Showing posts with label Mainstream media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mainstream media. Show all posts

Saturday, August 29, 2020

Judge rules Sarah Palin's defamation suit against The New York Times can go to trial​

Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against The New York Times is moving forward and headed to trial after a federal judge ruled Friday that a jury will decide whether the newspaper acted with "actual malice" when it published a false editorial pointing to Palin as the motivation behind the 2011 assassination attempt on former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.).

What are the details?

Palin sued The Times in 2017 over a piece that linked materials distributed by the former Alaskan governor's political action committee and the Tucson, Arizona, mass murder at a Giffords event that left six people dead and Giffords injured.

An excerpt from the editorial — which was later corrected — read:

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin's political action committee circulated a map that showed the targeted electoral districts of Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.

The lawsuit has been tied up in the courts ever since, and on Friday, Manhattan Federal Judge Jed Rakoff denied The Times' request to bring the case to a close, which Law & Crime called "a major procedural win" for Palin.

"Gov. Palin brings this action to hold [former editor] James Bennett and The Times accountable for defaming her by falsely asserting what they knew to be false: that Gov. Palin was clearly and directly responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011," the judge wrote

"Specifically," he continued, "on June 14, 2017, The Times published an editorial authored in the name of its Editorial Board (which represents the 'voice' of The Times) that falsely stated as a matter of fact to millions of people that Gov. Palin incited Jared Loughner's January 8, 2011, mass shooting at a political event in Tucson, Arizona."

Rakoff added, "Taken in the light most favorable to (Palin), the evidence shows Bennet came up with an angle for the editorial, ignored the articles brought to his attention that were inconsistent with his angle, disregarded the…research he commissioned, and ultimately made the point he set out to make in reckless disregard of the truth."

In reaction to the judge's decision, a spokeswoman for The Times said in a statement, "We're disappointed in the ruling but are confident we will prevail at trial when a jury hears the facts," the New York Daily Newsreported.


Monday, August 17, 2020

Hate for Trump has pushed the significance of the UAE-Israel agreement into the shadows. Contrast it to what would have happened has Obama achieved it?

Experts Praise Trump’s Middle East Peace Miracle – Obama Gang, Radical Democrats, Turkey and Iran Hate It


Last week President Trump announced a peace deal in the Middle East between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).  Experts have widely praised the first Middle East peace deal in decades while the Obama gang, Democrats, Turkey and Iran hate it.

The historic peace treaty was signed this week.  Reuters reported that phone lines opened between Israel and the UAE soon after the agreement was signed:

Middle East expert John Carafano also praised the President’s efforts:

This Day In HistoryTRENDING: BREAKING: 4Chan Identifies One of the Portland Rioters Who Attempted to Kill Driver as 'Keese Love'

Thursday’s announcement of a “historic peace agreement” between Israel and the United Arab Emirates — the first deal to normalize relations between Israel and an Arab nation brokered by the U.S. in over a quarter-century — is more evidence that President Trump is the first president in a long time to get U.S. Middle East policy more right than wrong.

Under the agreement, Israel and the UAE will establish “full normalization of relations,” including diplomatic relations with the opening of embassies, trade, tourism, direct flights and other agreements. The only two other Arab nations that have diplomatic relations with Israel are Egypt and Jordan….

….Let’s be honest. The Trump administration inherited a Middle East policy from the Obama administration that was collapsing faster than a bad day on the Dow.

Iran had become more belligerent after the Iran Nuclear Deal and its surrogates were on the march everywhere. ISIS was governing a murderous caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq. Syria had collapsed in civil war. Iraq teetered. Israel faced increasing international isolation.

Yet Trump promptly turned a corner on every one of these setbacks for American policy.

Former Ambassador and Acting Director of National Intelligence pointed out that not everyone is happy with peace in the Middle East.

NSA Director O’Brien noted that everyone was happy with the deal but Ben Rhodes from the Obama Administration and the Ayatollah:

President Obama’s Iran deal will go down as the worst agreement in US history.  Of course, the Obama gang is not happy with the newly signed agreement.  Instead of creating a mess in the Middle East President Trump is creating peace.


Sunday, August 16, 2020

The American public are being played by their own intelligence agencies and corporate media with covert agendas that are deeply anti-democratic.

Via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

William Binney is the former technical director of the U.S. National Security Agency who worked at the agency for 30 years. He is a respected independent critic of how American intelligence services abuse their powers to illegally spy on private communications of U.S. citizens and around the globe. 

Given his expert inside knowledge, it is worth paying attention to what Binney says.

In a media interview this week, he dismissed the so-called Russiagate scandal as a “fabrication” orchestrated by the American Central Intelligence Agency. Many other observers have come to the same conclusion about allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections with the objective of helping Donald Trump get elected.

