5 Times Corporate Media Got Caught Publishing Fake News Causing the Death & Suffering of Millions.


A now-notorious list of ostensibly “fake” news sites — created by a liberal professor, seemingly out of thin air — spread like wildfire online in the past two days and was eagerly reprinted by corporate media presstitutes hoping to vindicate their own failed reporting on the 2016 election.

But branding perfectly legitimate outlets with the same scarlet letter as those devoid of integrity deemed the professor’s list a spurious attempt to defame alternative and independent media — anyone dissenting from the left’s mainstream narrative — as a whole.

This is, in no uncertain terms, a hit list — or, at least, a laughable attempt — and it fits conveniently into the establishment’s burgeoning war on independent media disguised as a battle against fake news.

When corporate media outlets from the Independent and Business Insider, to the Los Angeles Times and NYMag scrambled over one another to reprint this irresponsibly contrived hit list, they proved yet again a lack of journalistic integrity — the same issue that originally caused regular subscribers to abandon them in the first place.

Indeed, in this otherwise unknown professor’s foray into the world of journalism, a glaring mistake was made — the only mainstream outlets making the list were those who had heralded Bernie Sanders as the best candidate for the White House.

Such an obvious attempt to control thought could only be conjured in a totalitarian regime.

In fact, failing to place the exact corporate media organizations on the list, who for nearly a year praised fealty only to Hillary Clinton — and for decades have foisted on the public countless mendacious whoppers — constitutes a comedic lack of honesty. So, to bring that irony front and center, it’s imperative to examine some mainstream lies — most of which had appalling consequences — including the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the United States and around the world.

1. George W. Bush’s Weapons of Mass Destruction

President George W. Bush decided to unleash the full force of the U.S. military upon the world in a new policy of war writ large disguised as a war on terrorism following the attacks of September 11, 2001. First arbitrarily designating Afghanistan as its primary victim due to the supposed identities of the attackers, Bush then chose Iraq to feel the wrath, and set out to invade the country following dubious claims Saddam Hussein harbored destructive chemical and biological weapons and was actively seeking far stronger munitions.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” the president asserted in a public address on March 17, 2003. “This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s neighbors and against Iraq’s people.”

Bush’s assertions were questioned by not only human rights experts, but by U.N. weapons inspectors and countless others — so shortly after the U.S. invaded the sovereign nation, the New York Times took up the slack to fill in the appropriate casus belli.

Judith Miller notoriously reported on a source she described only as an Iraqi scientist who had seen several extensive caches of such weapons stored somewhere in the country. American weapons experts, she claimed, “said the scientist told them that President Saddam Hussein’s government had destroyed some stockpiles of deadly agents as early as the mid-1990’s, transferred others to Syria, and had recently focused its efforts instead on research and development projects that are virtually impervious to detection by international inspectors, and even American forces on the ground combing through Iraq’s giant weapons plants.”

In hindsight, Miller’s problematic report turned out to be horrendously flawed, and the Times spent months attempting to backtrack, but the damage — fomenting widescale public support for a war no one wanted the military to undertake — had been done. Years later in 2014, the Times — after much internal strife — again took up Miller’s case, in a series reporting catastrophic injuries U.S. military personnel suffered in handling chemical weapons in Iraq. But that report, and the parroting of it by multiple other mainstream mainstays, failed to fully disclose Hussein had been oblivious to the stockpiles presence — something the CIA had clearly stated in a report.

2. Gulf of Tonkin Incident

Often, the American mainstream media becomes a de facto government employee, taking the claims of U.S. officials and reporting them as proven fact — and nothing exemplifies this penchant better than reporting on the Gulf of Tonkin incident — perhaps one of most flagrant lies ever dreamed up as a justification for war.

On August 5, 1964, the New York Times reported “President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and ‘certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam’ after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.” Additional outlets, such as the Washington Post, echoed this claim.

But it wasn’t true. At all. In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as it became known, turned out to be a fictitious creation courtesy of the government to escalate war in Vietnam — leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of U.S. troops and millions of Vietnamese, fomenting the largest anti-war movement in American history, and tarnishing the reputation of a nation once considered at least somewhat noble in the eyes of the world.

In 2010, more than 1,100 transcripts from the Vietnam era were released, proving Congress and officials raised serious doubts about the information fed to them by the Pentagon and White House. But while this internal grumbling took place, mainstream media dutifully reported official statements as if the veracity of the information couldn’t be disputed.

