Biden Cartel Corruption Elections Links from other news sources. Media Woke MSM

Vivek lets it fly against the RNC, and NBC.

Views: 23

Vivek lets it fly against the RNC, and NBC. Last night Vivek was swinging for the fences. He started out with a bang and all night was swinging for the fences. He should have included the house boy in his comments.

“And we have Kristen Welker here. Do you think the Democrats would actually hire Greg Gutfeld to host a Democratic debate?”

“They wouldn’t do it. And so the fact of the matter is, I mean, Kris, I’m going to use this time because it’s actually about you in the media, and the corrupt media establishment.

“Ask you, the Trump-Russia collusion hoax that you pushed on this network for years, was that real or was that Hillary Clinton made up disinformation?” Ramaswamy asked Kristin to respond.


America's Heartland Biden Cartel Commentary Links from other news sources. Media Woke MSM Reprints from others.

News we missed. Can Alternative Media Really Save America?

Views: 17

News we missed. Can Alternative Media Really Save America? Some tines there are some great article that slip through the cracks. This article is one of those articles.

By Larry Bell

This writer firmly believes that if we had an honest “legacy mainstream” media, America wouldn’t have elected arguably the most inept and dangerous president in our nation’s history.

Were this not the case, major social and commercial networks wouldn’t have buried the demons in Hunter’s laptop from hell revealed in the blockbuster New York Post report which FBI partisans sat on throughout the 2020 election season, going so far as alerting those outlets to dismiss any such reports as the propaganda product of a Russian operation.

An honest media would be outraged that 51 intel officials backed that “earmarks of Russia disinformation” ruse with no evidence whatsoever, an unsupported claim that Joe Biden used to great advantage in the presidential debates.

A responsible media would report congressional whistleblower and eyewitness testimony supported by communications and banking records indicating that Joe Biden not only knew about his son Hunter’s hugely lucrative foreign influence peddling, but that the money trail leads to “the Big Guy.”

One might have reasonably expected some media coverage concerning Hunter’s July 30, 2017, WhatsApp shakedown text message to an executive connected to China’s Communist Party threatening that dad Joe and his political allies would “make certain . . .  that you will regret not following my direction” while negotiating a six-figure business deal.

Referring to his dad, Hunter clarified: “if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the [CEFC] chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction.”

Records revealed to the House Ways and Means Committee show that the following month Hunter’s Owasco P.C. firm received nearly $5 million in a series of CEFC payments.

It’s also been pretty much crickets regarding Hunter business partner Devon Archer’s July 31 testimony before the House Oversight Committee that Joe was plugged into more than 20 of his son’s foreign business telephone conversations.

Included is at least one with a top-level representative of Burisma, a Ukraine energy company where Hunter served as a no-show board member receiving a million-dollar annual salary.

According to Miranda Devine at the New York Post, three days after a Dec. 6, 2015,  phone call involving Hunter, Joe and Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi regarding the company’s “need for support,” V.P. Biden — the Obama administration point guy on Ukrainian issues — flew to Kyiv to ironically address its parliament about corruption.

The following month Joe bragged before the Council on Foreign Relations about threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. Ukraine aid unless it dropped the Burisma case.

Biden famously said, “I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b***h, he got fired.”

Then in February 2016, roughly two months after Biden’s trip and two months before Shokin’s firing, Hunter sent an email thanking Burisma’s owner Mykola Zlochevsky for “the beautiful birthday gifts,” which he described as “far too extravagant.”

A redacted FD-1023 form released by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, shows that during a 2016 meeting at a Vienna, Austria, coffee shop, Zlochevsky claimed to have been “coerced” into paying Hunter and Joe $10 million; “5 [million] to pay one Biden, and 5 [million] to another Biden.”

Nevertheless, much of the public has remained woefully uninformed regarding such apparent pay-for-play scandals papered over with wall-to-wall coverage of endless transparently contrived charges against former President Donald Trump.

