NOTE: The media is controlled by 5 conglomerates owned by globalists who wish to control you. This story kicks off how you have been being brainwashed and manipulated for years. By now it should be evident to most. Next I will post on Operation Mockingbird[b] and deeper as we come to today. [/b]





After leaving The Washington Post in 1977, Carl Bernstein spent six months looking at the relationship of the CIA and the press during the Cold War years. His 25,000-word cover story, published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977, is reprinted below.

THE CIA AND THE MEDIA

How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It UpBY CARL BERNSTEIN

In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.
Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.

The history of the CIA’s involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception for the following principal reasons:

■ The use of journalists has been among the most productive means of intelligence gathering employed by the CIA. Although the Agency has cut back sharply on the use of reporters since 1973 primarily as a result of pressure from the media), some journalist operatives are still posted abroad.

■ Further investigation into the matter, CIA officials say, would inevitably reveal a series of embarrassing relationships in the 1950s and 1960s with some of the most powerful organizations and individuals in American journalism.
Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald Tribune.
By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.

The CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress. The general outlines of what happened are indisputable; the specifics are harder to come by. CIA sources hint that a particular journalist was trafficking all over Eastern Europe for the Agency; the journalist says no, he just had lunch with the station chief. CIA sources say flatly that a well known ABC correspondent worked for the Agency through 1973; they refuse to identify him. A high level CIA official with a prodigious memory says that the New York Times provided cover for about ten CIA operatives between 1950 and 1966; he does not know who they were, or who in the newspaper’s management made the arrangements.
The Agency’s special relationships with the so called “majors” in publishing and broadcasting enabled the CIA to post some of its most valuable operatives abroad without exposure for more than two decades. In most instances, Agency files show, officials at the highest levels of the CIA usually director or deputy director) dealt personally with a single designated individual in the top management of the cooperating news organization. The aid furnished often took two forms: providing jobs and credentials “journalistic cover” in Agency parlance) for CIA operatives about to be posted in foreign capitals; and lending the Agency the undercover services of reporters already on staff, including some of the best known correspondents in the business.

In the field, journalists were used to help recruit and handle foreigners as agents; to acquire and evaluate information, and to plant false information with officials of foreign governments. Many signed secrecy agreements, pledging never to divulge anything about their dealings with the Agency; some signed employment contracts., some were assigned case officers and treated with. unusual deference. Others had less structured relationships with the Agency, even though they performed similar tasks: they were briefed by CIA personnel before trips abroad, debriefed afterward, and used as intermediaries with foreign agents. Appropriately, the CIA uses the term “reporting” to describe much of what cooperating journalists did for the Agency. “We would ask them, ‘Will you do us a favor?’”.said a senior CIA official. “‘We understand you’re going to be in Yugoslavia. Have they paved all the streets? Where did you see planes? Were there any signs of military presence? How many Soviets did you see? If you happen to meet a Soviet, get his name and spell it right .... Can you set up a meeting for is? Or relay a message?’” Many CIA officials regarded these helpful journalists as operatives; the journalists tended to see themselves as trusted friends of the Agency who performed occasional favors—usually without pay—in the national interest.

“I’m proud they asked me and proud to have done it,” said Joseph Alsop who, like his late brother, columnist Stewart Alsop, undertook clandestine tasks for the Agency. “The notion that a newspaperman doesn’t have a duty to his country is perfect balls.”From the Agency’s perspective, there is nothing untoward in such relationships, and any ethical questions are a matter for the journalistic profession to resolve, not the intelligence community. As Stuart Loory, former Los Angeles Times correspondent, has written in the Columbia Journalism Review: ‘If even one American overseas carrying a press card is a paid informer for the CIA, then all Americans with those credentials are suspect .... If the crisis of confidence faced by the news business—along with the government—is to be overcome, journalists must be willing to focus on themselves the same spotlight they so relentlessly train on others!’ But as Loory also noted: “When it was reported... that newsmen themselves were on the payroll of the CIA, the story caused a brief stir, and then was dropped.”

