March 3, 2015

OMG! These pictures of puppies and kittens are soooooooo adorable, aren't I right?

OMG! These pictures of puppies and kittens are sooooooo adorable, aren't I right?

By Jon Pliger
Senior Investigative Reporter
publishmycrapandcallitnews.com News
March 3, 2015


Hey guys! We all know puppies are so incredibly cute. And we also know that kittens are just beyond adorable. But what if I were to post pictures of puppies and kittens......together? CUTENESS OVERLOAD!!!!!!!! So let's check out some positively pretty photos of our furry little friends. Prepare to be awwwwwwed!







Oh, and did you know the moon landing was a hoax? No, really! You see, NASA knew it couldn't really land on the moon because they knew the mutant moon monsters who had landed in Area 51 (you know, the guys who look like Bigfoot) would come back to kill us all for invading their territory. So instead, they commissioned a film crew and shot the landing at a movie studio in Burbank.





Playing the part of Neil Armstrong was singer Elvis Presley, who landed the role in good part due to his 1956 cover of the classic Rogers-Hart song "Blue Moon." But in 1977, Presley threatened to expose the hoax, so the government locked him in the basement of World Trade Tower 7.





Presley remained in Tower 7 until 2001, when the government imploded Tower 7 in order to destroy the evidence. The elder Presley was then relocated to Afghanistan where he was made to impersonate terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden.



Oh my goodness! That puppy is telling the kitten that he loves her! Have you ever seen anything so precious?



Don't believe me? You can ask fellow investigative reporter and national treasure Robert Prary. He'll tell you the exact same thing! You can believe him because he once wrote something important thirty years ago!





So in conclusion, we can all agree there's just nothing cuter than puppy dogs snuggling up with kittens. And that's why you should never stand in the direct path of government chemtrails. Oh, and ask me about my grandkids! They do this cute little thing where they dress up in adult clothes and sing "You Are My Sunshine". You just have to see it !

The preceding was published in its entirety with permission of the author and under the specific authority set forth in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).

March 2, 2015

You know, I thought you'd never ask. Just a few examples.

A blatant, "Pants on Fire" level lie according to Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/19/facebook-posts/united-states-spent-5-billion-ukraine-anti-governm/




First of all, there was no coup in Ukraine. Secondly, if by fascists Pilger is referring to members of the Svoboda and Right Sector parties, neither party has any representation in Ukraine's governing cabinet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ukraine




"Vladimir Putin's people" didn't lose 22 million in World War II. The now-defunct Soviet Union lost over 20 million people. Of course, the Soviet Union comprised 15 separate Republics, only one of which was Russia. Vladimir Putin (who was born 7 years after the end of World War II) is president of the Russian Federation. And estimates show that the Russian SSR lost approximately 14 million people (both civilian and military), or 12.7% of its population. The Ukrainian SSR actually lost a greater proportion of its population than the Russian SSR in World War II (16.3%), as did the Belarussian SSR and Armenian SSR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union

Now, if Pilger is insinuating that Vladimir Putin's "people" includes the 14 other former Soviet States as well as Russia, well, that's quite telling.



Here's a good one. First of all, of course, there was no coup. Secondly, NATO never attempted to "seize" the Russian Black Sea Fleet--I don't know where he's coming from there. The 1954 transfer of Crimea from the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR was an internal Soviet matter, but Crimea had never, ever been part of the modern Russian Federation, and in 1994 Russia agreed via treaty that notwithstanding the existing Black Sea Fleet bases, Crimea was Ukrainian territory and it would respect Ukraine's sovereignty.

Funny thing about the Crimean referendum and the so-called "international observers." These were not observers from the UN or OSCE or any other legitimate election monitoring agency. These "observers" came from the "Eurasian Observatory for Democracy and Elections", a sham Russian based group whose leaders have ties to far right organizations (funny that Pilger trumpets them while supposedly decrying fascism, don't you think?):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Observatory_for_Democracy_and_Elections

Of course, the biggest lie by Pilger is that "There was no invasion (of Crimea by Russia)" which is simply idiotic. Of course there was a Russian military invasion of Crimea. Well-organized and well-armed, regimented military units--far beyond the capabilities of any local militia that would have the opportunity to organize in literally four days--seized the local parliament, airports, harbors, Ukrainian military bases and other portions of Crimea beginning around February 26, 2014. A timeline of events in the run up to the infamous March 16, 2014 referendum:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2014_Crimean_crisis

Here's a report from The Guardian the day the local parliament was seized

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/ukraine-pro-russian-gunmen-seize-crimea-parliament-live-updates?view=desktop#block-530efb46e4b0ddf5cbe7ba63



And finally:




In fact, the events in Odessa on May 2nd were indeed clashes between two sides and not just a one-sided slaughter of pro-Russian separatists as Pilger claims. While the official pro-Russian line only wants to focus on the fire at the trade union building itself, the events did not start there. In fact, the incident started when a pro-Ukrainian demonstration was attacked by a pro-Russian group, and at various points gunmen identified as pro-Russian were seen shooting at and killing several on the pro-Ukrainian side. Only after that initial event was there the later confrontation at the Trade Union building. Even at the Trade Union building, sources said there were Molotov cocktails thrown at the building and from the building, indicating it was a two-sided clash between the groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_May_2014_Odessa_clashes



So, as you can see, Pilger's account on Ukraine is full of documentable falsehoods. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to lay it out.

