Category Archives: L1

Sources on How the DNC Faked “Russian Interference”

This post expands my article “Russian Interference” Didn’t Happen in the American Thinker.

The DNC Used its Hack to Entrap Trump

The DNC and CrowdStrike Destroyed Evidence in June 2016

The Support for the “Russian Hacking” Theory Came from EU Intel

Steele was Known to the State Department as an Unreliable Source

The DNC, Hillary’s Campaign & FBI Colluded with Ukraine against Trump

The DNC, Hillary’s Campaign & the Obama administration attempted to Collude with Russia

The Obama Administration Hid its “Russian” Activities from Congressional Republicans

Misc Continue reading Sources on How the DNC Faked “Russian Interference”

Robert Mueller – More Conflicts of Interest

Update 2019-02-13: Finally, Trump’s former attorney John Dowd calls the conduct of the FBI brass and Mueller a coup:

““Little did I know that it appears that they were all in it together,” Dowd said. “I mean Rosenstein, Comey, Mueller, McCabe, the whole crowd and they were out to get this president no matter what. I don’t think they sincerely believed anything about Russia.””

““This is our worst nightmare that someone with that kind of power would then decide to go after the President. I mean it’s a coup,” Dowd said. “That’s what it is an attempted coup by Comey and his crowd. And the evidence is all over there. I take the New York Times article as an admission of their bad behavior.”” Continue reading Robert Mueller – More Conflicts of Interest

Aided by WaPo, China Interfered in the 2016 Elections For Hillary Against Trump

Since June 2016, WaPo has been the main firebrand of the Trump-Russia and Russian election interference conspiracy theories. Multiple WaPo “reporters” were Democratic campaign operatives (Greg Sargent et al.). Unbelievably , this operation was financed by the same power that paid Robert Mueller and the law firm WilmerHale. This firm employed Robert Mueller and four (!) other lawyers he employed in the investigation of Trump (the “Russia investigation” pretext has just disappeared). From the Daily Caller (October 2015), China, Russia Pay Washington Post To Publish Their Propaganda:

“Chinese and Russian propaganda supplements are regularly included in The Washington Post, but the widely read newspaper won’t say how much money it gets on the deals.

China Watch – a China Daily publication – and Russia Beyond The Headlines – a Rossiyskaya Gazeta publication – have both appeared in the Post for years as paid advertising supplements. Both foreign periodicals are owned and operated by their respective governments.” Continue reading Aided by WaPo, China Interfered in the 2016 Elections For Hillary Against Trump

Google Ad Blocker and Suppression of Non-Political Speech

Google’s suppression of “undesirable” speech went beyond conservative, Republican, and scientific opinions. Google also muzzled opinions in order to promote its products, eliminate potential competition, and manipulate (inflate) its stock price, including the suppression of

In its attempts to suppress conservative and Republican speech, as well as scientific, cyber-security, and medical research and information, Google went far beyond banning, de-ranking, and demonetizing content in its own search results, YouTube, and other platforms. Google also

  • Developed and deployed an ad blocker, designed to selectively block ads on pro-Trump political websites. The targeted websites include Breitbart, American Thinker, and DailyCaller, and the scientific website WattsUpWithThat. The move was so insidious that even its victims missed the motive behind such an illogical and self-harming act by a company that depends on ads for almost all of its revenues.
  • Persecuted conservative employees for their political views, in violation of California laws, resulting in a chilling effect on the speech of other Google employees and the employees of its actual and potential partners and vendors. Google managers compiled and disseminated lists of conservative employees. See James Damore lawsuit against Google.

Contrary to popular assumptions, Google, Facebook, and Twitter are likely not protected by Section 230 for hiding, de-ranking, and banning conservative, pro-Trump, climate realism and other “adversary” content. Section 230 provides protection to them only for: Continue reading Google Ad Blocker and Suppression of Non-Political Speech

Summary of the Brennan-Clapper Hoax

An article in the New Yorker, promoting the “Russian interference” conspiracy theory, referred to the first week of December 2016 as the time “when Obama was intent on an orderly transfer of power.” The real meaning of this phrase is that Obama has failed to orderly transfer power to the elected administration – for the first time in more than 200 years! On December 9, two day after Trump selected “climate denier” Scott Pruitt as the future EPA head, the Washington Post published a putative leak, falsely alleging that “Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others” and other lies. It also falsely claimed “that’s the consensus view” of the Intelligence Community. On the same day, Obama ordered a “full review” of the alleged Russian hacking, to be led by James Clapper, and delivered before January the 20th. But the “full review” has been completed much faster, on January the 5th. Miraculously, it took only one day to prepare an unclassified version of it! Of course, miracles don’t happen. Brennan and Clapper made a forgery, and released it in the morning of January the 6th before certification of the Presidential election by Congress!  Continue reading Summary of the Brennan-Clapper Hoax