But what is particularly valuable about Binney’s judgment is that he cites technical analysis disproving the Russiagate narrative. That narrative remains dominant among U.S. intelligence officials, politicians and pundits, especially those affiliated with the Democrat party, as well as large sections of Western media. The premise of the narrative is the allegation that a Russian state-backed cyber operation hacked into the database and emails of the Democrat party back in 2016. The information perceived as damaging to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was subsequently disseminated to the Wikileaks whistleblower site and other U.S. media outlets.

A mysterious cyber persona known as “Guccifer 2.0” claimed to be the alleged hacker. U.S. intelligence and news media have attributed Guccifer as a front for Russian cyber operations.

Notably, however, the Russian government has always categorically denied any involvement in alleged hacking or other interference in the 2016 U.S. election, or elections thereafter.

William Binney and other independent former U.S. intelligence experts say they can prove the Russiagate narrative is bogus. The proof relies on their forensic analysis of the data released by Guccifer. The analysis of timestamps demonstrates that the download of voluminous data could not have been physically possible based on known standard internet speeds. These independent experts conclude that the data from the Democrat party could not have been hacked, as Guccifer and Russiagaters claim. It could only have been obtained by a leak from inside the party, perhaps by a disgruntled staffer who downloaded the information on to a disc. That is the only feasible way such a huge amount of data could have been released. That means the “Russian hacker” claims are baseless.

Wikileaks, whose founder Julian Assange is currently imprisoned in Britain pending an extradition trial to the U.S. to face espionage charges, has consistently maintained that their source of files was not a hacker, nor did they collude with Russian intelligence. As a matter of principle, Wikileaks does not disclose the identity of its sources, but the organization has indicated it was an insider leak which provided the information on senior Democrat party corruption.

William Binney says forensic analysis of the files released by Guccifer shows that the mystery hacker deliberately inserted digital “fingerprints” in order to give the impression that the files came from Russian sources. It is known from information later disclosed by former NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden that the CIA has a secretive program – Vault 7 – which is dedicated to false incrimination of cyber attacks to other actors. It seems that the purpose of Guccifer was to create the perception of a connection between Wikileaks and Russian intelligence in order to beef up the Russiagate narrative.

“So that suggested [to] us all the evidence was pointing back to CIA as the originator [of] Guccifer 2.0. And that Guccifer 2.0 was inside CIA… I’m pointing to that group as the group that was probably the originator of Guccifer 2.0 and also this fabrication of the entire story of Russiagate,” concludes Binney in his interview with Sputnik news outlet.


This is not the first time that the Russiagate yarn has been debunked. But it is crucially important to make Binney’s expert views more widely appreciated especially as the U.S. presidential election looms on November 3. As that date approaches, U.S. intelligence and media seem to be intensifying claims about Russian interference and cyber operations. Such wild and unsubstantiated “reports” always refer to the alleged 2016 “hack” of the Democrat party by “Guccifer 2.0” as if it were indisputable evidence of Russian interference and the “original sin” of supposed Kremlin malign activity. The unsubstantiated 2016 “hack” is continually cited as the “precedent” and “provenance” of more recent “reports” that purport to claim Russian interference.

Given the torrent of Russiagate derivatives expected in this U.S. election cycle, which is damaging U.S.-Russia bilateral relations and recklessly winding up geopolitical tensions, it is thus of paramount importance to listen to the conclusions of honorable experts like William Binney.

The American public are being played by their own intelligence agencies and corporate media with covert agendas that are deeply anti-democratic.


    Sunday, August 9, 2020

    If truth doesn't fit the narrative it doesn't exist?

    7-year-old boy in Georgia died 'from COVID-19'? Media leaving out key details

    It has been widely reported in the last several days that, sometime within the past ten days to two weeks, a seven-year-old boy from Chatham County (the Savannah area), Georgia died "from COVID-19."  If the media didn't say the child died "from COVID-19" they reported that he died "of COVID-19" or "of coronavirus."

    Even Fox News declared, "A 7-year-old old boy from Savannah, Ga., with no underlying conditions, became the youngest victim to die from the coronavirus ..."  (Emphasis mine.)  Like Fox News, virtually all of the media repeatedly reported that the child had "no underlying conditions."  Even my local radio station — repeating the deception every 30 minutes for hours on end — which, among other conservative programming, carries The Rush Limbaugh Show, helped perpetuate this latest example of Wuhan virus "fear porn."

    The AP — whose stories are often widely distributed in the media — did more accurately report that the boy died "with COVID-19."  However, the AP went on to say, "The boy had no other chronic health conditions, according to data released by the state[.] ... The boy's death comes amid nationwide debate about the risks that children face in getting infected or spreading the coronavirus, particularly as the school year begins."

