Nearly 5 Times As Many Police Officers Killed Themselves Than Were Shot In 2019


23-01-20 10:26:00,

Authored by Matt Agorist via The Free Thought Project,

In 2019, according to the Officer Down Memorial Page, 47 police officers were shot, 7 killed in a vehicular assault, and three died from assault. Another 77 cops died as a result of car crashes, heart attacks, and illnesses. Absent from the database of fallen officers, however, are the 228 cops who ended their own watch. This number is a giant leap from the year before and the fourth consecutive year that it’s risen.

As the number of officers killed in the line of duty decreased by 20%, the number of cops taking their own lives has increased 35%. The website Blue H.E.L.P. (Honor. Educate. Lead. Prevent.) has already recorded five officer suicides in 2020.

The mainstream media often portrays the unfortunate random killing of police officers as analogous to a larger “war on cops.” The reality is that there is a concerted public relations effort underway, on the part of law enforcement, with the intention of stemming the growing public calls for more oversight and accountability.

If law enforcement were genuine about wanting to save the lives of cops, they would begin by attempting to put focus on the out of control epidemic of police suicides, which dwarfs the number of cops fatally shot the line of duty. Cops are killing themselves at a rate 4 times higher than they are dying in the line of duty and this subject seems entirely taboo.

Over the past three decades, the number of on-duty police killings has decreased substantially. Instead of attempting to fix the glaring problems in policing, law enforcement has invested itself in attempting to distract and divide the public. With the help of mainstream media, they attempt to portray themselves as victims of a rabid and out of control anti-police campaign which is violently and systematically targeting cops. But this is simply not true.

If people really care about cops, then it’s incumbent upon them to focus on the true threats to officers’ lives and not just buy into the spin machine.

The public must realize the dire situation, and extreme scope of the mental health epidemic currently facing law enforcement.

 » Lees verder

New York Times Reveals America’s Weapons-Makers Drive Trump-Impeachment


04-01-20 10:30:00,

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

A remarkably non-propagandistic news-report, in the New York Times, by Eric Lipton, Maggie Haberman and Mark Mazzetti, included powerful evidence that the impeachment-effort against US President Donald Trump is motivated, in part if not totally, by a desire by US Senators and Representatives – as well as by career employees of the US Departments of Defense, State Department, and other agencies regarding national defense – to increase the sales-volumes of US-made weapons to foreign countries.

Whereas almost all of the contents of that article merely repeat what has already been reported, this article in the Times states repeatedly that boosting corporations such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Northrop-Grumman, has been a major — if not the very top — motivation driving US international relations, and that at least regarding Ukraine, Trump has not been supporting, but has instead been trying to block, those weapons-sales — and creating massive enemies in the US Government as a direct consequence.

The article, issued online on Sunday, December 29th, is titled “Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze: 84 Days of Conflict and Confusion”, and it quotes many such individuals as saying that President Trump strongly opposed the sale of US weapons to Ukraine, and that,

In an Oval Office meeting on May 23, with Mr. Sondland, Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Blair in attendance, Mr. Trump batted away assurances that [Ukraine’s current President] Mr. Zelensky was committed to confronting corruption. “They are all corrupt, they are all terrible people,” Mr. Trump said, according to testimony in the impeachment inquiry.

In other words, Trump, allegedly, said that he didn’t want “terrible people” to be buying, and to receive, US-made weapons (especially not as US aid — free of charge, a gift from America’s taxpayers).

The article simply assumes that Trump was wrong that “they are all terrible people.”

Indeed, Trump himself has sold hundreds of billions of dollars worth of US-made weapons to the Royal Saud family who own Saudi Arabia, and he refuses to back down about those sales on account of that family’s having been behind the widely-reported torture-murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi,

 » Lees verder

25 Times Trump Has Been Dangerously Hawkish On Russia


18-11-19 04:07:00,

CNN has published a fascinatingly manipulative and falsehood-laden article titled “25 times Trump was soft on Russia“, in which a lot of strained effort is poured into building the case that the US president is suspiciously loyal to the nation against which he has spent his administration escalating dangerous new cold war aggressions.

The items within the CNN article consist mostly of times in which Trump said some words or failed to say other words; “Trump has repeatedly praised Putin”, “Trump refused to say Putin is a killer”, “Trump denied that Russia interfered in 2016”, “Trump made light of Russian hacking”, etc. It also includes the completely false but oft-repeated narrative that “Trump’s team softened the GOP platform on Ukraine”, as well as the utterly ridiculous and thoroughly invalidated claim that “Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS.”

NEW ANALYSIS: We tallied 25 times Trump was SOFT ON RUSSIA. Examples: He praised Putin. Denied Russian meddling. Said Russia can keep Crimea. Reluctant to impose new sanctions. Attacked NATO. Congratulated Putin’s election. Withdrew from Syria. (1/4)

— Marshall Cohen (@MarshallCohen) November 17, 2019

CNN’s 25 items are made up almost entirely of narrative and words; Trump said a nice thing about Putin, Trump said offending things to NATO allies, Trump thought about visiting Putin in Russia, etc. In contrast, the 25 items which I am about to list do not consist of narrative at all, but rather the actual movement of actual concrete objects which can easily lead to an altercation from which there may be no re-emerging. These items show that when you ignore the words and narrative spin and look at what this administration has actually been doing, it’s clear to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that, far from being “soft” on Russia, Trump has actually been consistently reckless in the one area where a US president must absolutely always maintain a steady hand. And he’s been doing so with zero resistance from either party.

It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall;

 » Lees verder

The New York Times Is A Lying Machine –


14-10-19 12:52:00,

October 14, 2019
| Categories: Guest Contributions
| Tags: | Print This Article Print This Article

The New York Times Is A Lying Machine

My Jewish friend, Stephen Lendman, is a truth-teller.  That is the basis of our friendship.  I often repost his insightful columns.  Here is one of his best about the New York Times Lying Machine.