During the 1976 investigation of the CIA by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Frank Church, the dimensions of the Agency’s involvement with the press became apparent to several members of the panel, as well as to two or three investigators on the staff. But top officials of the CIA, including former directors William Colby and George Bush, persuaded the committee to restrict its inquiry into the matter and to deliberately misrepresent the actual scope of the activities in its final report. The multivolurne report contains nine pages in which the use of journalists is discussed in deliberately vague and sometimes misleading terms. It makes no mention of the actual number of journalists who undertook covert tasks for the CIA. Nor does it adequately describe the role played by newspaper and broadcast executives in cooperating with the Agency.

THE AGENCY’S DEALINGS WITH THE PRESS BEGAN during the earliest stages of the Cold War. Allen Dulles, who became director of the CIA in 1953, sought to establish a recruiting and cover capability within America’s most prestigious journalistic institutions. By operating under the guise of accredited news correspondents, Dulles believed, CIA operatives abroad would be accorded a degree of access and freedom of movement unobtainable under almost any other type of cover.

American publishers, like so many other corporate and institutional leaders at the time, were willing to commit the resources of their companies to the struggle against “global Communism.” Accordingly, the traditional line separating the American press corps and government was often indistinguishable: rarely was a news agency used to provide cover for CIA operatives abroad without the knowledge and consent of either its principal owner, publisher or senior editor. Thus, contrary to the notion that the CIA insidiously infiltrated the journalistic community, there is ample evidence that America’s leading publishers and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services. “Let’s not pick on some poor reporters, for God’s sake,” William Colby exclaimed at one point to the Church committee’s investigators. “Let’s go to the managements. They were witting.” In all, about twenty five news organizations including those listed at the beginning of this article) provided cover for the Agency.
In addition to cover capability, Dulles initiated a “debriefing” procedure under which American correspondents returning from abroad routinely emptied their notebooks and offered their impressions to Agency personnel. Such arrangements, continued by Dulles’ successors, to the present day, were made with literally dozens of news organizations. In the 1950s, it was not uncommon for returning reporters to be met at the ship by CIA officers. “There would be these guys from the CIA flashing ID cards and looking like they belonged at the Yale Club,” said Hugh Morrow, a former Saturday Evening Post correspondent who is now press secretary to former vice president Nelson Rockefeller. “It got to be so routine that you felt a little miffed if you weren’t asked.”

CIA officials almost always refuse to divulge the names of journalists who have cooperated with the Agency. They say it would be unfair to judge these individuals in a context different from the one that spawned the relationships in the first place. “There was a time when it wasn’t considered a crime to serve your government,” said one high level CIA official who makes no secret of his bitterness. “This all has to be considered in the context of the morality of the times, rather than against latter day standards—and hypocritical standards at that.”

Many journalists who covered World War II were close to people in the Office of Strategic Services, the wartime predecessor of the CIA; more important, they were all on the same side. When the war ended and many OSS officials went into the CIA, it was only natural that these relationships would continue. Meanwhile, the first postwar generation of journalists entered the profession; they shared the same political and professional values as their mentors. “You had a gang of people who worked together during World War II and never got over it,” said one Agency official. “They were genuinely motivated and highly susceptible to intrigue and being on the inside. Then in the Fifties and Sixties there was a national consensus about a national threat. The Vietnam War tore everything to pieces—shredded the consensus and threw it in the air.” Another Agency official observed: “Many journalists didn’t give a second thought to associating with the Agency. But there was a point when the ethical issues which most people had submerged finally surfaced. Today, a lot of these guys vehemently deny that they had any relationship with the Agency.”