Tom Wells, author of the exhaustive exposé “The War Within: America’s Battle Over Vietnam,” explained the media egregiously erred in “almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information” and “reluctance to question official pronouncements on ‘national security issues.’”

If due diligence had been performed, and reporters had raised appropriate doubts about the Gulf of Tonkin false flag, it’s arguable whether support for the contentious war would have lasted as long as it did.

3. Suppression of brutality perpetrated in Bahrain during the Arab Spring

CNN sent reporter Amber Lyon and a crew to U.S. ally Bahrain for a documentary about technology’s role in the 2011 people’s uprising known as the Arab Spring, ultimately titled “iRevolution: Online Warriors of the Arab Spring” — but what they encountered instead bore the hallmarks of a repressive and violent regime, and its attempt to filter and censor the truth. Lyon and the other CNN reporters went to great lengths to speak with sources participating in the massive uprising — one the Bahraini government wished to quash at all costs.

“By the time the CNN crew arrived,” the Guardian reported, “many of the sources who had agreed to speak to them were either in hiding or had disappeared. Regime opponents whom they interviewed suffered recriminations, as did ordinary citizens who worked with them as fixers. Leading human rights activist Nabeel Rajab was charged with crimes shortly after speaking to the CNN team. A doctor who gave the crew a tour of his village and arranged meetings with government opponents, Saeed Ayyad, had his house burned to the ground shortly after. Their local fixer was fired ten days after working with them.”

Even the CNN crew experienced the wrath of the regime, upon showing up to interview one source, the Guardian continued, “‘20 heavily-armed men’, whose faces were ‘covered with black ski masks’, ‘jumped from military vehicles’, and then ‘pointed machine guns at’ the journalists, forcing them to the ground. The regime’s security forces seized their cameras and deleted their photos and video footage, and then detained and interrogated them for the next six hours.”

After returning to the U.S., Lyon felt it her duty to expose the abuse being perpetrated by the government of an ally nation — but CNN International didn’t agree. CNN U.S. eventually aired the one-hour documentary. Once. CNN International never did — worse, the organization gave Lyon the cold shoulder, ignoring her repeated requests to return to Bahrain, which would have put CNN ahead of the game in reporting government brutality. Its failure to air the documentary and refusal to provide justification for doing so angered seasoned CNN and other mainstream established journalists across the board.

Lyon met with CNN International president Tony Maddox twice — he first promised to investigate why the documentary wasn’t aired, and then turned against her, warning the journalist not to discuss the matter publicly. Bahraini officials contacted CNN International repeatedly complaining about Lyon’s continued reporting on what she’d witnessed. Intimidation continued until she was eventually laid off, putatively for an unrelated matter.

Attempting to save face, CNN International rebuffed the Guardian’s account and interview with Lyon — but the effort was an impotent justification for the obvious failure of integrity.

But threats for Lyon to remain silent followed her off the job, and when she persisted in exposing the Bahraini regime, as well as the suppression by CNN, the outlet sent a stern warning to halt. Lyon, however, said she had never signed a non-disclosure agreement and would not be pressured into their lies — ultimately walking away reputation in hand — something that could not be said for CNN.

4. That time Fox News hired a CIA operative who wasn’t a CIA operative

Wayne Shelby Simmons made guest appearances on Fox News as a security expert with insider expertise from his work as a CIA operative — for over a decade. However, Simmons had never been employed by the agency — in fact, the imposter’s lies eventually caught up with him and he was arrested and sentenced to 33 months in prison.

“Instead of verifying whether Simmons had actually worked for the CIA, Fox News and the Agency allowed him to make fools out of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Andrew Napolitano, Neil Cavuto, and everyone at Fox & Friends for over the last twelve years. After building a false reputation as a CIA agent on Fox News, Simmons obtained an interim security clearance when an unnamed government contractor hired him in 2008. Simmons also falsely claimed on national security forms that his prior arrests and criminal convictions were directly related to his supposed intelligence work for the CIA, and that he had previously held a top secret security clearance from 1973 to 2000,” The Free Thought Project’s Andrew Emett explained.

In other words, mainstream Fox News didn’t bother with journalism at all — proffering fake expertise as the real deal — because the outlet failed the most basic of tasks any hourly wage employer would perform.

Simmons’ commentaries weren’t harmless stabs in the dark, either — relentlessly parroting baseless Islamophobic rhetoric to drum up support for the government’s insidious war on terror likely poisoned the minds of thousands of viewers, furthering the already divisive atmosphere in the U.S.

