WikiLeaks To Sue CNN For Defamation

Source: ZeroHedge.com
January 7, 2017

Moments ago, Wikileaks tweeted that as a result of a segment airing on CNN, the whiste-blowing organization announced it has “issued instructions to sue CNN for defamation.”

Wikileaks was referring to a segment in which CNN had the ex-Deputy-Director of the CIA “falsely calling Assange a ‘pedophile.’

As indication of the “plot line”, Wikileaks provides a link to the following McClatchy article, which lays out “the strange tale of a dating site’s attacks on WikiLeaks founder Assange” which writes the following:

For an online dating site, toddandclare.com seems really good at cloak-and-dagger stuff. Disconnected phones. Mystery websites. Actions that ricochet around the globe.

 

But the attention grabber is the Houston-based company’s target: Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, whose steady dumps of leaked emails from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign have given supporters of Donald Trump the only cheering news of the last few weeks.

 

In some ways, toddandclare.com’s campaign against Assange is as revelatory as the leaked emails themselves, illustrating the powerful, sometimes unseen, forces that oppose WikiLeaks.

 

Whoever is behind the dating site has marshaled significant resources to target Assange, enough to gain entry into a United Nations body, operate in countries in Europe, North America and the Caribbean, conduct surveillance on Assange’s lawyer in London, obtain the fax number of Canada’s prime minister and seek to prod a police inquiry in the Bahamas.

 

And they’ve done it at a time when WikiLeaks has become a routine target of Democratic politicians who portray Assange as a stooge of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his reported efforts to disrupt the U.S. election.

 

One part of toddandclare’s two-pronged campaign put a megaphone to unproven charges that Assange made contact with a young Canadian girl in the Bahamas through the internet with the intention of molesting her. The second part sought to entangle him in a plan to receive $1 million from the Russian government.

 

WikiLeaks claims the dating site is “a highly suspicious and likely fabricated” company. In turn, the company lashed out at Assange on Thursday and “his despicable activities against American national security,” and warned journalists to “check with your libel lawyers first before printing anything that could impact or endanger innocent people’s lives.”

 

So why are the parties to the melee coming out with both barrels blazing? That remains a mystery of the kind that might take a WikiLeaks-style document dump to suss out.

 

What is beyond dispute, though, is that the attacks on WikiLeaks rose as the group released a first batch of leaked Democratic National Committee emails in July, days before the party’s national convention, and again this month, as WikiLeaks began releasing thousands of emails from the account of John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman.

 

The online company paints itself as all-American. Online material says its founders, Todd and Clare Hammond, “are an average American couple from Michigan, who met in the eighth grade.” In 2011, the company says, the Christian couple started an email dating service, and “have married 3,000 couples to date.” Their online network began in 2015, and a statement it filed to a U.N. body says it has “100,000+ female singles” in six countries.

 

The company’s operating address is a warehouse loading dock in Houston. Its mail goes to a Houston drop box. Its phone numbers no longer work. WikiLeaks says Texas officials tell it the entity is not registered there either under toddandclare.com or a parent company, T&C Network Solutions.

 

The person who responds to email sent to the company declined to identify himself or herself or answer further questions.

 

“We are not required to confirm the information you are requesting to anyone other than our government and tax authorities. So many people (and companies) have now been unfairly libeled by the wikileaks troll machine, we are being advised not to comment,” an unsigned email from the company to a McClatchy reporter said Thursday morning.

 

The people behind toddandclare.com persuaded a U.N. body known as the Global Compact to give it status as a participant in May, and it submitted an eight-page report to the U.N. group Oct. 4 carefully laying out its allegations against Assange. The firm was delisted by the U.N. body eight days later amid controversy over its claims.

 

An Australian lawyer, Melinda Taylor, said the report’s precise language raised additional suspicions at WikiLeaks, where she assists Assange in human rights litigation.

 

“This is not a report that’s been drafted by a dating agency. It’s highly legalistic and very structured. It’s the language of someone who has drafted complex legal submissions,” she said.