From the outset, the use of journalists was among the CIA’s most sensitive undertakings, with full knowledge restricted to the Director of Central Intelligence and a few of his chosen deputies. Dulles and his successors were fearful of what would happen if a journalist operative’s cover was blown, or if details of the Agency’s dealings with the press otherwise became public. As a result, contacts with the heads of news organizations were normally initiated by Dulles and succeeding Directors of Central Intelligence; by the deputy directors and division chiefs in charge of covert operations—Frank Wisner, Cord Meyer Jr., Richard Bissell, Desmond FitzGerald, Tracy Barnes, Thomas Karamessines and Richard Helms himself a former UPI correspondent); and, occasionally, by others in the CIA hierarchy known to have an unusually close social relationship with a particular publisher or broadcast executive.

James Angleton, who was recently removed as the Agency’s head of counterintelligence operations, ran a completely independent group of journalist operatives who performed sensitive and frequently dangerous assignments; little is known about this group for the simple reason that Angleton deliberately kept only the vaguest of files.
The CIA even ran a formal training program in the 1950s to teach its agents to be journalists. Intelligence officers were “taught to make noises like reporters,” explained a high CIA official, and were then placed in major news organizations with help from management. “These were the guys who went through the ranks and were told ‘You’re going to he a journalist,’” the CIA official said. Relatively few of the 400 some relationships described in Agency files followed that pattern, however; most involved persons who were already bona fide journalists when they began undertaking tasks for the Agency.


The Agency’s relationships with journalists, as described in CIA files, include the following general categories:

More here:


http://danwismar.com/uploads/Bernstein%20-...and%20Media.htm
________________________________________

Change the wording just that much, and you change your whole attitude towards those around you, and you don't seem to be presumptious and assuming. Meaning, you're new to this board and judging by the choice of wordage you seem to be assuming you know more than we do, which you could not know to be true because you are that new.

You might even be assuming that I am becoming your nemesis here. Maybe I am, but for now I'm only attempting to call you on your crap. Your choice and your decision is to consider and use what I have offered you by confrontation, or not.

I would suggest, and request that you join with us as this is a small and pretty tight group and we can always use new perspective. But, we are also human and we don't usually accept the mistreatments of assumption.



The confrontational approach just doesn't work. And when you're among like minded people it's a waste of time and effort.



Edit to add.....


There are very few of us here that have not heard of Mockingbird.
Those who have not, can learn if they want. And if they want, no one can stop them.

I say YOU not as a mockery but to point out the single individual. I have been in this fight for decades and know the facts. If you are so "aware" then you do not show it by your backing of Obama. He is tainted and already puppetized. How can you be so "all knowing" yet support his candidacy? The least of two evils is still evil.

I understand that. But do you understand that all I see is text, and as such I can't assume your intentions other than to directly interpret your words through the filter of my personal reality?

As to Obama. I support the candidate that is most likely to win, that would do the most good for the liberal cause.
As I have said many many times. Obama is not perfect, and he is by no means a liberal saint. But, he's better than anybody else with a viable and realistic chance of being elected, and his coat tails just might pull along a help the election of a lot more people that will remove the Neo-con dominated republicans from power and influence.

Anybody who thinks the Dems and the Repugs are all the same is ignorant of the facts and is sucking up the doom and gloom scare bull sh*t. THAT proof is all over the archives of the POAC and is also a party of the daily lessons that come from watching a lot of C-Span. If YOU think they're all the same, then you're selecting your truths and are not being honest. Yes, it is quite possible to not tell the truth, and still not lie.

The least of two evils, is a step not in the wrong direction. Considering that you have ONLY 2 viable choices, and you wish the country to be something else, and if you want to help steer the country in a different direction you have no other option than to choose one of those two. Clearly one of those two won't help your cause at all, while the other is marginal at best. Don't you think marginal at best is better than no chance at all?

Or will you insist that whom ever you vote for be all things to all people, all the time? If your prefered candidate has one thing he supports that you can't agree with, will you move to another? OK, what if he has two things? Three? Or will you put things into perspective and work for some degree of balance?


