Everything You Need to Know About Deep State

What is “Deep State”?

Origins of the term “Deep State” trace back to Turkey. The Turkish term “derin devlet” – deep state – referred to a cabal of government officials with off-the-record ties to various crime syndicates. Turkish politicians leveraged these connections to carry out state-ordered killings – among other dark deeds – in efforts to silence dissenting communist Kurdish insurgents.

As noted in The Economist: “Starting in the 1950s Turkey’s deep state sponsored killings, engineered riots, colluded with drug traffickers, staged “false flag” attacks and organised massacres of trade unionists. Thousands died in the chaos it fomented.”

Deep State in America

American pundits and politicians use the term “Deep State” to describe a coordinated effort amongst appointed (unelected!) government officials – in all branches of government – to undermine and undercut the democratically elected president.

Leaking private conversations, memos and discussions in spades to whoever shares the vision of a Trump-free future (The New York Times and The Washington Post proceed to dislocate their shoulders, hyperbolically raising their arms screeching *me!*, *ME!*), these unnamed government officials attempt to erode trust and confidence in the Trump administration.

Due to their unbridled enmity for all things Trump, liberal news outlets have effectively jettisoned any semblance of journalistic ethics, opting for the Shaun King route of reporting. Forget verifying sources, if it fits the narrative it must be true!

This, in a nutshell, is how we get headlines like this from Business Insider that read, “Trump reportedly called his national security adviser at 3 a.m. to ask if the US wanted a strong or weak dollar.”
The Business Insider article cites a HuffPost piece titled “Leaks Suggest Trump’s Own Team Is Alarmed By His Conduct,” which itself attempts to verify these incendiary claims against President Trump by citing unnamed, anonymous individuals: “according to two sources familiar with Flynn’s accounts of the incident.”

As another example, The Hill – a widely read political news outlet – ran the headline “NSC officials include Trump’s name as often as possible so he reads memos: report.” The article claims, “Reported by Reuters,” which then links to a Reuters headline that reads: “Embroiled in controversies, Trump seeks boost on foreign trip.”

And if you thought, “Finally! I can now see real reputable sources,” think again! The Reuters report says, “National Security Council officials have strategically included Trump’s name in as many paragraphs as we can because he keeps reading if he’s mentioned, according to one source, who relayed conversations he had with NSC officials.” One unnamed source (just one!) is used to back up inordinate assertions about the president.

Read More >>

Obama’s ‘Pro-Israel’ Presidency Is Fake News

The most asinine, demonstrable falsehoods of the 2016 presidential election is the idea that anti-Semitism is a prevailing concern in the left’s moral universe. Coming in at a close second is the notion that widespread “fake news” is what bludgeoned Hillary Clinton, leading to her electoral demise.

This earnestness to investigate, report on, and speak out against anti-Semitism from the mainstream media is oddly confined to headlines consisting solely of the words “Donald Trump” – or his occasional cabinet nominees.

Take for instance this gem from the Huffington Post. Actual headline: “How It’s ‘Absolutely’ Possible For Steve Bannon To Be Pro-Israel And Anti-Semitic”. Never mind the fact that the Huffington Post has no evidence.

Self-satire news outlet Salon chimed in with, “Jewish Americans are worried about the rise in anti-Semitism after this election cycle.”

Fake news isn’t a new phenomenon. In fact, for the mainstream news media, it’s practically a business model. The media’s propagation of fake news vis-à-vis the notion that Barack Obama and his administration are remotely pro-Israel dates back to his initial run for office.

Obama’s close ties to former Jimmy Carter adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski – who in an interview with Salon, accused Israeli Jews of “buying Congress’s influence” – were effectively ignored. Obama is on record (in 2007) praising Brzezinski as “someone I have learned an immense amount from.”

The Los Angeles Times to this day refuses to release a 2003 tape of Barack Obama praising virulent anti-Semite and Palestinian-terrorism apologist Rashid Khalidi – whom the LA Times instead referred to as “a harsh critic of Israel”, and the New York Times dubs, “a passionate defender of Palestinian rights.”

When Jeremiah Wright – whose church Obama attended for two decades – said in an interview, “them Jews ain’t going to let him [Obama] talk to me,” CNN’s Jake Tapper simply tweeted, “Rev Wright clarifies – meant to say ZIONISTS are keeping him fr talking to POTUS, not ‘Jews.’”

In the summer of 2014, when Palestinian terrorists kidnapped three Israeli teenagers, the State Department issued a statement calling “on all sides to exercise restraint.” Nowhere to be found was the mainstream media probing the Obama Administration’s unspeakable gall to treat genocidal zealots and a free society as moral equals.

More recently, Barack Obama and John Kerry unveiled their diplomatic climax, the Iran Deal. When it was revealed that the terror-sponsoring regime of Tehran would receive 150 billion dollars a year in sanctions relief, lifting of arms and missile embargoes (and more) all while the Mullah’s chanted “death to Israel,” the media was again on the job, acting as Obama’s personal PR firm. Abnegating any responsibility to report on the deal’s bleak implications, CNN instead focused their ire on Republican reaction to Obama’s diplomatic debacle with headlines like: “Huckabee Invokes Holocaust when Talking Iran Deal.”

Most recently, New York Times’ Thomas Friedman wrote a column in response to John Kerry’s late-December speech on his proposed plan for peace between Israelis and Arabs.

Friedman opens by “simplifying” for readers, the current tensions between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the soon-to-be Former-President of the United States.

“Barack Obama and John Kerry admire and want to preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state in the Land of Israel.” 

If you’ve read this far, you understand why if there ever was one exemplar of fake news being propagated by the media, this is it.