It is amazing that the “newspaper” that tells the most lies in human history is the “newspaper of record.”  There will be nothing for future historians but lies. 

Share this page

More from Guest Contributions ↓  » Lees verder

FBI Data Shows 5 Times More People Killed by Knives Than Rifles Last Year


07-10-19 04:39:00,

By Matt Agorist

On September 30, the FBI issued a press release noting they have published their 2018 crime statistics. Most notable about the report is the fact that despite constant fear mongering by the mainstream media and the government that crime is running rampant, the number of violent crimes decreased 3.3 percent as compared to the previous year. Also contained in the report were the numbers and causes of deaths in murder cases. Although the FBI did not make the comparison themselves, when reading the data we can see the number of murders carried out with knives or cutting devices was five times higher than the number of murders carried out with rifles. This comparison is particularly important given the current gun climate in America.

Before we go on, it is important to mention that handguns were responsible for the majority of firearms deaths. It is also important to point out that all firearms deaths combined made up the majority of all murders in the United States. Of the 14,123 murders in 2018, 10, 265 of them involved firearms—a 7 percent drop from the previous year. That being said, the number of rifle deaths is extremely important given that this is the weapon most often targeted by gun grabbers.

Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” Democratic presidential candidate Beta O’Rourke recently said to a crowd in Houston, Texas. “We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”

But as the statistics show, it really isn’t being used against that many Americans. In fact, far more Americans are dying by knives. According to the FBI data, 1,515 were stabbed, cut, or maimed to death by a knife or other cutting instrument. This is a number 5 times higher than those killed by rifles, which sits at just 297.

What’s more, twice as many people were beaten to death with hands, fists, and feet (672) than were killed by rifles. And, nearly 150 more people (443) were bludgeoned to death with hammers and other blunt objects than killed with rifles.

The weapon most often targeted by gun grabbers appears to play a rather tiny role in the majority of murders carried out in the United States.

 » Lees verder

Like the Sun, but 10 times hotter: Pivotal step in creation of plasma-powered reactor


26-07-19 05:55:00,

An alliance of 35 countries has finished laying the groundwork for one of humanity’s most ambitious experiments – to harness nearly unlimited amounts of energy by creating ‘small stars’ on Earth.

The extreme heat and gravity inside the core of the Sun and other stars make hydrogen atoms collide and fuse into heavier helium atoms, releasing tremendous amounts of energy in the process. Scientists want to replicate a similar mechanism on Earth in order to generate energy that will be efficient, renewable and carbon emission-free, so it will not cause climate change.

Moreover, controlled fusion reactions are projected to create four million times more energy than the burning of coal, oil or gas, and four times as much as nuclear power plants. However, the design of a large-scale fusion device requires immense resources, so a decade ago 35 countries combined their efforts to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). The reactor is being constructed outside the Cadarache research center in southern France, and the EU, the US, Russia, India, South Korea and Japan are among the participants in the ambitious project.

Also on
Russia’s floating nuclear power plant ready to heat up the Arctic

Fusion is facilitated by high temperature, which triggers the high-energy collision of the atoms, and dense plasma, which makes such collision more likely. To control the reaction, the scientists are planning to build a tokamak, an experimental doughnut-shaped vessel-like device, capable of confining and controlling the ultra-hot plasma with powerful magnets. The idea of tokamaks was suggested by the Soviet physicists in the 1950s, and the first workable small-scale tokamaks were designed by a team led by Lev Artsimovich in the late 1960s.

The workers at the ITER paved the way for the installation of a tokamak this week when they set up an Indian-built cryostat base and its lower cylinder. Once fully completed, it will be a huge 3,085-ton stainless steel vacuum-pressure chamber needed to maintain an ultra-cool environment for tokamak’s magnets. This will help the device to generate a magnetic field powerful enough to contain plasma that will reach up to 150 million degrees Celsius, about 10 times hotter than in the Sun’s core.

 » Lees verder

Sind die großen US-Medien wie die New York Times ein Sprachrohr des Sicherheitsapparats?


28-06-19 08:41:00,

Bild: Haxorjoe/CC BY-SA-3.0

Die Geschichte über die Angriffe des Cyberkommandos auf das russische Stromnetz scheint die Komplizenschaft der “freien Presse” zu bestätigen, wenn es um nationale Sicherheit geht

Vor wenigen Tagen veröffentlichte die New York Times (NYT) einen Artikel, in dem aufgrund von anonymen Quellen aus der Regierung dargelegt wurde, dass das Cyberkommando des Pentagon verstärkt Cyberangriffe auf das russische Stromnetz und andere Einrichtungen ausführe. Als Teil des “digitalen Kalten Kriegs” zwischen Russland und den USA würden nun “Cybertools” aggressiver als bislang eingesetzt, nachdem US-Präsident Donald Trump die Einsatzregeln im September 2018 gesenkt hat (Vor einem Cyberwar? USA legen “Cyberminen” im russischen Stromnetz). Schon zuvor hatte Sicherheitsberater John Bolton erklärt, dass hier die Obama-Regierung zu “passiv” gewesen sei und dass man nun offensiv zurückschlagen werde.

Schon Ende des letzten Jahres hatten die berüchtigten anonymen “Offiziellen”, die gerne die Medien bedienen oder eher: instrumentalisieren, erklärt, es würde ein Cyberangriff auf Russland geplant (Angeblich bereitet das Pentagon einen Cyberangriff auf Russland vor). Im Februar soll dann ein Angriff auf das Computernetz der russischen “Trollfabrik” diese kurzzeitig ausgeschaltet haben. Und jetzt kam also mit dem sich hochschaukelnden Konflikt mit dem Iran die über die NYT vermittelte Warnung an Moskau, dass das Cyberkommando ins russische Stromnetz eingedrungen sei und dort Schadprogramme eingebracht hat, die im Ernstfall aktiviert werden könnten.