Jeffrey Carr, the “Russian Hacking” Skeptic

Jeffrey Carr is a cyber-security expert, and one of few open skeptics of the narrative that the leaked DNC and/or DCCC internal documents came from hacking by Russia. Few remarkable quotes from his posts, mostly from 2016-2017.

Can Facts Slow The DNC Breach Runaway Train?

“Here’s my nightmare. Every time a claim of attribution is made — right or wrong — it becomes part of a permanent record; an un-verifiable provenance that is built upon by the next security researcher or startup who wants to grab a headline, and by the one after him, and the one after her. The most sensational of those claims are almost assured of international media attention, and if they align with U.S. policy interests, they rapidly move from unverified theory to fact.

Because each headline is informed by a report, and because indicators of compromise and other technical details are shared between vendors worldwide, any State or non-State actor in the world will soon have the ability to imitate an APT group with State attribution, launch an attack against another State, and generate sufficient harmful effects to trigger an international incident. All because some commercial cybersecurity companies are compelled to chase headlines with sensational claims of attribution that cannot be verified.”

Why aren’t there more skeptics in InfoSec?

“There’s a cost to being too critical. One infosec company threatened to sue a researcher if he didn’t make substantive changes to a published paper that was critical of their report. Many employers don’t allow their employees to express controversial opinions that could hurt the company’s business or reputation. And if the company or organization that you’re critical of has influential connections in Washington D.C., your professional reputation may suffer as well.”  Continue reading Jeffrey Carr, the “Russian Hacking” Skeptic

Mueller Investigation was Bought for more than ¥130k

2018-10-14 Update: Added clarifications and remarks on the relationships of the Mueller’s law firm WilmerHale with the government of China are added near the end. Also, the words “expectation of future business with China” were changed to “expectation of future income contingent on approval of Chinese government” to better reflect the structure of his compensation in WilmerHale.

In March 2017, two months before his appointment as Special Counsel, Robert Mueller received $24,000 (~ ¥130,000) from a firm owned by a top official of the Chinese government and the Communist Party of China. Almost certainly, he had expectation of future income contingent on approval of Chinese government. In exchange, he accepted, articulated, and publicly committed himself to the DNC conspiracy theory that “Russia had hacked the democracy”. Russia has hacked neither democracy nor the Democrats (despite them being near opposites). The DNC had an incompetent information systems team and an unprotected network that could have been hacked by anybody. For eight months the DNC fought FBI attempts to help, while possibly being suspicious of the FBI because of Hillary’s bathroom server. Persons who published the DNC’s dirty laundry or gave it to WikiLeaks are likely not connected to Russia at all and might be Americans. We don’t know their names because the Democratic Party made up the narrative that Putin ordered the DNC hacking and leaking of documents to aid Trump. Obama administration sent the FBI, CIA, DHS, and ODNI to confirm this narrative, rather than to investigate who had accessed the DNC voter’s database, believed to contain very detailed personal profiles of almost all adult Americans. The conspiracy theory of a Trump-Russia collusion was built on top of this narrative.

The firm that paid Mueller his ¥130k is the International Data Group (IDG), a subsidiary of China Oceanwide Holdings Group. Continue reading Mueller Investigation was Bought for more than ¥130k

Former Mueller’s Firm WilmerHale Works for China, too

Robert Mueller’s law firm WilmerHale has been working for China for long time. It has a large office in Bejing, the only WilmerHale office outside of the US and the EU. (https://archive.is/Wgabw, https://archive.is/2v8fG).

WilmerHale lobbied for China and legally represented China, but didn’t register as a foreign agent under FARA. WilmerHale achieved some of the most spectacular trade benefits for China (emphasis added):

With respect to China, our team includes the chief US architect and negotiator of China’s entry into the WTO and one of the leading regulatory lawyers in Beijing (and a member of the Board of Governors of the American Chamber of Commerce—People’s Republic of China). 