Again, there are ONLY TWO candidates with any shot at winning the white house this election cycle. Most of us can agree that the Bush years have been utter disaster and that it's imperative we shift course, as much as possible, away from those failed policies. Even the blind and mentally feeble can clearly see that McSame then is not the choice they want to make to accomplish these ideals. That leaves ONLY ONE VIABLE candidate with even a remote chance of shifting the country away from those failed Bush policies. Enough so that this countries conservatives are collectively having cold sweats and many are secretly hoping for an assignation!

And that's why I support Obama, and why I am a Delegate for Obama, and why I do all that I do to support the candidate. It's not about the man, which isn't terrible, just look at the image in my signature again, it's about what his presidency can do begin a process of a left ward shift and for this country.

You would prefer to vote for someone that you know can't win. You would prefer to cast a protest vote out of principals.
That's cool, more power to ya mister. However, your vote won't actually accomplish anything toward your goals other than to give you the satisfaction of having voted strictly by your principals. And like the Greens and Al Gore, there's a consequence they don't like enough to deny that they must live with along with having voted their conscious.

So basically you are sucked in to the bidding of the globalists that control the media and have our politicians in their pockets. Your entire diatribe is indicative of being shackled. Those shackles were placed on you when the Democrats and Republicans made it next to impossible for Third Party Candidates to run a decent campaign after the Perot run. I realize you think you are getting a better deal with Obama than McCain, and I cannot tell you how much I dislike McCain, but I assure you, things will not get better in America until we dump both halves of the mega party which has infested our republic.

Whether you like Ron Paul or not, you should read his very easy to read book which explains concisely what you have been losing. I guarantee you that it will make you sick!

I have no animosity towards you, I merely endeavor to open minds to the truth, and it isn't pretty.

Apparently you can't seem to leave your cube and were unable to "hear" what I said.
From this exchange i would have to conclude that discourse with you is pretty much pointless.
It would seem as if you are here on some mission, and this doesn't allow you to open your mind past your own preconceived ideas. You can't be both a teacher and a student, even though the best and smartest teacher is always a student. You can't hear me, when your busy telling me.

I heard EVERYTHING, but sorry, your obsession with your spectre red state/blue state paradigm is where you lose me. If you have not grasped the idea that you are being screwed by the power elite or plutocratic elites (Republicans/Democrats), then you have been compromised. I was where you are at years ago and nothing will alter that fact. You are trapped by thought processes instilled into the fabric of your being through repetition over your lifetime, and it is difficult to overcome. The media is not your friend, nor is the government.You need to open YOUR eyes, but it appears you stand too close to the tree to see the forest burning behind it. Look at the big picture.

Politics is about compromise, the two major parties are the embodiment of people compromising to create a general consensus.

You will find very few Dems Or Repubs that agree on everything with other members of their party, and that's alright, the parties are there to provide someone that most of it's members share at least some ideals with.

The parties are composed of ordinary people, and sometimes people screw up, but they can also work to correct those mistakes. Instead of just whining about my party, I get involved and try to change it, and when lots of people do that it changes.

You assume much if you think that if everyone knew everything you thought you did that they would agree. People can have differing opinions because they really do believe it, not because they are ignorant.

If you get bent out of shape because the peoples ideals don't perfectly align with yours your being selfish and ignorant. And if you get horribly upset when the masses don't think like you your in for a lifetime of disappointment.

Understanding the words, does not mean you could listen as well as you hear.

Do a little experiment. Try to listen to someone at the very same time you are talking to them, simultanious.





The more you scream at me, the more I will turn away from you, no matter what your message is.
If you really want to get your message across, then listen to me! (Really deep concept)

Listen to what?

I read every post and totally disagree. How many more elections of these mainstream media puppets do you have to view before you get it? The only people achieving power in America are those that are chosen by the plutocratic elite that run our
media. If you cannot grasp that concept by now you are hopelessly consumed by them. We are near a police state and martial law. The laws are in the books thanks to BushCo. Have you read what they have passed? They are for you and yours. YOU are their enemy, all else is just smoke and mirrors. One more staged false flag event "globally" is all they will need to declare martial law and suspend the constitution and the election process as well. Bush has had a pass that has been honored by your Democrats and he has been given Carte Blanche. You must be blindfolded. Do the research!