He continues,

“…He [Benjamin Netanyahu] is unwilling to make any big, hard decision to advance or preserve a two-state solution if that decision in any way risks his leadership of Israel’s right-wing coalition or forces him to confront the Jewish settlers, who relentlessly push Israel deeper and deeper into the West Bank.”

This is the biggest falsehood about the Israeli/Arab conflict perpetuated by the left, ad nauseum. For all their preening over fake news, the left does an admirable job of spreading it themselves. Friedman suggests that Netanyahu’s steadfast persistence to put up condos in Israel’s capital, East Jerusalem, or claim to ownership of the Western Wall – which Barack Obama himself visited, shamefully wearing a yarmulke – is a greater roadblock in the peace process to the waves of rocket fire, stabbings, shootings and terror both incited and carried out by the Palestinian Arabs.

Read More >>

Two Reasons Why Zootopia is Dangerous Propaganda

Two Reasons Why Zootopia is Dangerous Propaganda

Written by Kelly Campagna

My siblings told me it was a cute, fun movie that they thought I would like, and since I’d had no previous exposure to it outside of a poster I thought I would give it a try. I’m sorry to say I was very disturbed the blatant political messaging being promoted in a movie targeting children–indeed this movie promotes a dangerous form of propaganda on two major counts.

  1. It conveys a deeply racist underlying theme.

That’s right, from the company that said portraying slaves on a plantation in Song of the South was too racist, Disney portrays predators as a restrained evil that is predisposed to abuse the non-predatory animals who are considered the oppressed. In the movie, predators must be kept away from certain plants that could cause them to revert back to the dangerous, oppressive animals that they biologically are. This is similar to the real world, where the left tries to promote the notion that white, European members of the capitalist society are predisposed to oppress minorities in Western countries and therefore must atone for this predisposition by making concessions to minorities–special programs, affirmative action, apology tours. These anthropomorphic creatures provide commentary on humanity, indicating that certain groups of human beings are biologically predisposed to oppress others. This is gross and disgusting racism at its finest, perpetuated by a leftist agenda that seeks to indoctrinate kids at a young age into thinking its ok.

Proponents of Zootopia will point out that at the end of the movie one of the “oppressed” characters–a sheep to be precise–uses the plant to frame the predatory animals as being dangerous, portraying an imperfect and, dare I say, sinful member of the oppressed. They also will point out that the hero of the movie discovers that non-predators are also capable of devolving into non-anthropomorphic animals, dissuading many adults from accusing the movie of bigotry since the ending allegedly made an attempt at achieving balance. The problem with these arguments is that both of these revelations occur at the end of the movie and are largely underdeveloped. After over an hour of the notion of predisposed bigotry being pumped into the audience, it’s difficult to come away from the movie without some of that ideology rubbing off. Think that the messaging will go over the audience’s head? Then how on earth will they understand the small, allegedly balanced take on the situation in the last 15 minutes?

  1. It portrays Christians as right-wing bigots with closed minds and complacent attitudes.

This is the part that is so personally offensive to me–the idea that of all people Christians are the ones that are closed minded and predisposed to bigotry. Near the beginning of the movie there is a scene in which elephants running an ice cream shop refuse service to foxes due to their bigotry regarding the foxes’ lifestyle. It is willful ignorance for an audience member to come away from that scene without connecting it to real-life scenarios where Christians have to refuse to cater or photograph gay weddings or be in violation of their faith. This pushes the idea in front of children that people who refuse service to customers due to their lifestyle are evil. As those children get older and see that there are people who refuse service to customers asking them to violate their faith, they will remember the teachings of this movie, and logically side against people of faith.

How did I know any of the characters were Christian or right-wing? This is where more bigoted stereotyping comes in–Southern accents, traditional family structures, and especially the mention of “speaking in tongues” which is a specific reference to the Pentecostal denomination of Christianity. The hero’s parents tell her that they needed to open their minds to other people with different lifestyles and that they changed from their “backward” ways by following her example. These are typical Hollywood stereotypes drawn from movies like Footloose that push the false impression that the average Christian is a hick from the 1800s looking to ruin your good time.

I could tell you about just how false this stereotype of Christians is–how Christians have historically been the group at the forefront fighting against slavery, against Jim Crow, against tyranny, and against bigotry. However, it is more important for Christians in particular to realize that this idea that we must atone for society’s past failures by providing government niceties to minorities–the hero became a police officer via the government Mammal Inclusion Initiative–is profoundly anti-Christian. No one can atone for their forefathers’ sins or even their own sins without the blood of Jesus Christ, yet I’m hearing Christians buy into the leftist moral posturing that is falsely critical of crimes Christians did and do not commit. Certainly Christians are not perfect, but we cannot  make ourselves atoned from our sins by bowing to the agenda of moral relativism and should not be promoting this ideology to our children.

Conclusion

Propaganda has a profound effect on society when it is targeted at children; political messaging wrapping in bright colors and fluffy bunnies. Whether it is in extreme cases as in Hilter’s indoctrination of German youth or in the political programming provided by Hollywood, children imitate the behavior that they see on T.V. and in movies and apply it to their lives when they are older. If this were not the case, why put a political message in a children’s movie at all? If the messaging really did go over their heads it would be a waste of a message in a useless medium. This is why the left quietly inserts gay and lesbian characters into children’s movies like Frozen and Finding Dory. It’s why gay history is now being taught to kindergartners in California schools. Children today will dictate what society is tomorrow based on what they are taught when they are young, which is why I would never allow children that I might be responsible for to watch Zootopia.

Follow Kelly Campagna on Twitter