A survey by the Media Research Center (MRC), found that the “Big Three” networks — ABC, CBS, and NBC — avoided discussing national security-compromising Biden influence peddling evidence altogether between June 8-12, while devoting 291 minutes to Trump distractions.

Based upon half-hour newscasts which typically devote 10 minutes to advertising, this amounted to nearly 15 shows devoted to nothing but Trump.

The only good news about blatantly complicit bad Biden-DOJ/FBI scandals is that they’re becoming increasingly difficult to contain.

According to a nationwide June Trafalgar-Convention of States Action poll, fewer than one-third (31.4%) of voters believe Joe Biden to be innocent of allegations connected to a foreign policy bribery scheme.

Somehow, and here I’ll especially thank the New York Post, numerous radio talk show program hosts, some Fox commentators, and yes, most certainly my Newsmax affiliates, for making a difference.

It has been hard to muffle the implosion of Hunter’s proposed DOJ sweetheart deal that allowed the statute of limitations to expire on felony IRS tax fraud charges and provided blanket immunity from a host of other criminal offenses in exchange for pleading out for a couple of misdemeanors.

Reliably anti-Trump Wall Street Journal editors now confirm that “Hunter Biden made big money abroad by dropping the name of his powerful father, and the same tactic seems to have nearly helped him evade tax and gun charges.”

The newspaper’s writer William McGurn has called upon special counsel David Weiss who engineered the Delaware Hunter investigation fiasco to resign.

Recall how outrageous it seemed but a few years ago when Donald Trump audaciously called out a “fake media”?

Hate Donald Trump, love the guy, or maybe a mix of the two, give him credit for being entirely right on that.

Larry Bell is an endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston where he founded the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and the graduate space architecture program. 




Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Economy Education Elections Government Overreach How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Media Woke Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others. White Progressive Supremacy WOKE

Newsguard Case Highlights the Pentagon’s Censorship End-Around.

Views: 7

Newsguard Case Highlights the Pentagon’s Censorship End-Around.

The Consortium News lawsuit against a private news rating system lays out how the government can suppress speech by proxy.


Monday, the independent website Consortium News filed suit against the United States of America and Newsguard Technologies. The complaint targeting both the government and a private media ratings service is an important one, putting the censorship-by-proxy system on trial.

On September 7, 2021, the U.S. Department of Defense gave an award of $749,387 to Newsguard Technologies, a private service that scores media outlets on “reliability” and “trust.” According to the suit, roughly 40,000 subscribers buy Newsguard subscriptions, getting in return a system of “Nutrition Labels” supposedly emphasizing “safe” content. Importantly, Newsguard’s customers include universities and libraries, whose users are presented with labels warning you that CBS is great and Tucker Carlson is dangerous:

Consortium News was labeled a purveyor of “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “false content,” and, worst of all, “anti-U.S.” This is despite the fact that, according to the suit, Newsguard only flagged six articles out of the tens of thousands Consortium News has published since the late award-winning reporter Robert Parry founded it in 1995. As Consortium News points out, Newsguard downgrades its entire 20,000+ library of available online articles with these flags based on the handful of edge cases, all of which involve criticism of U.S. foreign policy.

A particular irony is that Parry, a decorated AP and Newsweek reporter, founded Consortium News specifically to address topics suppressed by mainstream editors. Now Parry’s old site is being downgraded for dissenting reports on subjects like the 2014 Ukrainian coup and neo-Nazism in Ukraine, coincidentally topics that are “the subject of NewsGuard’s ‘Misinformation Fingerprints’ project that is under contract with the Cyber Command,” as the suit reads.

