:00

murdoch's abc

by Gus Leonisky on Thu, 2016-12-01 20:25

THE WASHINGTON POST on Thursday night promoted the claims of a new, shadowy organization that smears dozens of U.S. news sites that are critical of U.S. foreign policy as being “routine peddlers of Russian propaganda.” The article by reporter Craig Timberg — headlined “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say” — cites a report by an anonymous website calling itself PropOrNot, which claims that millions of Americans have been deceived this year in a massive Russian “misinformation campaign.”

The group’s list of Russian disinformation outlets includes WikiLeaks and the Drudge Report, as well as Clinton-critical left-wing websites such as Truthout, Black Agenda Report, Truthdig, and Naked Capitalism, as well as libertarian venues such as and the Ron Paul Institute.


PropOrNot does not articulate its criteria in detail, merely describing its metrics as “behavioral” and “motivation-agnostic.” That is to say, even if a news source is not technically a Russian propaganda outlet and is not even trying to help the Kremlin, it is still guilty of being a “useful idiot” if it publishes material that might in some way be convenient or helpful for the Russian government. In other words, the website conflates criticism of Western governments and their actions and policies with Russian propaganda. News sites that do not uncritically echo a pro-NATO perspective are accused of being mouthpieces for the Kremlin, even if only unwitting ones.

While blacklisting left-wing and libertarian journalists, PropOrNot also denies being McCarthyite. Yet it simultaneously calls for the U.S. government to use the FBI and DOJ to carry out “formal investigations” of these accused websites, “because the kind of folks who make propaganda for brutal authoritarian oligarchies are often involved in a wide range of bad business.” The shadowy group even goes so far as to claim that people involved in the blacklisted websites may “have violated the Espionage Act, the Foreign Agent Registration Act, and other related laws.”

In sum: They’re not McCarthyite; perish the thought. They just want multiple U.S. media outlets investigated by the FBI for espionage on behalf of Russia.


WHO EXACTLY IS behind PropOrNot, where it gets its funding, and whether or not it is tied to any governments is a complete mystery. The Intercept also sent inquiries to the Post’s Craig Timberg asking these questions, and asking whether he thinks it is fair to label left-wing news sites like Truthout “Russian propaganda outlets.” Timberg replied: “I’m sorry, I can’t comment about stories I’ve written for the Post.”

As is so often the case, journalists — who constantly demand transparency from everyone else — refuse to provide even the most basic levels for themselves. When subjected to scrutiny, they reflexively adopt the language of the most secrecy-happy national security agencies: We do not comment on what we do.

Timberg’s piece on the supposed ubiquity of Russian propaganda is misleading in several other ways. The other primary “expert” upon which the article relies is Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a pro-Western think tank whose board of advisers includes neoconservative figures like infamous orientalist scholar Bernard Lewis and pro-imperialistRobert D. Kaplan, the latter of whom served on the U.S. government’s Defense Policy Board.

What the Post does not mention in its report is that Watts, one of the specialists it relies on for its claims, previously worked as an FBI special agent on a Joint Terrorism Task Force and as the executive officer of the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. As Fortune’s Ingram wrote of the group, it is “a conservative think tank funded and staffed by proponents of the Cold War between the U.S. and Russia.”

PropOrNot is by no means a neutral observer. It actively calls on Congress and the White House to work “with our European allies to disconnect Russia from the SWIFT financial transaction system, effective immediately and lasting for at least one year, as an appropriate response to Russian manipulation of the election.”

In other words, this blacklisting group of anonymous cowards — putative experts in the pages of the Washington Post — is actively pushing for Western governments to take punitive measures against the Russian government and is speaking and smearing from an extreme ideological framework that the Post concealed from its readers.


EVEN MORE DISTURBING than the Post’s shoddy journalism in this instance is the broader trend in which any wild conspiracy theory or McCarthyite attack is now permitted in U.S. discourse as long as it involves Russia and Putin — just as was true in the 1950s when stories of how the Russians were poisoning the U.S. water supply or infiltrating American institutions were commonplace. Any anti-Russia story was — and is — instantly vested with credibility, while anyone questioning its veracity or evidentiary basis is subject to attacks on their loyalties or, at best, vilified as “useful idiots.”