"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”
– Malkcom X

BushCo has gotten away with murder. Literally! The reason this is possible is that they are under the thumb of globalists that care not about U.S. sovereignty. They care about globalism and what some refer to as the New World Order. American sovereignty and our Constitution MUST BE crushed for them to attain thier next goal of the North American Super state. They require your total acquiescence to make this all occur. If you believe in the Republicans, you will perform their bidding just as well as those that believe the Dems. Unfortunately, the controllers own both parties and merely alter the agenda to conform. All the worlds a stage and you (not you particularly) are the [unwitting] audience.

As we speak, the same neocons that have hijacked America are in Europe influencing their elections. Those in power want the world and what we the people want is not relevant to them and they control our political arena. They put Bush in power and will put their next minion there.

The founders warned us repeatedly that if we did not pay attention the bankers would take over. They did!

Damn, you really are that bad off.
Consider that you have no clue about all that you do not know.
You're just not all that and a bag of chips too.



I'm done with you. It's pointless to continue giving you the attention.

Earlier I challenged you to objectively read Ron Pauls The Revolution: A Manifesto ,Constitutional Chaos or A Nation of Sheep by Former Judge Anthony Napolitano and I will read a Political or Legal book of your choosing. I thought that to be a pretty fair offer. I AM open to suggestion.

You are set in your ways and beliefs with no room for change and you believe that of me. I have looked at this political picture from all the angles you've thrown at me and have concluded, given Obamas platform, his votes, his ties and his movements that you will be disappointed at best if he wins. I dislike McCain much more than Obama but that does not mean I will support the lessor of two evils and play a role in their globalist agenda.

Perhaps if you point out to me why you believe Obama will make "change" it may alter my perspective?

Suggestions?

I have already suggested that you get your head out of your arse, but so far you seem to prefer it that way.
Untill I see some reason to believe it woudl be worth while, I intend to pretty much ignore your drivvel.
Others may with to do verbal jousting with you, that's their call to make.

Continuing to do the same things while expecting a different outcome? Indeed.

I'll grant you that you are about as rigid and stubborn as they come! I endeavor to level the playing field and perhaps understand your position and you reject it cold. You and my father are two of a kind. Too bad.

Or maybe he considered it and still preferred his opinion to yours.

And to be perfectly honest, if protecting American sovereignty meant doing the wrong thing for the people, I would go with the people. I would much rather live in a world where all governments have the peoples best interest in mind, not just their own states.

Please point out where you have changed your opinion on anything.
And please explain why you believe your opinion is superior to my own.

You might want to listen to your dad, with your mouth shut sometime.

I would never say that he does not have a right to his opinion. I like to back my opinions with substantiable facts, not falsehoods and lies that have been fed to us through corrupt and greedy Administrations like this one and others in the past. I don't think any intelligent person can deny that BushCo has repeatedly lied to us to get their pre-planned wars going. Just what the extent of those lies have been is what is at question. Just how evil and corrupt did their greed anable them to go? 9-11 is a big open book to me and reeks of complicity via Dick Cheney. I am forced toquestion the veracity of all public officials as a result. We all should, and examine them all under a microscope, not just accept them as good intentioned becaise they fit into our partisan paradigm.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

I offerred to read any book you could give me title to if you would read any one of three I posted and you ignored it completely. My opinions are based on research, yours seem to be partisan as you reject as invalid any argument which would make your candidate look bad or just ignore it altogether.
Obamas vote on that wiretap law showed me his true colors as well as his loyalties to the CFR and the AIPAC lobbyists.

Tell me if McCain were the Democratic candidate would you support him as well, just because he's a Democrat?

I think the truth beyond the obvious in that statement can be quite easily seen.
To all that is, accept the message delivery tool.