Russland sprach zwar von zahlreichen Cyberangriffen, die aber hätten abgewehrt werden können. Das Stromnetz sei sicher. Donald Trump reagierte höchst verärgert und nannte die Veröffentlichung der Cyberangriffe einen “virtuellen Verrat” der “einst großen Zeitung, die so verzweifelt auf eine Story, auf jede Story ist, auch wenn sie für unser Land schlecht … UND AUCH NICHT WAHR ist!” Die Frage bleib freilich offen, warum Trump von einem Verrat sprach, wenn die Story nicht stimmt.

NYT hat sich abgesichert

Die NYT fand es beunruhigend, des Verrats bezichtigt zu werden. Sie postete am Tag darauf einen Tweet und erklärte, Medien des Verrats zu beschuldigen, sei “gefährlich”. Was sie nicht schrieb, dass mit Assange gerade ein Fall vorliegt, bei dem es wegen der Veröffentlichung von Informationen um Verrat und hohe Gefängnisstrafen, wenn nicht um die Todesstrafe geht.

 » Lees verder

Free Press? NY Times Admits It Sends Stories To US Government For Approval Before Publication


27-06-19 04:32:00,

Authored by Ben Norton via The Grayzone Project,

The New York Times casually acknowledged that it sends major scoops to the US government before publication, to make sure “national security officials” have “no concerns.”

The New York Times has publicly acknowledged that it sends some of its stories to the US government for approval from “national security officials” before publication.

This confirms what veteran New York Times correspondents like James Risen have said:

The American newspaper of record regularly collaborates with the US government, suppressing reporting that top officials don’t want made public.

On June 15, the Times reported that the US government is escalating its cyber attacks on Russia’s power grid. According to the article, “the Trump administration is using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively,” as part of a larger “digital Cold War between Washington and Moscow.”

In response to the report, Donald Trump attacked the Times on Twitter, calling the article “a virtual act of Treason.”

The New York Times PR office replied to Trump from its official Twitter account, defending the story and noting that it had, in fact, been cleared with the US government before being printed.

“Accusing the press of treason is dangerous,” the Times communications team said.

“We described the article to the government before publication.”

“As our story notes, President Trump’s own national security officials said there were no concerns,” the Times added.

Accusing the press of treason is dangerous.

We described the article to the government before publication. As our story notes, President Trump’s own national security officials said there were no concerns.

— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) June 16, 2019

Indeed, the Times report on the escalating American cyber attacks against Russia is attributed to “current and former [US] government officials.” The scoop in fact came from these apparatchiks, not from a leak or the dogged investigation of an intrepid reporter.

‘Real’ journalists get approval from ‘national security’ officials

The neoliberal self-declared “Resistance” jumped on Trump’s reckless accusation of treason (the Democratic Coalition,

 » Lees verder

CEOs made 287 times more money last year than their workers did


26-06-19 12:40:00,

After years of kicking and screaming, corporate executives have finally released pay data on what their CEO makes versus their median worker.

Unsurprisingly, the gap is obscene. The average chief executive of an S&P 500 company earned 287 times more than their median employee last year, according to an analysis of the new federal data released Tuesday by the AFL-CIO labor federation. America’s CEOs earned a staggering $14.5 million in 2018, on average, compared to the average $39,888 that rank-and-file workers made. And CEOs got a $500,000 bump compared to the previous year, while the average US worker barely got more than $1,000.

This is the first year in which all public companies were required to disclose CEO-to-workers pay ratios in filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Before, companies only needed to report compensation for their top executives.

The new disclosures — largely opposed by corporate America — are part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. The purpose is to provide shareholders with more information to judge corporate behavior — and to shame executives for their excessive pay.

Chief executives at America’s largest companies don’t get paid the way the average worker does. Beyond a set salary, CEOs’ compensation packages include other forms of income, such as bonuses, company stock options, and long-term incentive payouts, which can vary based on performance and the status of the stock market.

The new analysis relies on the most conservative measure of CEO pay, based on the value of stock options when they were awarded to executives, not when they were cashed out.

Companies that rely on low-wage, part-time workers were among those with the largest pay disparities. Tesla had the most shocking one: Elon Musk made 40,668 times more money than the median Tesla employee. Among the largest US companies, the clothing brand Gap had the largest disparity. CEO Arthur Peck made 3,566 times more than the median company employee, who only made about $5,800. McDonald’s, Foot Locker, and Estee Lauder reported jaw-dropping pay gaps, too.

Here are the top ten companies in the S&P 500 with the largest pay ratios:

AFL-CIO Executive Paywatch report 2018


 » Lees verder

4 Times the US Threatened to Stage an Attack and Blame it on Iran : The Corbett Report


18-06-19 12:39:00,

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Watch this video on BitChute / YouTube

The US has threatened to stage an attack and blame it on Iran over and over in the last few years. Don’t let a war based on false pretenses happen again. Please share this video.



CLAWSON: I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough and it’s very hard for me to see how the United States president can get us to war with Iran. Which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming, that the traditional way of America gets to war is what would be best for US interests.

Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War II. As David mentioned, you may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. Some people might think Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War I. You may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think that Mr. Johnston wanted to send troops to Vietnam. You may recall they had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. We didn’t go to war with Spain until the USS Maine exploded. And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing would the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.

So if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.


I would just like to suggest that one can combine other means of pressure with

sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean, look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down. Someday one of them might not come up. Who would know why? We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I’m not advocating that, but I’m just suggesting that this is not an either-or proposition of,

 » Lees verder

New York Times meldet US-Cyberangriffe auf Russland – Das sind die Reaktionen aus Russland | Anti-Spiegel


16-06-19 05:01:00,

Ich habe gestern über einen Artikel der New York Times berichtet, die über Cyberangriffe der USA gegen Russland geschrieben hat. Heute gab es erste Reaktionen in den russischen Medien.