Newsguard denies it’s influenced by the government. In fact, its denials are part of the reason for the suit. When Michael Shellenberger and I testified before Congress in March, we mentioned Newsguard as a “government-funded” ratings service. I was quickly contacted by email by co-CEO Gordon Crovitz, who hastened to correct me: Newsguard isn’t government-funded, but merely an organization that receives government funds. He wrote:

As is public, our work for the Pentagon’s Cyber Command is focused on the identification and analysis of information operations targeting the US and its allies conducted by hostile governments, including Russia and China.

Our analysts alert officials in the US and in other democracies, including Ukraine, about new false narratives targeting America and its allies, and we provide an understanding of how this disinformation spreads online. We are proud of our work countering Russian and Chinese disinformation on behalf of Western democracies.

Crovitz added that “contrary to claims made in the hearings, we oppose any government involvement in rating news sources,” saying Newsguard “is entirely independent and free of any outside influence, including from the U.S. or any other government.”

The letter, CC’ed to co-CEO and editor Stephen Brill, was subject lined “Inaccuracies relating to NewsGuard.” I immediately wrote back:

Crovitz didn’t answer at the time, but Newsguard did simultaneously release the letter to the UK-based Press-Gazette. When I reached out for comment again after the filing of this litigation this week, asking once again how “government-funded” could be inaccurate, Crovitz finally answered, writing:

“We are ‘government funded’ in the same way that Verizon is ‘government funded: We have licensed data to the government for a fee, just as Verizon has provided telco services for a fee.”

He added:

The government pays us both for our commercial offerings. Our Pentagon contract is a single-digit percent of our revenues.

So, they are government-funded, just not wholly government-funded. These are the people rating others on accuracy, remember.

The conceit about funding isn’t complicated, but it works. Because Newsguard has other customers, it can claim to be an “independent” news service that just happens to downgrade news reports that contradict and/or criticize the policy of its major client, the Department of Defense. It’s censorship, but through a silencer. As the Consortium News suit reads:

NewsGuard and the United States in violation of the First Amendment are carrying out a governmental program under the “Misinformation Fingerprints” contract to publicly label, target and stigmatize news organizations as disfavored, unreliable, as journalistically not responsible… where said organizations differ or dissent from U.S. policy.

The suit also details what I think is the more insidious part of the system. In the guise of an independent news service, Newsguard contacts outlets and interrogates them about disputed content, not-so-subtly pressing for retractions. Again, from the suit:

In the course of the government contract, NewsGuard and the United States have acted to retaliate against those news entities and media organizations that refuse to retract or correct their articles; such retaliation consists of the “false content” warnings, the red flag and associated content described in this Amended Complaint…

Racket received one of these irritating queries this year. Call it what you want, but it comes down to Pentagon Cyber Command giving a big check to “analysts” who happen to slap red revenue-sapping warning tags on outlets that report on controversial topics like war or government censorship.

As I wrote to Newsguard when they contacted me, “media outlets should gain and lose trust based on how they are evaluated by audiences, not paid services.” This system allows institutions like the Department of Defense that have no legal remit to meddle in the domestic news landscape to pressure private media outlets.

That’s over and above the DoD’s already hugest-on-earth-by-far public relations budget. Think of the scale of petty determination one must have to spend over $500 million a year on messaging and be so dissatisfied with the results that you feel the need to spend more on private services that downgrade independent news critics. It’s particularly grating that your tax dollars are spent hiring private services that label news outlets using terms like “anti-US.” State-sponsored impugning of patriotism is a bold stroke, even by the low moral standards of the anti-disinformation era.

“When media groups are condemned by the government as ‘anti-U.S.’,” said Bruce Afran, attorney for Consortium News, “the result is self-censorship and a destruction of the public debate intended by the First Amendment.”

I was remiss in not getting this story up before but will have more as the case goes on.

Consortium News is seeking “a permanent injunction… barring the government and NewsGuard from continuing such practices” and “more than $13 million in damages for defamation and civil rights violations.”  You can read their coverage here.