    The implication is that schools should not reopen, fall sports should not be played, and America must remain in shutdown mode.  If not for our own sakes, we must do it "for the children!"  As is often the case with so many things when it comes to the Wuhan virus and the drive-by media, few things could be farther from the truth.

    As of late Friday evening, except for one Savannah TV station — whose more accurate account I first found via Facebook — I could find no drive-by media telling the whole story on this tragic episode.  WTOC reporter Cyreia Sandlin provides some crucial details on the seven-year-old's death that the vast majority of the media have so far ignored:

    So it seems that the boy died not "from COVID-19," but rather as the result of a seizure and a fall in the shower.  It seems that, prior to his death, the child had zero Wuhan virus symptoms, and that after he was pronounced dead, "a rapid test showed evidence of COVID-19 positivity."

    I don't know about you, but I've followed the news and the science on this virus as closely as most anyone, and I have yet to hear any reports of the Wuhan virus causing seizures.  If this were the case — especially where children are concerned — it is a virtual guarantee that the media would have daily told us so.  It would seem that fair and accurate reporting of this incident would include all of the circumstances surrounding this terrible tragedy and that this is almost certainly another example of someone dying with the Wuhan virus and not from it.

    All the media have done here is give us another reason not to trust them in this grave matter.

    Trevor Grant Thomas: At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
    www.trevorgrantthomas.com
    Trevor is the author of 
    The Miracle and Magnificence of America.
    tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com


    Monday, July 20, 2020

    A NYTimes story that was pure fabrication. One that the declassified documents refutes categorically. The fascism of the woke

    New York Times Stands By Report Of Trump-Russia Connections Despite FBI Memo Debunking It

    DON EMMERT/AFP via Getty Images
    Daily Caller News Foundation logo
    CHUCK ROSSINVESTIGATIVE REPORTER


    York Times is standing by a February 2017 report alleging that Trump associates were in communication with Russian intelligence officers, even after the release of an internal FBI memo that identified numerous inaccuracies in the story.
    “We stand by our reporting,” New York Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy told her own paper for its report on the newly released documents.
    Attorney General William Barr declassified two documents this week related to the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. One released Friday is a 57-page memo of interviews that dossier author Christopher Steele’s primary source conducted with the FBI in January 2017.
    The second is former FBI official Peter Strzok’s annotation of a Feb. 14, 2017, report that said four American officials claimed that authorities had intercepted communications and call logs of Trump advisers speaking with Russian intelligence. (RELATED: The New York Times Has A History Of Reaching Too Far On Intel Leaks)

    Monday, June 8, 2020

    HOW MUCH DO BLACK LIVES MATTER TO BLACKS?

    HOW MUCH DO BLACK LIVES MATTER TO BLACKS?


    Black lives matter. Unfortunately, they don’t matter to blacks as much as they should. If they did, the number of blacks killed by other blacks would be much, much lower. 
    And what about the black lives that have been lost at the hands of protesters and rioters this past week? Willis Krumholz identifies the known cases. 
    There’s retired St. Louis police captain David Dorn, who was shot and killed while protecting a friend’s store from rioters and looters. There’s Italia Marie Kelly, who was killed in a shooting in Iowa when the crowd of protesters became unruly. There’s Chris Beaty, who was shot and killed when he tried to stop thugs who were stealing purses during demonstrations. 
    There’s also Max Brewer. This black police officer is in intensive care after he was run over during protests. 
    Do these black lives matter? They do to me. I am saddened and appalled by these killing. However, with the exception of Dorn, I’ve seen virtually no coverage of the attacks that ended these black lives (or, in the case of Brewer, placed a black life in serious jeopardy). 
    Some of us subscribe to the view, considered heretical by the Black Lives Matter movement and its media boosters, that all lives matter. We are saddened and appalled by the killings of non-blacks during protests, some of which Krumholz describes. 
    Mainstream media outlets almost never mention them. Instead, as Krumholz says:
    The media. . .repeat the toxic narrative that police officers are targeting and killing black men when the hard data doesn’t come close to backing up their claims. They are willfully blind when “protestors” commit bad acts—like in Virginia, where firetrucks were blocked from going to a burning house that had a young child inside.
    Krumholz asks:
    Can a democratic-republic function when its media is so dishonest, it’s elite so corrupt, and when one of its major political parties allows street violence?
    His answer is: “probably not.” Right now, I can’t honestly disagree.

    Sunday, June 7, 2020

    Debate and free speech are no longer acceptable...only the left gets to decide everything.

    Why isn’t Andrew Sullivan allowed to write his column?

    He is not allowed to write articles about the protests without losing his job

    Cockburn
    June 5, 2020
    5:51 PM