Ich werde dazu einen Bericht des russischen Fernsehens übersetzen. Zuvor jedoch ein paar Worte zu dem gestrigen Artikel.

Per Email wurde ich gefragt, ob offizielle russische Reaktionen vorliegen. Die Antwort ist nein, bisher habe ich keine offiziellen Reaktionen der russischen Regierung finden können. Im russischen Fernsehen gab es jedoch in einem Beitrag ein kurzes Interview mit den Chef des russischen Komitees für Cybersicherheit, der mitteilte, man habe derartige Angriffe registriert, aber das sei Routine und nichts gefährliches sei festgestellt worden. Nun, wir kommen hier in einen Bereich, bei dem es auch um Geheimhaltung geht und außerdem kann es sein, dass Russland die von der New York Times gemeldeten Angriffe tatsächlich nicht entdeckt hat. Hier kann man also nur spekulieren.

Ein Leser kritisierte mich, weil ich über den Artikel der New York Times selektiv berichtet habe, denn in dem Artikel wurde als Begründung für das aggressive Verhalten der USA angeführt, man reagiere auf russische Cyberangriffe aus der Vergangenheit. Das Problem ist, das bisher nicht ein einziger solcher Angriff von neutraler Seite bestätigt wurde, es handelt sich lediglich um unbelegte Vorwürfe der USA gegen Russland. Und dass die USA jede Aggression stets mit dem aggressiven Verhalten anderer begründen, ist bekannt. Das Problem dabei ist, dass diese US-Vorwürfe sich alle hinterher entweder als Lüge oder als von den USA selbst provoziert herausgestellt haben. Daher hat man ganz objektiv allen Grund, misstrauisch zu sein, wenn die USA jemandem etwas vorwerfen. Als Beispiele sei nur an den Golf von Tonkin, die Brutkastenlüge und Saddams Massenvernichtungswaffen erinnert.

An dieser Stelle bin ich bereit, eine Wette einzugehen: Ich fordere jeden, der mir hier nicht zustimmt, dazu auf, mir auch nur einen Krieg der USA in den letzten 100 Jahren zu nennen, bei dem die USA tatsächlich angegriffen wurden, ohne das selbst provoziert zu haben. Ich kenne kein solches Beispiel.

Die New York Times hat mehrfach ausdrücklich und wörtlich von „aggressiven Operationen“ gesprochen, das sind also nicht meine Worte, es waren Zitate der Quellen der New York Times. Im letzten Absatz meines Artikels habe ich dazu geschrieben: „Den deutschen Mainstream Journalisten würde eher die Hand abfaulen,

 » Lees verder

New York Times: USA führen “aggressive Operationen” gegen Russland im Cyberspace aus | Anti-Spiegel


16-06-19 08:04:00,

Die New York Times berichtet heute, dass die USA gegen Russland einen Cyberkrieg führen.

Die USA sind ein Land, das verkündet hat, dass es Cyberangriffe als Kriegsgrund ansehen würde, auch die Nato hat mitgeteilt, das Cyberangriffe als Grund für das Ausrufen des Verteidigungsfalles nach Artikel 5 des Nato-Vertrages angesehen werden. Die USA führen aber selbst solche Angriffe gegen andere Länder durch. Die USA haben, wie wir seit Snowden wissen, Schadprogramme, die sie in die Infrastruktur anderer Länder eingebracht haben. Damit können sie die Stromversorgung lahmlegen oder auch Krankenhäuser usw. „abschalten“. In Venezuela haben sie das vor kurzem vorgeführt.

Nun schreibt die New York Times darüber, dass die USA solche Programme auch in Russland eingeschleust haben. Die Zeitung berichtet von Interviews mit Regierungsmitgliedern, die sagten, dass die USA in den letzten Jahren ihre Bemühungen in diese Richtung noch verstärkt haben und schon seit 2012 Schadprogramme in Russlands Infrastruktur einschleusen. Dann heißt es:

„Aber nun ist die amerikanische Strategie mehr in Richtung Offensive gerückt, wie Offizielle mitteilen, und es wurde potenziell lähmende Malware in russischen Systemen platziert und zwar in einer Tiefe und Aggressivität, wie es nie zuvor versucht worden ist.“

Der Befehlshaber des US-Cybercommand, General Paul M. Nakasone, sprach von einer „Vorwärtsverteidigung“. Das Cybercommand wurde von Trump erst im Sommer per Dekret gegründet, wobei der genaue Inhalt des Dekretes bis heute geheim ist. Weiter zitiert die Zeitung einen Regierungsbeamten mit den Worten:

„Es ist in den letzten Jahren viel weiter gegangen und viel aggressiver geworden. Wir machen Dinge in einem Ausmaß, die wir uns vor wenigen Jahren noch gar nicht vorstellen konnten.“

Wie tief die USA in russsische Systeme eingedrungen lässt sich nicht sicher sagen, denn das ist geheim. Die Zeitung fragt jedoch, ob die USA sogar im Stande sind, das russische Militär zu lähmen. Das aber, so die Zeitung, weiß man erst, wenn der „Code aktiviert“ wurde.

General Nakasone hat bei anderer Gelegenheit bereits mitgeteilt, es gäbe einen Plan mit dem Namen „Nitro Zeus“, mit dem Iran im Falle eines US-Angriffes „abgeschaltet“ werden kann. Die Bemühungen im Cyberkrieg nannte ein Professor der Universität Texas die „Kanonenbootpolitik des 21. Jahrhunderts“. Die USA wollen ihre Fähigkeiten ganz bewusst auch als Drohung einsetzen, um Länder einzuschüchtern oder ihre Politik zu beeinflussen.

 » Lees verder

How Many Times Must Assange Be Proven Right Before People Start Listening?


24-05-19 07:20:00,

And there it is. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been charged by the Trump administration’s Justice Department with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act, carrying a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison. Exactly as Assange and his defenders have been warning would happen for nearly a decade.