 

Under Todd Hammond’s name, the report alleged that Assange’s Swedish lawyer had reached out in June to offer Assange’s services on a campaign against rape in exchange for an undisclosed amount of bitcoin. It said the two sides held two videoconferences.

 

Then came the bombshell: It said the company had ended ties with Assange following “pedophile crimes” he had committed in the Bahamas in late September. It charged that the victim was the 8-year-old daughter of a Canadian couple on a monthlong yachting vacation. The father went to police in Nassau on Sept. 28, the report claimed, charging that his family held video and chat logs showing Assange “internet grooming” the child and “propositioning the 8-year-old juvenile ‘to perform oral and anal sex acts.’ ”

It said Assange, who has been in refuge in Ecuador’s embassy in London since 2012, made a connection to the child’s 22-year-old sister, who was a client of the online dating site, gaining access

to the young girl.

 

An assistant commissioner for the Royal Bahamas Police Force, Stephen Dean, said “there is no investigation” into any such incident and that the police have received no evidence that such an incident occurred.

Continue reading on McClathy.

Well, if WikiLeaks wasn’t the most hated outlet by the mainstream media in general, and CNN in particular, it has just cemented this status should it indeed proceed with the lawsuit. It will be interesting tp see what internal CNN emails the discovery process reveals, should the lawsuit actually get to that stage.

Read More At: ZeroHedge.com

Advertisements

New Department Of Truth Signed Into Law

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
December 29, 2016

This may be a case of you tell me, and indeed I’d be interested in seeing people’s reaction to this bit of legislation that was quietly signed into law during the past few days’ holiday season:

Obama Quietly Signs The “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” Into Law

The heart of the concerns is reflected in these paragraphs:

Recall that as we reported in early June, “a bill to implement the U.S.’ very own de facto Ministry of Truth had been quietly introduced in Congress. As with any legislation attempting to dodge the public spotlight the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 marks a further curtailment of press freedom and another avenue to stultify avenues of accurate information. Introduced by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu, H.R. 5181 seeks a “whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions” to counter “foreign disinformation and manipulation,” which they believe threaten the world’s “security and stability.”

Also called the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S. 2692), when introduced in March by Sen. Rob Portman, the legislation represents a dramatic return to Cold War-era government propaganda battles. “These countries spend vast sums of money on advanced broadcast and digital media capabilities, targeted campaigns, funding of foreign political movements, and other efforts to influence key audiences and populations,” Portman explained, adding that while the U.S. spends a relatively small amount on its Voice of America, the Kremlin provides enormous funding for its news organization, RT.

“Surprisingly,” Portman continued, “there is currently no single U.S. governmental agency or department charged with the national level development, integration and synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation.”

Long before the “fake news” meme became a daily topic of extensive conversation on such discredited mainstream portals as CNN and WaPo, H.R. 5181 would task the Secretary of State with coordinating the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to “establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response,” which will pinpoint sources of disinformation, analyze data, and — in true dystopic manner — ‘develop and disseminate’ “fact-based narratives” to counter effrontery propaganda.

In short, long before “fake news” became a major media topic, the US government was already planning its legally-backed crackdown on anything it would eventually label “fake news.”

And so, with the likes of WaPo having already primed the general public to equate “Russian Propaganda” with “fake news” (despite admitting after the fact their own report was essentially “fake“), while the US media has indoctrinated the public to assume that any information which is not in compliance with the official government narrative, or dares to criticize the establishment, is also “fake news” and thus falls under the “Russian propaganda” umbrella, the scene is now set for the US government to legally crack down on every media outlet that the government deems to be “foreign propaganda.”

Just like that, the US Ministry of Truth is officially born.