Commentary Faked news Links from other news sources. Media Woke MSM White Progressive Supremacy WOKE

Jessica Chastain Pleads for Help to Find a Credible News Source After NYT and WaPo ‘Rushed to Conclusion’ over Gaza Hospital Blast.

Views: 18

Jessica Chastain Pleads for Help to Find a Credible News Source After NYT and WaPo ‘Rushed to Conclusion’ over Gaza Hospital Blast. So this sweet young thing doesn’t know where to go when it comes to a news source that gives her fair and balanced news.

All she has to do is follow me and she’ll get that. But if not, there are Conservative news outlets out there that won’t openly lie to her.. Here’s what she had to say.

Interstellar star Jessica Chastain is pleading with the public for help to find credible news sources after the New York Times and Washington Post “rushed to conclusion” in response to the Gaza hospital blast on Tuesday.

“Is there ANY place that I can get accurate news? We are living in a dark time when giants like @nytimes and @washingtonpost rush to conclusions in trying to keep pace with social media,” Chastain wrote in a social media post on Wednesday.



Back Door Power Grab Commentary Corruption Elections Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Media Woke MSM Opinion Politics Progressive Racism White Progressive Supremacy Work Place

WP asks white folks to stand aside for California’s Senate seat.

Views: 38

WP asks white folks to stand aside for California’s Senate seat.

A opinion piece writer in the Washington Post is asking the two white candidates to step aside and allow a person of color to be the Democrat candidate.

From the writer.

California’s Democratic leaders have an opportunity to do more than pay lip service to their rhetoric around diversity. It wouldn’t hurt to remind them that Harris gave up one of California’s seats to serve the country. They need to know, and show, that forcing genuine equality isn’t easy or comfortable. It requires hard decisions, especially for White people who might have to disappoint their friends or sacrifice their egos and ambitions for the sake of the larger cause.


Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Links from other news sources. Media Woke Opinion Politics

Winning. MSNBC loses 33% of their audience first week of Hamas attack on Israel.

Views: 13

Winning. MSNBC loses 33% of their audience first week of Hamas attack on Israel. Some on MSNBC decided to take Hamas’s side on the attack of Israel. Well the first weeks numbers are in and it wasn’t pretty.

They lost 33% of their prime time viewers. FOX grew 42% and even CNN gained 17%.


Woke MSNBC DESTROYED! Loses 33% of viewers for WOKE coverage of Israel Hamas war! – YouTube

MSNBC Down, Fox News and CNN Up in Ratings Since Start of Israel-Hamas War (


NewsNation host and Mediaite owner Dan Abrams slammed the network for its coverage, accusing hosts Ayman MohyeldinMehdi Hasan, and Ali Velshi of turning the blame on the political decisions of Israel and the United States and shifting the focus on to Palestinians, away from the Israelis victimized by Hamas.

Meanwhile, NewsNation saw its ratings increase by 48 percent.

On Monday, Jonathan Greenblatt, the director of the Anti-Defamation League, appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe and lambasted the network on camera, unloading on anchor Jonathan Lemire over the coverage and asking “[W]ho’s writing the scripts? Hamas?”


Commentary Elections How funny is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Media Woke MSM Politics Public Service Announcement Reprints from others.

How funny is this? Alexa has The Washington Post and Amazon going crazy.

Views: 35

How funny is this? Alexa has The Washington Post and Amazon going crazy. Even after reprograming, Alexa still calls Donald Trump the winner in 2020.

Alexa, who won the 2020 election? Alexa, the voice assistant from Amazon that’s in an estimated 70 million homes, has been falsely telling users the 2020 election was rigged, the Washington Post learned. Alexa has said incorrectly that Joe Biden’s presidential victory over Donald Trump was “stolen by a massive amount of election fraud” and that Trump won Pennsylvania. An Amazon spokesperson said these were isolated incidents that were quickly fixed. However, even after the WaPo brought these issues to the attention of Amazon, Alexa was still answering questions about the 2020 election with fake news.

Even fake news was running this article.