February 19, 2015

One year ago today, Victor Yanukovych began packing his valuables in preparation of leaving Ukraine.

He wouldn't actual leave--via his own personal fleet of helicopters--until the early morning hours of February 22nd. Only after he left did the Ukrainian Rada (parliament) vote to remove him for dereliction of duty.

But it was the three day time period that is so fascinating. Within that window, there was the deaths of several dozen protesters at Maidan on February 20th, the circumstances still somewhat controversial and unclear. Then there was an EU brokered deal signed on the evening of February 21st that would have given Yanukovych the authority to remain in office until early elections could be held.

The fact that these events preceded Yanukovych's ultimate departure but not his preparations to depart cast serious doubts on any claims that either of those events served as a tipping point to the ultimate change in regime.

And the relative ease and length of time in which Yanukovych had to pack up his considerable treasure (three days) casts even more doubts on the claim that Yanukovych was running due to a imminent threat to his safety, which some use as the basis that Yanukovych was removed as a result of a "coup" perpetrated by individuals not clearly identified by proponents of that theory.

Surveillance video from Yanukovych's mansion beginning from February 19th and running up until the early morning of February 22nd shows the large amount of oil paintings, antique valuables and other items being loaded up into moving vans. More video captures Yanukovych's fleet of helicopters flying off, with the former president ultimately ending up in Russia.

&feature=player_embedded

&feature=player_embedded

&feature=player_embedded

&feature=player_embedded





A good read about Yanukovych's preparations can be found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/03/12/what-did-yanukovych-take-with-him-as-he-fled-his-mansion-paintings-guns-and-a-small-dog-according-to-new-video/

The three day time period--and the proper order of events--are very important to keep in mind when analyzing the events leading up to the regime change in Ukraine one year ago.

February 10, 2015

I do think the US has/had favored and disfavored players in Ukraine.

I.e. people they would prefer to deal with and people they would prefer not to deal with. And that came out in some of the State Department communications.

However, that said, I do not think they played any active role in changing the regime. I think the US was very encouraged by Maidan because Yanukovych was not a favored player and the hope was that a break from him would be for the better. (Undoubtedly a risky proposition that has not always played out well for us.) But Maidan ultimately succeeded not because the US intervened in it, but rather because of Yanukovych's own efforts to suppress it. And the more Yanukovych pushed, the protesters on Maidan pushed back, to the point where Yanukovych determined he didn't want to be Ceausescu'ed, that he was still a very wealthy man and could live very nicely as a private citizen somewhere else (somewhere else being Russia.) So he literally packed up his bags and left.

But yes, I will admit as far as I think the US had people it would prefer to be running the show, specifically folks who would represent a break from the old oligarch line that you seen in Russia and towards a much more western oriented governing approach. And that's why I think Yatsenyuk struck such a chord with the US. Because while he's by no means your common everyday man off the street, he's likewise not the old oligarch guard, either. He's fairly young, flies regular commercial airlines (as opposed to private jets), stands in line with the commoners to vote, has advocated for financial and governmental oversight, and clearly struck a chord with the people on Maidan still without making himself out to be an ultra-nationalistic firebrand. So it's a no-brainer that he became a favored figure that the US wanted to see rise to the top in Ukraine. Now, what some people mistake as the US State Department "hand picking" Yatsenyuk based on the infamous Nuland-Pratt phone call really didn't amount to anything closely as nefarious. It's best analogy would be that of fantasy football fans picking their rosters to lead their fantasy (read: not real) teams. They simply had no ability to actually pick the Ukrainian government for them, no matter how much some people think.

Interestingly enough, while Yatsenyuk did end up as prime minister, the man who was elected President--Petro Poroshenko--represents something closer to the old guard in terms of Ukrainian government. He is, after all, an oligarch with a lot of wealthy assets. That being said, he has pledged reforms, but it's too early to tell how far he'll go through on them. But you can also say the fact that Ukrainians chose to replace one oligarch (Yanukovych) with another (Poroshenko) runs contrary to the argument that the US was deeply involved in picking Ukraine's leaders, since such a subtle change would arguably not be worth all the trouble.