Two of the most discredited reports from the election season illustrate the point: a Slate article claiming that a private server had been located linking the Trump Organization and a Russian bank (which, like the current Post story, had been shopped around and rejected by multiple media outlets) and a completely deranged rant by Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald claiming that Putin had ordered emails in the WikiLeaks release to be doctored — both of which were uncritically shared and tweeted by hundreds of journalists to tens of thousands of people, if not more.

The Post itself — now posing as a warrior against “fake news” — published an article in September that treated with great seriousness the claim that Hillary Clinton collapsed on 9/11 Day because she was poisoned by Putin. And that’s to say nothing of the paper’s disgraceful history of convincing Americans that Saddam was building non-existent nuclear weapons and had cultivated a vibrant alliance with al Qaeda. As is so often the case, those who mostly loudly warn of “fake news” from others are themselves the most aggressive disseminators of it.

Indeed, what happened here is the essence of fake news. The Post story served the agendas of many factions: those who want to believe Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton; those who want to believe that the internet and social media are a grave menace that needs to be controlled, in contrast to the objective truth that reliable old media outlets once issued; those who want a resurrection of the Cold War. So those who saw tweets and Facebook posts promoting this Post story instantly clicked and shared and promoted the story without an iota of critical thought or examination of whether the claims were true, because they wanted the claims to be true. That behavior included countless journalists.

So the story spread in a flash, like wildfire. Tens of thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions, consumed it, believing that it was true because of how many journalists and experts told them it was. Virtually none of the people who told them this spent a minute of time or ounce of energy determining if it was true. It pleased them to believe it was, knowing it advanced their interests, and so they endorsed it. That is the essence of how fake news functions, and it is the ultimate irony that this Post story ended up illustrating and spreading far more fake news than it exposed.

read more:

by Gus Leonisky on Thu, 2016-12-01 20:14

A few days before the 2016 election I contacted several publishers and told them they were on a list to be dealt with/ taken down after what was supposed to be a Clinton victory. This effort was against news sites and websites that spoke or wrote against current US policies that Clinton supported. As I was writing this Glen Greenwald’s great article came out specifically about propornot. That plays a small part in this.

Journalists that said or wrote anything damaging to the Clinton campaign or supported her opponents in any way were targeted. News sites and journalists that failed to criticize Vladimir Putin, or worse; they were sympathetic of this or that Russian or Syria policy at any time are on the lists.

The implication isn’t that Hillary Clinton had anything to do with this. She didn’t, at least not directly. We’re going to take a clear look at this, who is behind it, and why. The political stakes and stakeholders go far beyond the presidency. It was about setting the next 20 years of US policy, cabinet positions, and redefining what the United States of America is.

Long before this election, I became aware of an Inform & Influence Operation (IIO) against the American public. While researching this I came across a list of news sites that were going to be dealt with n following what was at the time thought to be an easy “Clinton victory.” 

Before the election I told different publishers this was in the works and the goal was to discredit and destroy alternate media sources and silence dissent.

The Donald Trump victory slowed this down a little bit for the moment, but redoubled the effort going into it. Let’s look behind the Fake news of propornot that is the internet rage today. I’ve been keeping tabs on some of the players involved for over 1 1/2 years now. 

Propornot is another incarnation of Stopfake or the Daily Dot. Both of these propaganda sites have been doing the same essential thing as propornot since the beginning of the 2014 Coup in Ukraine. In that sense there is nothing notable or remarkable about it. What is remarkable is the amount of press this crude website has generated and why.

The website itself is a compilation of working lists developed by different sources that now work in tandem. It’s been over 3 years in the making and propornot is just the latest side dish. 

OpEdNews, Washingtonsblog, ZeroHedge, Consortium News, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, the Vineyard of the Saker, and Off Guardian are among many others listed publicly and privately to developed website hit lists. Propornot pulls its own lists from sites and contacts like these. The base model is the Ukrainian website “PeaceMaker” which gained fame in March 2015.

The people that wrote the Ukrainian information policy and developed the methods for the “Myrotvorets” or Peacemaker website did so with the sole goal of creating a clearinghouse for killing dissent and dissenters. Site’s like propornot are offspring from the 40,000+ people working on the projects. At the top of the heap the lists feed downward to feed activists workloads.

read more:

by Gus Leonisky on Thu, 2016-12-01 19:45

Hi John

Just letting you know I can't access my Gus email yet... If you have sent me messages, don't worry about getting no reply... I hope you're well. Cheers. G