‘Alarming’: Amazon’s Alexa reportedly says 2020 election was stolen from Trump (

Alexa says the 2020 election was stolen. What does it mean for 2024? – The Washington Post



Commentary Economy Education Elections Free Speech Links from other news sources. Media Woke MSM Opinion Politics Reprints from others. Social Venues-Twitter WOKE

Elon Musk fires X ‘election integrity’ team for undermining election integrity

Views: 22

Elon Musk fires X ‘election integrity’ team for undermining election integrity

“Oh you mean the ‘Election Integrity’ Team that was undermining election integrity? Yeah, they’re gone.”



Elon Musk announced on Wednesday that he has cut the Electoral Integrity team at X (formerly Twitter) in half, including the newly brought on board head of the group, Aaron Rodericks.

When the news was reported, Musk replied “Oh you mean the ‘Election Integrity’ Team that was undermining election integrity? Yeah, they’re gone.”

A person familiar with the circumstances, said that four people had been released, which constitutes the whole of the election integrity unit in Dublin.

In an August blog post, X said that there were positions available on the “threat disruption” team, and that they company was “currently expanding our safety and elections teams to focus on combating manipulation, surfacing inauthentic accounts and closely monitoring the platform for emerging threats.”

In a post concerning election integrity, the platform posted that “You may not use X’s services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic processes, such as posting or sharing content that may suppress participation, mislead people about when, where, or how to participate in a civic process, or lead to offline violence during an election. Any attempt to undermine the integrity of civic participation undermines our core tenets of freedom of expression and as a result, we will apply labels to violative posts informing users that the content is misleading.”

The post clarified what that meant, however, and noted further that “Not all false or untrue information about politics or civic processes constitutes manipulation or interference. In the absence of other policy violations, the following are generally not in violation of this policy: inaccurate statements about an elected or appointed official, candidate, or political party; organic content that is polarizing, biased, hyperpartisan, or contains controversial viewpoints expressed about elections or politics; discussion of public polling information; voting and audience participation for competitions, game shows, or other entertainment purposes; using X pseudonymously or as a parody, commentary, or fan account to discuss elections or politics.”

This comes after Musk named a new CEO in the spring, Linda Yaccarino, who had been with NBC. She had stated that X would expand trust and safety teams, along with election integrity units.

Trust in the platform’s ability to police itself took a severe downturn after the publication of the Twitter Files, which revealed intensive bias within Twitter management toward Democrats and the left, and that government agencies had been interfering by insisting on policing speech on the site.

Some of the meddling Twitter undertook during the 2020 presidential election included suppressing negative information about Joe Biden and his involvement with his son’s business dealings. Voters polled after the fact said that had they known about these concerns, they would not have voted for Biden in that hotly contested election.


America's Heartland Commentary Corruption Crime Faked news Links from other news sources. Media Woke MSM Progressive Racism Reprints from others. White Progressive Supremacy WOKE

NYT Pushes the White Oppressor Myth.

Views: 16

NYT Pushes the White Oppressor Myth.

The propaganda is endless!

Here’s an odd sentence in today’s New York Times:

“Mr. Erwin was born in 1942 in Tyler, Texas, where the Black community lived on the north side of town, the whites lived on the south side and Black people did not cross Front Street after sundown.”

“And Black people did not cross Front Street after sundown”??? But whites felt free to stroll around the black part of town any time of day?

It’s the incessant myth of WHITE PEOPLE PREYING ON BLACKS!

In case you’re wondering, even in the 1940s, the black murder rate was many, many times higher than the white murder rate:


Biden Cartel Censorship Corruption How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Media Woke Reprints from others. The Courts The Law White Progressive Supremacy WOKE

5 Major Problems with ProPublica’s Latest ‘Ethics’ Hit Piece on Justice Clarence Thomas.

Views: 21

5 Major Problems with ProPublica’s Latest ‘Ethics’ Hit Piece on Justice Clarence Thomas.

By Ken Klukowski

Lawyer who served in the White House and Justice Department.