In advising on trade policy and trade negotiations, we have helped develop or shape key trade initiatives and legislation both in and outside government, including Congress’ landmark grant of Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China; negotiating priorities in the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement negotiations; congressional implementation of various US free trade agreements; and trade-related provisions in internet, patent and drug importation legislation.  Continue reading Former Mueller’s Firm WilmerHale Works for China, too

FBI/DHS Report GRIZZLY STEPPE was Junk

The GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity released jointly by FBI and DHS on December 29, 2016 was an update on another propaganda piece — the Joint Statement from DHS and ODNI on Election Security, published by the Obama administration on October 7 to aid Hillary and other fellow democrats in the elections.

GRIZZLY STEPPE was so incompetent that even convinced partisans laughed it off. Continue reading FBI/DHS Report GRIZZLY STEPPE was Junk

Imaginary Social Media Component of Imaginary Russian Meddling

The social media component of the alleged “Russian activities in the 2016 elections” was non-existent. The IRA, a.k.a. the “troll farm” in Russia, allegedly bought ads for about $100k; this is chump change and not even worthy of a government operation. Most of it has been spent on Facebook, and most ads ran AFTER the 2016 elections. Continue reading Imaginary Social Media Component of Imaginary Russian Meddling

Russian Activities in 2016 Elections were anti-Trump

It’s almost funny that the so-called Intelligence Community Assessment (January 6, 2017,  Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections) claimed that the Russian interference had been against Hillary and in favor of Trump, although most of the evidence in it demonstrated the opposite. RT (Russia Today TV) and IRA (Internet Research Agency, a “troll farm” in Saint Petersburg) agitated in favor of Hillary and the policies of the Democratic Party, and against Trump and the policies of the Republican Party.

RT was anti-Trump in the 2016 elections (from The Nation)

The Nation is far from being pro-Trump. I think it might be called an Old New Left. This is what it says on the subject, with the links to the RT footage. The following are long quotes from The Nation.

RT America Was Not ‘Pro-Trump’

The problem with the claim that RT America is pro-Trump is that it is simply false. Many of the channel’s biggest names were either ardently anti-Trump or highly skeptical of what a Trump presidency might mean for America.  Continue reading Russian Activities in 2016 Elections were anti-Trump

CrowdStrike, MIS Department, and the DNC

Hillary presidential campaign chairwoman Donna Brazile’s book Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House can be retold in one sentence:

The Russians have hacked the elections and poisoned my dog Chip.

Nevertheless, the book reveals some information concealed by Hillary and the DNC loyalists in FBI.

  • In August, seeing CrowdStrike’s helplessness, the DNC invited real cyber security people to form a competent network security team that the book calls the Hacker House, or HH. This contradicts the DNC official story that CrowdStrike was doing a fabulous job
  • HH found out that the DNC network was unprotected, and that anybody could have hacked into it 
  • HH informed DNC and Hillary’s campaign leadership of this fact and spent most of its time training DNC networking administrators
  • HH was asked, but refused to support allegations that the DNC network had been penetrated by “Russians.” HH also had run-ins with CrowdStrike.
  • The DNC, Hillary, and the Obama administration disregarded and suppressed this information. They continued their electoral campaign strategy: worsening relations with Russia, accusing Trump of collusion with Putin, and using the FBI, CIA, DHS, and ODNI to sabotage Trump’s campaign.  During the transition period, John Brennan and other Obama/Clinton loyalists used false allegations of the “Russian hacking” to attempt something like a coup d’état. The coup was not a complete failure – the angry Democrats have nearly wrestled control of the DOJ away from the elected president.

Continue reading CrowdStrike, MIS Department, and the DNC

A Review of the “Intelligence Community Assessment”

2018-10-03 update: I have just noticed that the declassified ICA text was published only a few hours before the joint session of Congress that certified Trump as the next president. James Clapper spent the previous day falsely alleging that the Assessment had been done by the U.S. Intelligence Community, pushed an exaggerated version of its conclusions, and leaked parts of it to the media. In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Clapper made repeated assaults on the president-elect. When referring to Trump’s sober reaction to the alleged assessment, Clapper uttered the following: “I’ve received many expressions of concern from foreign counterparts of what has been interpreted as disparagement of the intelligence community.” The Assessment and even the published-the-next-day ICA text were still classified and hidden from the president-elect! Now that seems like a last ditch effort to prevent Trump’s inauguration. BTW, who were his ‘foreign counterparts’ and why was he so concerned about their opinions?