5. Vapid anti-marijuana propaganda and the furtherance of the war on drugs

According to the Drug Policy Alliance, over $51 billion is spent fighting the war on drugs in the United States — each year. In 2015, a striking 38.6 percent of all arrests for drug possession were for cannabis — 643,121 people were arrested for marijuana-related offenses.

What those figures don’t show are the millions of lives ruined by criminal conviction for the government’s unjustifiable quest to eradicate, demonize, and vilify this beneficial plant. It would be an impossible task to tally the number of families whose homes have been destroyed by SWAT teams searching for marijuana — whether or not police bothered to verify an address. An untold number of others have been slain by police for the same reason.

But worst of all, the mainstream media propagates nonsensical, false propaganda about cannabis to convince the gullible and ignorant among us to equate it with heroin, cocaine, and other ‘illicit’ substances. And while a majority of the populace has seen through such lies, some outlets have obstinately continued the drug war — seemingly of their own volition.

One stunning example occurred in March last year, when Dr. David Samadi made a guest appearance on Fox News to fearmonger the horrors of marijuana and scare the bejeezus out of the viewing audience.

“It actually causes heart attacks. It increases your heart rate. And on and on,” Samadi claimed, fecklessly distorting statistics. “We’re seeing in Colorado that we had 13 kids that came to the emergency [room] and ended up in the ICU as a result of overdose from marijuana. Now we have crack babies coming in because pregnant women are smoking this whole marijuana business.”

Fortunately, the Internet has provided the public with alternatives to these corporate media lies — and as of two years ago, despite these and other claims about pot being a dangerous substance, Pew Research Center found fully 69 percent of the population felt alcohol was more harmful than cannabis.


UC Irvine Professors Modify Curriculum To Prepare Students For “Life Under An Avowed White Supremacist President”.


For over a week now we have all sat grinding our teeth as we read story after story of our precious, millennial, snowflake children melting down at universities around the country over Trump’s victory.  Some took to the street to protest and destroy private property while others were just so distraught that they convinced professors to postpone tests or simply cancel classes altogether so they could stay in bed all day.

Well, some professors at the University of California Irvine have decided to be a bit more proactive in addressing the psychological needs of their distressed students who are all apparently finding it very difficult to exist in Trump’s new America.  Specifically, professors of the university’s composition department have a decided to craft a whole new syllabus that will “help prepare our students for life under an avowed white supremacist presidential administration.”


While dissatisfaction with the results is not entirely surprising, what is more concerning is that instructors are discussing means of changing course content because of Trump’s win. On Wednesday, instructors from the university’s composition department met to discuss ways to shift course curricula to help prepare students for life under Trump.


In an email sent earlier this week and shared with InsideSources, a course administrator asked graduate teaching assistants for the writing courses to gather for a meeting “wherein we could discuss ways to use the various composition curricula to help prepare our students for life under an avowed white supremacist presidential administration.”


To help start discussion, the administrator proposed “presenting the following ‘Trump Syllabus’ at the meeting, and we can go from there.” (The Trump syllabus is a mock syllabus of books and readings assembled by historians N. D. B. Connolly and Keisha N. Blain as an example of a course that would “address the critical subjects of racism, sexism, and xenophobia on which Trump has built his candidacy.“)


By discussing “ways to teach the rhetorical triangle politically,” the department hoped to coordinate ways in which instructors teaching different sections could inspire their students “to think critically about racism and public speech.”


And here is the syllabus in all its glory:



That “blood coming out of her…wherever” quote never gets old.

Of course, this new syllabus comes in response to protests organized by UC Irvine’s frail students and a “group cry meet and greet” in which students were encouraged to “bring all their Bernie shirts.”


After the results came in, students at Irvine, like their compatriots at campuses across the country, responded emotionally. On the night of the election, some 300 started a Dump Trump protest march ending with an open mic and speakers. Another group sponsored a “group cry meet and greet” at the school’s Langson Library, asking people to invite their friends and to “Bring all your bernie shirts ;( (sic).” That event was later disrupted by unrelated reports of fire and moved outside.

When will the madness end?

By: Tyler Durden

Obama and Angela Merkel Blame Internet and Social Media for Disrupting Globalism.


“Because of the internet and communications, the clash of cultures is much more direct,” Obama said during a press conference on his trip to Berlin. “People feel, I think, less certain about their identity. Less certain about economic security.”

Obama predicted that the rise of technology needed to be managed to give world citizens more control, beyond the simplistic answers found online.

His German counterpart agreed.