The indictment, like the one which preceded it last month with Assange’s arrest, is completely fraudulent, as it charges Assange with “crimes” that are indistinguishable from conventional journalistic practices. The charges are based on the same exact evidence which was available to the Obama administration, which as journalist Glenn Greenwald noted last year declined to prosecute Assange citing fear of destroying press freedoms.

Hanna Bloch-Wehba, an associate professor at Drexel University’s Thomas R. Kline School of Law, has called the indictment “a worst-case, nightmare, mayday scenario for First Amendment enthusiasts.” Bloch-Wehba explains that that the indictment’s “theories for liability rest heavily on Assange’s relationship with Manning and his tendency to encourage Manning to continue to bring WikiLeaks material” in a way that “is not readily distinguishable from many reporter-source relationships cultivated over a period of time.”

One of the versions of the New York Times‘ report on the new Assange indictment, which has since been edited out but has been preserved here in a quote by Slate, said that “officials would not engage with questions about how the actions they said were felonies by Mr. Assange differed from ordinary investigative journalism. Notably, The New York Times, among many other news organizations, obtained precisely the same archives of documents from WikiLeaks, without authorization from the government.”

This is the issue, in three sentences.

— Jameel Jaffer (@JameelJaffer) May 23, 2019

Press freedom organizations have been condemning these new espionage charges in stark and unequivocal language.

“Put simply, these unprecedented charges against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are the most significant and terrifying threat to the First Amendment in the 21st century,” reads a statement by Freedom of the Press Foundation Executive Director Trevor Timm. “The Trump administration is moving to explicitly criminalize national security journalism,

 » Lees verder

New York Times Denies Health Impacts of 5G Cellphone Technology – Global Research


17-05-19 04:25:00,

The New York Times continues to descend further into spewing fiction masquerading as news. Its most recent analysis challenges Judith Miller‘s delusional screed about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction as sheer nonsense. Evidently the Times has a propensity for disgracing itself. Now the newspaper’s latest low is William Broad’s essay, “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise,” touting a wild conspiracy theory that 5G technology’s severe risks to human health and the environment is a covert Russian plot intended to sow confusion into the minds of the American public.

As a patriotic loyalist of Russo-paranoia, Broad has dreamed up a hallucination that Russia is preparing to outpace the US’s strategy to dominate the global “internet of everything” in the race to launch 5G technology globally. Aside from Broad’s otherwise corporate friendly stances supporting hydrofracking, genetically modified foods, and the myth that vaccines do not contribute to neurological disorders, he has produced some excellent work about Yoga culture and North Korea. Yet these are hardly topics that would enable a person to speak intelligently about electromagnetic frequency’s (EMFs) biomolecular effects on living organisms. 

Seen in its context, the Time’s article was timely. It was published just days before the National Day of Action to Halt 5G on May 15th.  The event was launched by Americans for Responsible Technology and has earned the support of nearly one hundred organizations including the Environmental Health Trust, the EMF Safety Network, Parents for Safe Technology, Wireless Radiation Education and Defense, among others.  Since the telecom industry and FCC have no viable science to support their claims, through the mouthpiece of the Times it has found a voice to further fuel the nation’s Russia mania. 

Source: The New York Times

Broad argues there is no scientific support for 5G signals contributing to brain tumors, infertility, autism, heart tumors and Alzheimer’s disease. Although the research may arguably offer less than 100 percent certainty, the scientific evidence unquestionably confirms that 5G is assuredly unsafe. Persons already suffering from electromagnetic sensivities will have no means of escape. And tens of thousands of scientists and medical experts agree. Contrast this with the Europa EM-EMF guideline that found “strong evidence that long-term exposure to certain EMFs is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers,

 » Lees verder

The NY Times Invokes Russia & Conspiracy Theories in Attempt to Stifle 5G Opposition – Global Research


14-05-19 12:44:00,

On the eve of the May 15th 5G Day of Action, the first national campaign to push back against the unchecked deployment of 5G-ready small cell infrastructure, the New York Times has published a shameful and wildly inaccurate hit piece asserting that opponents of 5G are being unwittingly manipulated by Russia.

The article, “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise,” focuses exclusively on a television network most people have never heard of – RT America – and argues that the tiny network, controlled by the Russian government, is the sole driving force behind the growing public opposition to 5G.

The Times cleverly conflates 5G-enabled smart phones with 5G small cell antennas, and fails to note that RT America is just one of many media outlets that are covering the controversy over 5G antenna deployment, including Fox News and CNN.

It also neglects to mention the hundreds of recently published, peer-reviewed, independent scientific studies from highly credible academic institutions and our own National Institutes of Health that demonstrate biological harm, including cancer, from exposure to RF microwave radiation. A listing of some of the most recent studies is located here.

Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg welcomes New York Times CEO Mark Thompson at a recent announcement of their 5G joint venture.

Although the Times acknowledges its investment in a 5G joint venture with the telecom giant Verizon, it fails to mention another clear conflict of interest: the pages of the Times are filled with full-page color ads for wireless companies like Verizon which stand to make billions from new services made possible by the deployment of 5G-enabled small cell antennas on virtually every block of every street in America.

In the article, the Times attempts to disparage a highly credible academic researcher and medical professional with no financial stake in the debate, while quoting so-called “experts” with ties to industry but no credentials or experience in public health. Without any evidence, the Times smugly concludes that there is absolutely no risk related to 5G.

Based on the science, we are certain of the risk,

 » Lees verder

The Times plaatst pro-Corbyn brief Brits-Joodse overlevers Holocaust


20-03-19 01:03:00,

Een week nadat de Britse krant The Guardian een lezersbrief weigert van 200 Brits-Joodse vrouwen die Labour-voorzitter Jeremy Corbyn verdedigen tegen beschuldigingen van antisemitisme publiceert The Times wel een gelijkaardige brief van 12 Holocaust-overlevers. Dat is merkwaardig omdat The Times van Rupert Murdoch meestal alleen Corbyn-bashers aan het woord laat.