Attached is a review of the declassified version of the notorious Intelligence Community Assessment, published on 01/06/2017. The declassified ICA text (“the ICA text” or “the text”, referring to the public version of the alleged assessment) regurgitates the Democratic talking points and allegations that Putin ordered interference in the 2016 elections, including claims that the alleged interference was directed against electing Hillary and in favor of electing Trump as president. The latter statement was supported only by the FBI and CIA, not by the NSA. The ICA demonstrated an extreme partisan bias in favor of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. The ICA text contains no declassified information. It repeats the same allegations over and over either without evidence, or with evidence refuting them. A quarter of the text is devoted to proving the obvious: that RT is controlled or directed by the Russian government.

Download

Continue reading A Review of the “Intelligence Community Assessment”

Origin of Operation “Crossfire Hurricane”

Needs update!  (See The Real Origination Story of the Trump-Russia Investigation and more recently published evidence)

2018-09-18. It’s possible that the DNC and/or Hillary campaign started preparing the “Russian collusion” story immediately after the initial attribution of the DNC network breach to Russia by CrowdStrike on May 6 (rather than on June 12, as assumed in the article.) That better explains the hiring of Christopher Steele in early June, the issuing of a visa to Natalia Veselnitskaya on June 1, the strange text of the email introducing Veselnitskaya to Trump Jr., and the meetings between Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS with her immediately before and after her meeting with Trump Jr.  Continue reading Origin of Operation “Crossfire Hurricane”

Voodoo Attributions in Cyber Security

The Official Attribution of Network Breaches is Based on Conspiracy Theories

The DNC has not been hacked by the Russian hacking groups Fancy Bear (APT28) or Cozy Bear (APT29) for one simple reason: neither of these groups exists or existed at any time.

APT (Advanced Persistent Threat) was a code name for Chinese Espionage. There were attempts to detect specific groups under the broad umbrella of the APT. Then Mandiant (later acquired by FireEye) attempted to generalize the definition to include putative state-sponsored hacker groups from other countries. But such generalization cannot work. The attribution of cyber-security incidents to state backed sophisticated hacker groups worked only for China because it was a cyber-fortress surrounded by the Great Firewall of China. Continue reading Voodoo Attributions in Cyber Security

Russian Bears with Donkey Ears

The “assessment” that the Russian government hacked the DNC and leaked its emails was wrong. It’s almost impossible to attribute a network breach to a sophisticated hackers group.

When #CrowdStrike and FireEye started making the fraudulent attribution on cyber security events, many other companies followed. The Obama regime has corrupted and dumbed down the DHS, DNI, and FBI. They bought this fraud, and then added some.

In 2016, Hillary and the DNC were deceived by CrowdStrike into believing that Russia was behind the leaks of their emails that shouldn’t have been written in the first place. Together with Obama they forced that deception on the FBI and intelligence. Then they blamed Russia for their election defeat!

Most successful network security breaches are conducted by criminal hackers, many of whom are based or originate from Russia and Eastern Europe. Most unsuccessful attempts are conducted by amateurs. Organizations should protect their networks, rather than blame nation states.

Read Jeffrey Carr, FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report: A Fatally Flawed Effort or Robert Graham, Dear Obama, From Infosec – both are (or were) anti-Trump.

Crimes of DNC Loyalists in DOJ and Intelligence

Even the New York Times admitted that Obama holdovers had committed crimes, probably including espionage, sedition, sabotage, obstruction of justice, and/or subornation of perjury in the transitional period. From the NYT March 1, 2017:

As Inauguration Day approached, Obama White House officials grew convinced that the intelligence was damning and that they needed to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see it, even if people without security clearances could not. Some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators — including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.

At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government — and, in some cases, among European allies. Continue reading Crimes of DNC Loyalists in DOJ and Intelligence

Big Tech is the new Big Tobacco, plus …

Big Tech is the new Big Tobacco!

In fact, it is much worse. Big Tech has committed much worse fraud on its consumers than the Big Tobacco has been accused. Worse, Big Tech funded groups intimidating its opponents, and even lawmakers and government officials. Big Tech also uses its control of the communications line to silence its critics.