“Digitization is a disruptive force, a disruptive technological force that brings about deep-seated change, transformation of a society,” Merkel added.

She compared the internet to the invention of the printing press, citing the consequences it had on industrialized countries.

“It took a while until societies learned how to find the right kind of policies to contain this and to manage and steer this,” she said.

Obama blamed social media for creating a climate where facts didn’t matter, asserting that facts were the basis of democracy. Social media, he explained, allowed people to get their information “in sound bites” off their phones.

“Part of ways changed in politics is social media and how people are receiving information,” he said, “It’s easier to make negative attacks and simplistic slogans than it is to communicate complex policies.”

He warned that “active misinformation” packaged for Facebook was a problem when it’s creators tried to equate an “overzealousness” of a United States government official with a foreign dictator.

“If we can’t discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems,” he warned.

It’s not the first time that President Obama has griped about media, as he has floated suggestions of some kind of regulation of the internet.

In October, he pointed out that it was time to move the internet beyond the “Wild Wild West” stage and proposed “truthiness tests” for media companies online.

Merkel has demonstrated a propensity for censorship for social media, specifically to social media posts criticizing a flood of Syrian refugees into the country.

Source: Breitbart

EU the Toothless Tiger, Totally Dysfunctional Until it Disintegrates Into Oblivion.

The EU is splintering right before the EU nannycrat’s eyes, but they don’t see it.

Instead they scream “more Europe”.

Here are two more cases in point, both from today.

The EU is already extremely upset with Ireland’s corporate tax rate, and seeks a uniform EU-wide rate.

Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister, says to to hell with that: Hungary to Offer EU’s Lowest Corporate Tax rate.


Hungary’s government is to cut its corporate tax rate to the lowest level in the EU in a sign of increasingly competitive tax practices among countries seeking to lure foreign direct investment.

Prime Minister Viktor Orban said a new 9 per cent corporate tax rate would be introduced in 2017, significantly lower than Ireland’s 12.5 per cent.

Mr Orban has signalled a desire to reduce taxes since Hungary emerged from EU budgetary discipline measures in 2013. Hungary raised some taxes in 2010 to avoid an international bailout.

Public debt has fallen below 75 per cent of gross domestic product and the country’s economy is forecast to expand by 2.1 per cent in 2016 and 2.6 per cent in 2017, above the EU average.

Mihaly Varga, economy minister, said government reserves up to Ft200bn ($688m) would cover the costs of the measures next year. An official said they hoped the impact on the budget would eventually be neutralised by increased investment.

Hungary’s parliament has already approved the 2017 budget and it is unclear when a vote on the measures will take place.

Poland Smells Victory Over EU Nannycrats

Also consider Poland Scents victory over Brussels in Court Tussle.

Emboldened by votes for Brexit and Donald Trump, the rightwing nationalist administration in Poland believes it is close to outmanoeuvring the European Commission in a bellwether case that exposes the weaknesses of the EU’s oversight of democratic standards.

The ruling Law and Justice party, led by Jaroslaw Kaczynski, has for a year ignored the commission’s increasingly threatening demands to roll back reforms that in effect neuter the country’s constitutional tribunal, a court designed to check parliamentary power.

The defiant stance has come despite the commission’s threats of sanctions and its unprecedented decision to accuse Warsaw of endangering democracy, which some EU officials fear will be found to be toothless.

“As far as we are concerned, there is no procedure,” said a senior Polish diplomat in reference to the “rule of law” measures brought against the country. “We want to fix this problem by ourselves. There is almost no one in Warsaw who will listen to what the commission wants to say.

“We should not be triumphalist … but I do not expect any developments,” he added, echoing comments by other senior officials.

The EU has faced a dilemma over how to respond to Poland. The commission relies on member state support for its warnings to carry weight.

Yet Poland’s ally Hungary will block any action, and Germany and other big countries are unwilling to intervene for fear it would achieve nothing but sour relations with Warsaw. Jean-Claude Juncker, the commission president, has hinted that proposing sanctions would be pointless “because some member states are already saying they will refuse to invoke it”.

“We should not be triumphalist … but I do not expect any developments,” he added, echoing comments by other senior officials.

The EU has faced a dilemma over how to respond to Poland. The commission relies on member state support for its warnings to carry weight.

Yet Poland’s ally Hungary will block any action, and Germany and other big countries are unwilling to intervene for fear it would achieve nothing but sour relations with Warsaw. Jean-Claude Juncker, the commission president, has hinted that proposing sanctions would be pointless “because some member states are already saying they will refuse to invoke it”.