To accuse someone else while his own faults and issues are so blatant, there's a word for that.





Do you not understand that we have seen wingers work in exactly these ways for years?
Consider Olbermanns most recient advice to McCain, and take it to heart.

Sorry, but I fear your Democratic Messiah will let you down, but maybe the next Democrat, or the next one or........ad infinitum.

You fear much, but fail to first fear your own ignorance.

That from a partisan junkie that can't let go of his security blanket party.

You failed to respond to every question put to you.

If McCain was running as a Democrat, would you support him?

Yeah, and neener neener back at ya swifty.

I'll take that as a yes!

Pot ...meet Kettle.


I'm gonna give you some straight forward advice here. You , nor any man alive is going to change the way sky thinks about the Dems . Period. I have gone around with him , as have many on this board. He can be very grating in defending his position, but the fact remains he is taking the approach he feels best about and will not be swayed. You sir are of the same mindset it would seem. You have staked out your position and will not be budged for one inch.

Accept it for what it is. At this point Ron Paul is running for nothing. he had a nice run, but now it is over and it is doubly doubtful any candidate will use any of his suggestions. You can continue to argue semantics with sky, but I can personally vouch that it will do nothing but hasten your hair loss! As I said before, I hope you find the resources here helpful and the people, once you settle in are wonderful!

It is quite possible to agree to disagree, but that would mean accepting that someone doesn't agree with you, and let it be. It would also require cessation of the preaching teacher attitude, and much more attempt at becoming an equal member of the forum. Not less than or superior. Just some one who's views are not always shared and is OK with that.

Celt. Do I preach at you because you don't agree with me? Or do I accept that you don't always agree with me?
Sometimes we still cross words, but generally we're able to cohabitate the same forum and even get along.


Now it seems this poor gentleman is of the opinion that I've been picking on him. Well, I have, but not because of his political views.

Oh we had our moments in the past, I took a self imposed exile to cool my self down and have now returned. It is frustrating arguing with someone when you know that they are wrong. . There is no preaching by anyone on this board really. Spirited discussions? Very much so !LOL. Too many newbies come in standing at the pulpit not realizing that they are preaching to the choir and unfortunately get run off or frustrated by our "lack of knowledge" about "the truth". Thus my attempt at being peacemaker. Unfortunately I believe it is falling on deaf ears ..again.

I have already stated that Doctor Paul has no chance to win the presidency and in fact is not in the race, however his actions over the next two months will almost certainly help Sky's candidate, especially if the rally for the republic gets media attention.

I am not really arguing with him, just curious about a few things I guess. Maybe it is just me being an a$$hole for all those times I missed debating with my father who was so rigid in his beliefs that the world revolved around the Dems. He didn't care anything about the man, just whether he was a Dem or a Rep. That is the epitomy of ignorance!

My point is that every election season our candidate tout change and none deliver. This planet is filled with one species of being called mankind yet the handful that have all the wealth and power via their manufactured wars through their MIC use the unwitting individuals sense of patriotsm to fight in these needless enterprises that only serve to fill the pockets of a few. This time around the profits for them all were measured in billions. They have raped the public once again and the Dems did nothing but aid and abet the unconstitutional criminality.

I guess to some that is worth voting for, eh?

What about this statement is not true?

I don't think anyone would dispute most of that above summation of the world at this time. But, be aware that the forum you are entering is full of people who already realize that. It is how you present your ideals and give a plan for moving forward that earns respect, not the blasting away with all guns approach. Enthusiasm is a great thing and can be even greater when harnassed into a great plan. You will be fine here, don't sweat the small stuff. In order to bring about the change we all seek it will take a concerted effort by many and a mixing of many idaes and viewpoints to get it done!

Well, quite honestly I wish you good luck on the peace maker aspect.
The boss tried discourse with him and gave up.

Ah the internet, where a xenophobic pediatrician can convince thousands that he knows everything about politics, and thus develop a cult following.