Jun 4, 2018 – Google (GOOG, GOOGL), Facebook (FB), and Twitter (TWTR) use their internet gatekeepers’ positions to manipulate (inflate) their stock prices. Continue reading Big Tech is the new Big Tobacco, plus …

Intimidating the “Deniers” to Enforce the “Consensus”

Mark Morano has published on WUWT a bonus chapter that was too strong to make it into his The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change! From Intimidating the “Deniers” to Enforce the “Consensus”:

… why don’t more scientists buck the “consensus?” The answer is simple:
Anyone who questions the climate change scare is attacked and threatened. Continue reading Intimidating the “Deniers” to Enforce the “Consensus”

Google Search Fraud

Update.  The controlling legal precedent seems to be the following quote from the Supreme Court Decision:

“To determine whether an actor’s conduct possesses “sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play,” the Supreme Court has asked whether “[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.””

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989) (quoting Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410-11 (1974) (per curiam)).

When Google eliminates climate realist or conservative websites from its top search results, the “message” is certainly not understood by those who view it.  Further, this is the main purpose of this conduct – to suppress speech without other people understanding that. Google also flatly denies that it conveys any message in its search results.  It claims impartiality and attempts to provide “the most useful and relevant” search results. Thus, intentional distortion of the search results by Google does not even bring the First Amendment into play. It is really fraud, not speech.

Google Search is a commercial service that Google provides to its users.  Google must provide this service in good faith and in accordance with other applicable laws.  Google search is service, not “speech.”  Continue reading Google Search Fraud

Google and Twitter Censor non-Leftist Views Under Pretext of “Extremist Propaganda”

I read the testimonies of Google, Facebook, and Twitter executives before the Senate Commerce Committee on Combating the Spread of Extremist Propaganda (January 17, 2018), and I would advise you not to trust them very much.  Under the pretext of fighting “extremist propaganda” (a vague term, probably selected to conceal partisan differences on what constitutes extremist propaganda) Google and Twitter suppress speech dissenting from leftist orthodoxy.  For example, Google has demonetized some PragerU videos on a range of topics and is being sued by them.  I have been banned from Google AdWords and Twitter Ads for speech opposing climate alarmism.

The suppression of conservative websites in Google organic search results has been documented many times. Continue reading Google and Twitter Censor non-Leftist Views Under Pretext of “Extremist Propaganda”

Obamanet vs Freedom of Press

This article continues Obamanet vs. Net Neutrality, published in the American Thinker.  It is about how Obamanet (incorrectly called net neutrality) all but destroyed the freedom of press.  The new FCC, chaired by Ajit Pai, voted to repeal and replace it. The repealing order has not been published yet, but already encounters fierce resistance.  Thus, we will live under Obamanet for months or years.  It is important to understand it in depth, because it is much worse than thought even by conservatives.

The announcement that the FCC would regulate the internet under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act caused righteous outrage (for example: Like Obamacare? You Will Love ObamaNet, NRO, February 2015).  The full text was published weeks later and probably went unnoticed.  It’s a pity because saddling the internet with antiquated regulations was peanuts compared to its other effects:  Continue reading Obamanet vs Freedom of Press

Repeal of Fake Net Neutrality aka Obamanet

“Two and a half years ago, I said that net neutrality was ‘Obamacare for the Internet.’  At the time, the Obama administration, in its typically deceptive manner, had conflated net neutrality — a worthy idea, as originally defined, to protect an open internet — with reclassifying the internet as a public utility under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, a burdensome, behemoth of a law that gives all sorts of authority to the government …” – Senator Ted Cruz, May 1, 2017

On December 14, the Federal Communications Commission chaired by courageous Ajit Pai voted to repeal another Obama legacy: the Orwellian-named “Open Internet Order” FCC-15-24, or Obamanet.  Contrary and opposite to the fake news media’s claims, the Obamanet order weakened or eliminated net neutrality, which had been established as FCC regulatory policy in 2005 by the Bush administration. Continue reading Repeal of Fake Net Neutrality aka Obamanet

Oregon Petition: All Signatures were Verified. “Fact Checkers” Lie and Project

The Oregon Petition against climate alarmism has been signed by 31,000+ scientists and experts in the natural sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD holders, and all signatures have been verified.  Spicy allegations about petition distribution, signing, and the verification procedures spread by the enviros, leftists, Google, and the former mainstream media, are false. The following email from Dr. Art Robinson is published here with his permission.