“De Gelijkheids- en Mensenrechtencommissie (een Britse autonome overheidsinstelling, nvdr) heeft een onderzoek gestart om na te gaan of de Labour partij antisemitisme in eigen rangen behandelt in overeenstemming met de Wet op Gelijkheid. Wij, Brits-Joodse overlevers van de Holocaust geloven niet dat er enig vooroordeel of vijandigheid wordt begaan door Labour, en als er al (enige vorm van antisemitisme) zou bestaan binnen de partij, dan is die minimaal en niet meer aanwezig dan in eender welke andere politieke partij.”

Jeremy Corbyn heeft integendeel al het mogelijke gedaan om het Joodse volk te helpen

“Jeremy Corbyn heeft integendeel al het mogelijke gedaan om het Joodse volk te helpen. De media-aandacht voor de partij Labour in het algemeen en voor Corbyn in het bijzonder wordt gecreëerd door anti-Labour en anti-Corbyn relschoppers, die jammer genoeg disproportioneel aanwezig zijn in het zogenaamd Brits-Joods leiderschap – een leiderschap dat niet wordt erkend door mainstream Haredi (strikt orthodoxe) Joden.”

“De echte huidige dreiging voor het Joodse leven in Groot-Brittannië is het anti-religieus opvoedingsbeleid dat onmeedogenloos wordt nagestreefd door Ofsted (De Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills is de Britse inspectiedienst van het onderwijs, nvdr). Tot onze grote spijt krijgen zij volle steun van de organisaties van dit zogezegd Brits-Joods leiderschap, samen met bepaalde seculaire groeperingen die geen bezwaar hebben tegen discriminatie van mensen met een religieus geloof.” 

Jacob Ostreicher, Avigdor Langberg, Leah Stern, Minia Meisels, Mendel Glausiusz, Eli Schreiber, Kurt Winter, Tauba Posen, Roslie Kornbluh, Abraham Just, Hushi Schreiber, Hyman Bindinger 

Een aantal anti-Corbyn personen poogden de authenticiteit van één van de ondertekenaars, Hyman Bindinger, te ondermijnen, maar werden snel op hun nummer gezet door Yad Vashem, the Word Holocaust Remembrance Centre.

 » Lees verder

New York Times Becomes Really A Puppet of the Deep State? | Armstrong Economics


19-01-19 09:02:00,

This entire affair of desperately trying to paint Trump in league with Putin to defeat Hillary is beyond any comprehension.  Not a single left-wing press from the New York Times to CNN will ever report the truth that the release of Hillary’s emails NEVER involved altered or forged documents. They were all REAL! So this entire conspiracy they are so desperate to create against Trump is astonishing. I would agree if there was any proof that the release of the emails was a fraud or fake and they traced to Putin. To paint Trump in a conspiracy for releasing emails that exposed the truth behind Hillary should warrant us sending a thank you card to Putin if he was ever actually involved.

I cannot imagine how unethical wand intentionally misleading the New York Times actions were by reporting their latest questionable piece with a bold headline: “F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia.” They claimed that after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, the feds began investigating whether the President was an intelligence threat. This simply says that some people in the FBI tried to use their power to investigate and were most likely politically motivated. They did not claim Trump was such an agent, only that they investigated to see if he was. This suspicion of an anti-Trump political member of the FBI in the Deep State emerged after Trump complained about Comey to Russian diplomats and then told NBC’s Lester Holt that he had the “Russia thing” in mind when he axed the director. Even the Russian Dossiers on Trump ended up being funded by Hillary to smear her opponent.

For the record, our DIRECT SOURCES from inside the FBI are really disgusted with this entire affair and believe that Comey and crew have done serious harm to the image and independence of the FBI. They used the agency for political purposes and have dragged its image into the mud. The New York Times nor CNN would ever print such a posture for they want to paint the FBI as 110% behind Comey and against Trump. They are contributing to the collapse in fair and trust in government with long-term implications to shift the financial capital from the USA to China post-2032.

 » Lees verder

This Problem Is 10,000 Times Bigger Than The Border Wall


18-01-19 05:46:00,

Authored by Simon Black via,

We are in the midst of the longest government shutdown in history.

Don’t get me wrong, I like having the government shut down. As I’ve said before, I believe it is my moral duty to pay as little taxes as possible.

The government does some really stupid things with your tax dollars. I’d rather not pay for a $2 billion Obamacare website that doesn’t work, or to defend Congressmen against sexual assault allegations.

So, by starving the beast, I at least ensure they’re not squandering my money.

But I think it’s ridiculous that this government posturing is financially crippling the 800,000 government workers (and millions of contractors) who are now out of work – or being forced to work without pay. To be fair, last night the president signed a law guaranteeing they would be paid for past work – a month into this fiasco. It’s a step in the right direction, as there’s a word for forcing people to work without pay – slavery.

That’s why I offered to pay the rent of any government workers hurt by the shutdown. I am using my tax savings to bail out some of these government workers the feds left high and dry.

But at its core, this whole shutdown comes down to a disagreement over $5 billion. That is how much money Trump wants to build the border wall between the US and Mexico. And Congress refuses to fund it.

Granted, that’s a lot of money to you and me. And it should be a lot of money to the government, too.

But the government is almost $22 TRILLION in debt and adding another trillion every single year.

We are talking about a fight over an expenditure that amounts to .02% of the total national debt.

Social Security is $50 TRILLION underfunded by the government’s own estimates. Tens of millions of Americans are relying on Social Security for retirement.

How is that going to be funded? That’s a problem 10,000 times bigger than this fight over funding a border wall.

 » Lees verder

New York Times hit piece on Trump and NATO exposes alliance as outdated and obsolete (Video)


18-01-19 04:52:00,

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at the New York Times hit piece citing anonymous sources, with information that the U.S. President dared to question NATO’s viability.