There are five major problems with the latest so-called “ethics” attack on Justice Clarence Thomas, which this time is a hit piece from the leftwing ProPublica, attempting to kick Thomas off an upcoming Supreme Court case.

ProPublica has the vapors over the fact that Thomas flew on a private jet to a conference in Palm Springs in 2018 hosted by the network of Charles and David Koch, suggesting several ethics violations. ProPublica is legally wrong on every claim.

Two problems are that Supreme Court justices can speak at nonpartisan gatherings so long as there are no presentations to or from parties to a case currently pending before the Court, and the justice does not engage in fundraising.

First, Thomas did not present at the conference on any issues pending before the court, and no parties or lawyers on cases that were scheduled at the court made any presentations to him.

Second, although fundraising certainly takes place at such gatherings, so long as the justice does not ask for money, the fact that private citizens do so is not an ethics concern for a justice in attendance.

On various occasions when liberal justices like Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor have spoken at events, fundraising people huddle about how to promote the justice’s name to raise more money off the event. But Kagan and Sotomayor violate no ethics rules when this happens, because they are not the ones engaged in fundraising.

Third, it is utterly irrelevant that the Koch Network supports filing briefs in a case currently before the court that would change the scope of the federal government’s regulatory law. Justices frequently speak at events hosted by groups that take positions on pending matters, and the upcoming case is no different.

That case, Loper Bright, asks the court to overrule a 1984 case named Chevron, where the court held that courts should defer to agency bureaucrats about whether regulations are consistent with a law passed by Congress, if Congress’s law is either silent or ambiguous about the precise legal question at issue in the regulation.

Chevron should be overruled because it is egregiously wrong and has led to terrible results. It upends bedrock principles of the rule of law for judges who defer to the almost-all-powerful government about the government’s claims as to the government’s own power over citizens and companies. If anyone should get the benefit of the doubt, it should be the powerless ordinary citizen. But better yet, there should be no deference, and judges should just interpret the law and the regulations the same way they interpret any other law, regulation, or contract. (Full disclosure: I coauthored one of the many briefs in Loper Bright urging the Supreme Court to overrule Chevron.)

The left is panicking over Loper BrightChevron gives unelected bureaucrats enhanced power over the lives of private citizens on countless issues, from energy production, to transportation, to immigration, to transgenderism in schools, to firearms. It hobbles the ability of courts to require Congress to legislate clearly and for public policy to be made by officials accountable to the people. Overruling Chevron would restore transparency and good government, so the left is trying to disqualify conservative justices like Thomas from being able to vote on it.

Fourth, ProPublica’s authors are again ignoring judicial standards on personal hospitality. During the time in question (2018), if private individuals are a friend of a Supreme Court justice and offer the justice a seat on a private airplane, that form of personal hospitality is ethically allowed. Liberal justices like the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the retired Stephen Breyer frequently accepted such hospitality.

Fifth, even federal judges on lower courts that are already subject to the ethics code that Senate Democrats are trying to foist on the Supreme Court – a code that would be unconstitutional, because the Supreme Court is a coequal branch of government. In May 2005, Judge Ray Randolph – a highly respected judge on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – conferred with ethics counsel at the Judicial Conference regarding a similar trip.

The judicial ethics expert at the Judicial Conference responded that the trip did not even need to be disclosed. So even if the Supreme Court could be forced into a subordinate role to Congress, like the federal appeals courts are, such trips would still be permitted.

The left’s latest desperate attempt to smear Thomas – this one from ProPublica – appears to be yet another swing and miss. And the fact that it focused so heavily on gaslighting the American people about Loper Bright shows that it is just the latest attempt at reverse court-packing to disqualify conservative justices in a brazen attempt to manipulate the outcome of a Supreme Court case on government power.


Verified by MonsterInsights