Almost all of the signatures were collected in a period of two months in 1998 and again in 2007. All communication was by First Class mail to the potential signers. They signed the petition card, wrote in their credentials, and returned the card by first class mail – their stamp.
Continue reading Oregon Petition: All Signatures were Verified. “Fact Checkers” Lie and Project

Intentional Google Search Bias Paper Published

My new research paper A Method of Google Search Bias Quantification and Its Applications in Climate Debate and General Political Discourse is published in WUWT.  Most people observe that Google search results on political topics are left leaning.  But, it was hard to determine whether such leaning was a simple reflection of the left/liberal cultural dominance on the web or if the Google search team intentionally (or “artificially”) biased rankings.  This paper demonstrates and even quantifies such intentional or artificial bias.

After publication, I found a 2016 study that also shows that Google results are artificially biased in favor of liberal ideology and Democratic Party candidates: Google bias in search results; 40% lean left or liberal (Matt Bentley / CanIRank.com).  From the Matt Bentley study:

“Does it make sense, for example, that someone researching “Republican platform” should be presented only the official text of the platform and seven left-leaning results highly critical of that platform, with zero results supporting it?”

“… we would expect top ranked search results to have more external links compared to lower ranked search results.  Instead, pages demonstrating a left or far left political slant made it into the top results with significantly fewer external links compared to pages rated balanced. Pages with a right-leaning slant needed significantly more links to make it into the top results.”

“According to recent Google findings, online search is the resource that 87% of the population turns to first when a question arises. Online search plays a particularly prominent role in the democratic process during election season. During the 2012 election cycle, a survey of persuadable voters revealed that 49% get their news about campaigns and the election online, largely through search engines like Google, and that these voters generally trust the information they find online. Top search results are broadly perceived as being the most accurate and authoritative by members of the public with the first five search results accounting for an estimated 67% of all clicks and the first three results alone accounting for over 55% of all clicks. In their 2015 study, Robert Epstein and Ronald Robertson concluded that the order of search results can have a big impact on voter behavior — and in the event of a close election, this effect could even be profound enough to determine the outcome of the election.”

Facebook Filtered out Conservatives for Years

Contrary to its claims that Trending stories were selected automatically, Facebook used a team of hand-picked leftist journos that routinely suppressed “conservative” news.  Facebook denies that but its Guidelines had an obvious effect: a very aggressive filtering out of conservative news.

Gizmodo, May 9, 2016: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News (1)

Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users. Continue reading Facebook Filtered out Conservatives for Years

You Won’t Believe Who’s Behind “Battle for the Net”

The main organization behind the malicious smear campaign that fraudulently uses the phrase “net neutrality” is Free Press, a revolutionary Marxist group.  Robert W. McChesney, a founder of Free Press, sounds like Lenin.  From his 2014 article Sharp Left Turn for the Media Reform Movement (emphasis  is mine):

“In subsequent years the U.S. media reform movement blossomed, led primarily by a group I co-founded, Free Press. On a number of major issues … Free Press led the charge in Washington, DC. The thinking behind the group and the movement was to have one foot in the battles of the day as they were being fought in the capital, while having another foot doing organizing in the field, with the idea of expanding popular awareness and involvement in the movement. We realized that for most people the range of media policy outcomes then countenanced in Washington seemed abstract or inconsequential. We needed to capture their imagination with bold and radical proposals. The strategy was to create an army for structural media reform …”
Continue reading You Won’t Believe Who’s Behind “Battle for the Net”

The New York Lies: All the Lies that are Left to Print

Parody on the NY Times logo: The New York Lies: All the Lies that are Left to Print
The New York Lies: All the Lies that are Left to Print

Co-written with H.J.

Following the main article in WattsUpWithThat about the New York Times shamelessly revising already published articles, we added a few more observations and examples of inappropriate revisions.  These cases are outside the topic of climate debate. The revisions are substantial, undisclosed, and Continue reading The New York Lies: All the Lies that are Left to Print

More Media Caught Stealthily Altering Published Articles

Co-written with H.J.

It’s no secret that formerly respectable and mainstream media outlets have become fake news purveyors.  Whatever it is that drove journalists to lie and manipulate, the evidence exists to prove their intent to deceive.

Much like television commercials and print advertisements, news stories are written to sell the reader something. Many times, what the news outlets are selling is politically motivated. On almost any given topic they choose to cover, they’ve been seen to cherry pick quotes that are in line with their interests and agendas, to omit relevant information that may harm their stand on something, and to use language that falsely imputes guilt on Republicans and conservatives.

The list below includes several examples of stealthy and manipulative alterations of already published  news articles by the Washington Post and CNN. Continue reading More Media Caught Stealthily Altering Published Articles