Propaganda rag, the NYT, launched its latest presidential smear aimed at discrediting Trump and provoking the establishment, warmonger left into more impeachment – Twenty-fifth Amendment talking points.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The American Conservative

The New York Times scored a serious scoop when it revealed on Monday that President Trump had questioned in governmental conversations—on more than one occasion, apparently—America’s membership in NATO. Unfortunately the paper then slipped into its typical mode of nostrum journalism. My Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “nostrum” as “quack medicine” entailing “exaggerated claims.” Here we had quack journalism executed in behalf of quack diplomacy.

The central exaggerated claim is contained in the first sentence, in which it is averred that NATO had “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is wrong, as can be seen through just a spare amount of history.

True, NATO saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism. But it did so not over 70 years but over 40 years—from 1949 to 1989. That’s when the Soviet Union had 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops poised on Western Europe’s doorstep, positioned for an invasion of Europe through the lowlands of Germany’s Fulda Gap.

How was this possible? It was possible because Joseph Stalin had pushed his armies farther and farther into the West as the German Wehrmacht collapsed at the end of World War II. In doing so, and in the process capturing nearly all of Eastern Europe, he ensured that the Soviets had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad or within 1,200 miles of Moscow. This vast territory represented not only security for the Russian motherland (which enjoys no natural geographical barriers to deter invasion from the West) but also a potent staging area for an invasion of Western Europe.

The first deterrent against such an invasion, which Stalin would have promulgated had he thought he could get away with it,

 » Lees verder

Die „New York Times“ als Jago – Wie man durch das Säen von Misstrauen Friedensbemühungen untergräbt –

Die „New York Times“ als Jago – Wie man durch das Säen von Misstrauen Friedensbemühungen untergräbt –

12-09-18 07:35:00,

12. September 2018 um 9:00 Uhr | Verantwortlich:

Die „New York Times“ als Jago – Wie man durch das Säen von Misstrauen Friedensbemühungen untergräbt

Veröffentlicht in: Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, Länderberichte, Medienkritik, Strategien der Meinungsmache

Als „Teil des stillen Widerstands innerhalb der Trump-Regierung“ hat sich ein anonymer Autor in der US-Tageszeitung „New York Times“ bezeichnet. Der Kommentar sei ein Meisterwerk betrügerischer Irreführung, sagt die US-Journalistin Diana Johnstone, die diesen Artikel analysiert hat, der beispielhaft ist für eine auf namenlosen Quellen beruhende Kampagne. Johnstones Text wurde übersetzt von Gabriele Herb, er ist bei Paul Craig Roberts erschienen. Von Diana Johnstone.

Bei der Produktion von Fake-News übertrifft die „New York Times“ sich wieder einmal selbst. Es gibt keine zuverlässigere Quelle für Fake-News als die Geheimdienste, die ihre Lieblingsmedien – die „New York Times” und die „Washington Post“ – regelmäßig mit Sensationsstorys versorgen, die so unverifizierbar sind wie ihre Quellen anonym. Ein Musterbeispiel dafür war der Bericht vom 24. August, der besagte, die US-amerikanischen Geheimdienste wüssten nichts über die Pläne Russlands, unsere Wahlen im November zu vermasseln, weil „Informanten, die (…) Putin und dem Kreml nahestehen“, nichts verlauten lassen. Nichts zu wissen über etwas, wofür es keine Beweise gibt, ist ein seltener journalistischer Coup.

Eine Story wie diese ist nicht dazu gedacht, „die Öffentlichkeit zu informieren“, enthält sie doch keinerlei Informationen. Sie verfolgt andere Ziele: nämlich die Story von „Russland untergräbt unsere Demokratie“ auf den Titelseiten zu halten. Diesmal noch mit dem Extra-Dreh des Versuches, bei Putin Misstrauen gegenüber seinem Umfeld zu säen. Der russische Präsident soll sich fragen: „Wer sind diese Informanten in meinem Umfeld?“

Dies war jedoch gar nichts gegen den Klopper, den das „Leitmedium“ am 5. September veröffentlichte. Es ist immer die gleiche Leier: Trump böse, Putin böse – böse, böse, böse. Es geht um den sensationellen Gastbeitrag mit dem Titel „Ich bin Teil des Widerstands innerhalb der Trump-Regierung“ eines nicht namentlich genannten Autors.

Meisterwerk betrügerischer Irreführung

Der Beitrag von Herrn oder Frau Anonym ist sehr gut formuliert. Er könnte von jemandem wie, sagen wir, Thomas Friedman stammen, das heißt, einem Mitarbeiter der „New York Times”. Der Beitrag ist sehr geschickt aufgebaut,

 » Lees verder

New York Times “anonymous” op-ed is the mainstream media’s latest magic trick

New York Times “anonymous” op-ed is the mainstream media’s latest magic trick

08-09-18 09:46:00,

Let’s get something clear from the start. In 1976, in his 20s, John Brennan was a card carrying communist who supported the then Soviet Union, at the height some might say of the Cold War, so much so he voted and assisted Gus Hall, the communist candidate for President against a devout Christian, Jimmy Carter who ultimately won the Presidency.

Yet under four years later, just after the then Soviet Union invaded, just weeks before, Afghanistan and months after the tumultuous Iranian revolution of 1979, which at the time many thought the Soviet Union had a hand in, Brennan was accepted into the CIA as a junior analyst.

At that time, John Brennan should have never got into the CIA, or any Western Intelligence agency given his communist background.

Think on that carefully as you continue to read this.

Also reflect on the fact that Brennan, later in his CIA career, was surprisingly elevated from junior analyst to the prestigious position of Station Chief in Saudi Arabia where he spent a few years.

Its said he was appointed purely for ‘political’ reasons, alleged to have been at the direct request of Bill Clinton and other Democrats not because of a recommendation or merit from within the Agency.