I don’t think there’s anything we can do,” said a senior EU diplomat involved in the issue.

Polish politicians have taken courage from Britain’s vote to leave the EU, calculating that other member states do not want to risk alienating another country. They also view Mr Trump’s election as the final nail in the coffin for an international effort to force them into compromise.

Toothless Tigers

In the utterly foolish way the EU is setup, it takes a unanimous vote to do nearly anything.

Trade deals take forever and reforms are non-existent. France will never give up its agricultural tariffs and the EU sits and watches.

There is nothing the EU can do about France, about Poland, about Hungary.

In fact, there is nothing the EU can do about anything except for authority already granted by the treaty. All the EU can do is piss and moan and issue threats, until there is a unanimous opinion.

There are some treaty provisions for all-against-one. But in this case, Poland and Hungary scratch each other’s back.

EU Totally Dysfunctional

The nannycrat non-solution is “more Europe” and more power to Brussels.

Try selling that to Poland, Hungary, or Italy. Heck, try selling that idea to Germany or France.

Germany fears a transfer union, and France fears revocation of agricultural policy.



Google Gets a Seat on the Trump Transition Team.


Google is among the many major corporations whose surrogates are getting key roles on Donald Trump’s transition team.

Joshua Wright has been put in charge of transition efforts at the influential Federal Trade Commission after pulling off the rare revolving-door quadruple-play, moving from Google-supported academic work to government – as an FTC commissioner – back to the Google gravy train and now back to the government.

The Intercept has documented how Wright, as a law professor at George Mason University, received Google funding for at least four academic papers, all of which supported Google’s position that it did not violate antitrust laws when it favored its own sites in search engine requests and restricted advertisers from running ads on competitors. George Mason received $762,000 in funding from Google from 2011 to 2013.

Wright then became an FTC commissioner in January 2013, agreeing to recuse himself from Google cases for two years, because of his Google-funded research. He lasted at the FTC until August 2015, returning to George Mason’s law school (now named after Antonin Scalia). But Wright also became an “of counsel” at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Google’s main outside law firm. Wilson Sonsini has represented Google before the FTC.

Wright’s leadership position in the Trump FTC transition flips him back into government work. The FTC has two open seats on its five-member panel, and Chair Edith Ramirez’s term ends in April 2017. So Trump will be able to remake the agency, which has responsibilities over consumer protection and policing anti-competitive business practices, like the employing of monopoly power. Outside of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, no government agency is more responsible for competition policy than the FTC.

Whether Wright recommends himself to an FTC commissioner slot or not, it’s clear that he would favor those who see only upside from market consolidation. Indeed, in a New York Times op-ed on Monday, Wright explained his view that “a high level of concentration in an industry simply does not mean the industry lacks competition.” He argued that mergers are often good for consumers because they lower prices and improve product quality.

This flies in the face of a raft not just of common sense, but also of new research from the Council of Economic Advisers, the Federal Reserve, and academics, showing that excessive mergers lead to price hikes, lower productivity, and weakened economic vitality.

The appointment clarifies to some extent how a Trump administration will operate on antitrust policy, especially as it relates to Silicon Valley. Trump’s personal history on the issue is mixed: He sued the NFL over antitrust violations while a team owner in the rival USFL, but also successfully defended himself against charges that he tried to monopolize the casino business in Atlantic City.

During the campaign he presented a populist viewpoint on the issue. Perhaps out of personal animus, Trump has shown a particular willingness to investigate large media companies over antitrust, including threatening to blow up the pending AT&T-Time Warner merger (Time Warner is the parent company of CNN) and vowing to investigate Amazon (whose CEO Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post). Because of Silicon Valley’s significant support of the Clinton campaign and Google’s deeply intertwined relationship with the Obama presidency, it was thought that Trump would also go after the tech industry. For example, Trump’s Federal Communications Commission transition leader, Jeffrey Eisenach, once supported breaking up Microsoft.

But the selection of Wright, one of Big Tech’s biggest defenders in Washington, changes that calculus. Now it look as if Trump’s high-level attacks on his enemies might not flow down to the appointees inside the bureaucracy, who could be more inclined to wave through big media mergers and decline to enforce high-tech collusion.

Google is currently facing antitrust allegations in Europe. In May, Politico reported that the FTC planned to take a second look at Google’s search bias, three years after they closed an investigation, despite reported recommendations to prosecute from agency staff. Having someone on the Google payroll twice doing hiring for the new Administration may halt any new investigation at the FTC.