Its further said that the Saudis liked Brennan because he became very quickly ‘their man’ so to speak. Some reports, unsubstantiated, even allege Brennan became a Muslim while there to ingratiate himself with the Saudis.

Important to read is an NBC news article entitled ‘Former Spooks Criticize CIA Director John Brennan for Spying Comments’ by Ken Dilanian dated March 2nd, 2016.

The article contains many revealing facts and evidence, while giving a flavour, of the feelings of many in the CIA who felt that Brennan was totally unsuitable and unqualified to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

(This is the link to the above referenced article: us-news/brennan-joking-when- he-says-cia-spies-doesn-t- steal-n529426. )

A final controversy is the little known fact of Brennan’s near four year departure from the CIA into the commercial world, having been ‘left out in the cold’ from the CIA, from November 2005 to January 2009 when he was CEO of a private company called ‘The Analysis Corporation’.

 » Lees verder

New York Times gushes with admiration over kindness of ISIS-Al Qaeda towards people of Idlib

New York Times gushes with admiration over kindness of ISIS-Al Qaeda towards people of Idlib

04-09-18 11:06:00,

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss a recent Reuters report with a headline making an incredible claim of human rights abuse from the Chinese government: “U.N. says it has credible reports that China holds million Uighurs in secret camps.”

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Turns out this headline was false. The United Nations stated it never said such a thing, or made such a claim.

Reuters and just about every mainstream media publication and television network picked up on the story and reported it as fact. No retraction has been submitted by Reuters, or any other news publication for that matter.

As Ajit Singh from Global Research writes, “one American member of an independent UN body made a provocative claim that China was interning 1 million Muslims, but failed to provide a single named source. And Reuters and the Western corporate media ran with it anyway, attributing the unsubstantiated allegations of one US individual to the UN as a whole.”

“No, the UN Did Not Report China Has ‘Massive Internment Camps’ for Uighur Muslims,” via Global Research

Numerous major media outlets, from Reuters to The Intercept, have claimed that the United Nations has reports that the Chinese government is holding as many as 1 million Uighur Muslims in “internment camps.” But a close examination of these news stories, and of the evidence behind them — or the lack thereof — demonstrates that the extraordinary claim is simply not true.

A spokesperson from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) confirmed in a statement to the Grayzone that the allegation of Chinese “camps” was not made by the United Nations, but rather by a member of an independent committee that does not speak for the UN as a whole. That member happened to be the only American on the committee, and one with no background of scholarship or research on China.

Moreover, this accusation is based on the thinly sourced reports of a Chinese opposition group that receives funding from foreign governments and is closely tied to exiled pro-US activists. While there have been many on-the-ground reports highlighting discrimination that Uighur Muslims have faced at the hands of the Chinese authorities,

 » Lees verder

For The Times They Are A-Changing

For The Times They Are A-Changing

08-03-18 09:02:00,

In den vergangenen Wochen wurde ich öfters von DiEMistas gefragt: „Elisa, warum gibt es so wenige Frauen in DiEM25?“

Normalerweise fange ich dann an zu stammeln. Ich bin eine Frau, also sollte ich es wissen… Denk Elisa!

Aber weder gibt es eine einzige Antwort auf diese Frage, noch habe ich die Deutungshoheit, sie zu beantworten.

Als aktives DiEM25 Mitglied habe ich in den vergangenen 1,5 Jahren dennoch einige Erklärungen gefunden. So beobachtete ich unsere externe und interne Kommunikation akribisch, unsere thematischen Prioritäten, unsere Sprache, unsere Aktionen und fehlende Aktionen, Meritokratie oder einfach die „Gesellschaft“. Durch dieses Beobachten fand ich Aufschluss. Am meisten aber verstand ich die Gründe für das Fehlen von Frauen in DiEM25 durch meine ganz unmittelbare, persönliche Erfahrung- man könnte sagen, durch meine verkörperte Erfahrung. Meine Erklärungen sind, wie ich bereits sagte, von diesen Erfahrungen informiert, sowie von meinem Hintergrund in sozialer Anthropologie. Sie sind und können darum nur subjektiv sein.

DiEM25 wurde vor zwei Jahren in der Berliner Volksbühne auf die Welt gebracht, wohin wir letzten Mai zurückkehrten. Im Rahmen dieser Veranstaltung war ich in einen „Gender Workshop“ involviert, für welchen wir eine interne Umfrage unternommen hatten. Wir wollten mehr über die Gender Balance in unserer DSC Struktur erfahren. Unsere informelle Schätzung erlangte durch dieses Unterfangen Evidenz: 80%iger Männeranteil. Den Frauenanteil kann sich jede*r selbst errechnen.

Selbstverständlich waren wir – meine Freundin Roberta und ich – uns den Grenzen eines solchen Unterfangens durchaus bewusst. Im Gegenteil lehnten wir dieses Vorgehen sogar ab. Solche Bilder von Realität, die in Prozent gemessen werden können, können ihrem Anspruch nicht gerecht werden. Diversität ist bereits selbst ein Wert. Nun ist es aber so, dass genau diese vermeintlich objektiv messbaren Kategorien – Männer/Frauenanteil, BIP… – unsere Wahrnehmung der Welt strukturieren. Wie kann man also etwas beschreiben, wie Diversität, ohne das nötige Kategorienset zu haben?

Bis dahin müssen wir uns wohl noch mit % begnügen und achtsam mit solchen „80/20“-Angaben umgehen.

Seit dem letzten Treffen an der Volksbühne hat sich aber etwas verändert. Die weibliche Abstinenz ist sehr offensichtlich geworden. Wir diskutieren dieses Thema offen und andauernd und auch die Strategien, die notwendig sind, um das Ungleichgewicht in den Griff zu bekommen. Diese Tatsache ist Teil unseres kollektiven Bewusstseins in der Bewegung geworden.

 » Lees verder