Now I don’t know about you, but all sorts of images and thoughts are running through my mind. Not the least of these is Josef Goebbels, the Third Reich’s Propaganda Minister. Goebbels was nothing if not cunning. Goebbels knew that outright lies would never work. For propaganda to be effective, it had to contain enough truth to sell the lie, which is the purpose of propaganda: sell the lie. How to do it? Wrap it in truth. Thus, the old Deutsche Wochenschau newsreels would show the decimation of the German cities as Allied and Soviet bombers were pummeling them into rubble. That was the truth part. It would not have done to say the bombing effort was unreal, or ineffective, since millions of Germans could easily see otherwise. The lie was contained in the pledges of “final victory”, in the rumors of secret weapons, strategies, reserve armies, and so on. The technique, at its most basic, is a human one: tell (or show) the truth, inculcate trust, then sell the lie.

To reinforce the lie when even it could no longer be sold, it was reinforced with summary executions if a German even questioned the propaganda, and this is the problem with all propaganda ministries and “departments of truth.”  And I submit that it is also a problem inherent with this bill.

But I strongly suspect the real dangers already lie elsewhere, and it’s an epistemological problem the corporate controlled media and any government propaganda organ now faces: their moral capital is already so low that no one trusts them any more, even if they should suddenly tell the truth, not just as the occasional matter, but as a consistent agenda. Think of the boy who cried wolf, once too often, until the wolf actually appeared, and no one believed him any more. Our corporate controlled media have been lying to us to drive political agendas for so long that no one believes them, from the USS Maine sinking, to the magic bullet, to Waco and “we did it for the children,” to the whole 9/11 narrative, to dodging Darth Hillary’s health issues and the constant drumbeat of a Hillary victory, and now, to the whole (largely collapsed) Russia hacked our elections meme. (No one seems to recall those Russian allegations years ago of US attempts to steal their elections from Mr. Putin).

Countering their own deplorable fake news record will be difficult, and the way that they will do so will be not through direct confrontation, but via already tried and tested means: planting false stories, having “fake commenters” commenting on websites, and particularly foreign ones, such as PressTV (the Iranian site), Al Jazeera, RT, and of course on various free and independent media sites. And these attacks will come in the form of exhibiting or displaying “more thorough research”… after all, the government has lots of money, and can hire researchers to nitpick anything to death, to find…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_______________________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Trump Destroys Media Stars Face To Face In His Golden Tower

TruthLies
Source:NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 22, 2016

It was instant legend.

Trump met yesterday with the rancid cream of media in his golden tower. They were there thinking it was all about creating a structure for access to the next president. Little did they know.

Charlie Rose was there. Wolf Blitzer. Jeff Zucker, head of CNN. Martha “I weep for Hillary” Raddatz. Gayle King. Lester “the weasel-king of interrupters” Holt. Chuck Todd. George “property of the Clintons” Stephanopoulos.

Fake, fake, fake, fake, fake.

The whole gang.

The NY Post has the story:

“It was like a f–ing firing squad,” one source said of the encounter.

“Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,’ ” the source said.

“The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down,” the source added.

“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said.

“…he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who [also] hosted a [presidential] debate – which was Martha Raddatz who was also in the room.”

So…You can hate Trump, but if you can’t find joy in this story, you’re in need of a blood transfusion.

Way back at the beginning of the presidential campaign, I said that if Trump does nothing but run against the media he’ll be doing the country a great service, because they’re all snakes and cover-up artists and liars and they’ve been hypnotizing the population for as long as they’ve been around. Trump went on to exceed my expectations in that regard.

If you can’t stand Trump, you can fantasize about some other theoretical president who might have carried off his attacks on fake news as well, and with the same effect, but this is the man who did it. And yesterday was a landmark event in history.

Understand that these grifters—because that’s what they are—believe they own the news and the truth, even as they’re making it up by the ton. They and their masters—six companies that control 90% of big media—dispense fake reality to the populace 24/7. And now…

They’re lost inside their own bubble. They’ve never felt this kind of fury from a president. They don’t know what to do.

They’ve got money, they’ve got arrogance, and they’ve got the airwaves, and it’s not enough.

Of course they’re outraged, and of course they’ll continue doing whatever they can to undermine Trump, but they know he couldn’t care less that they’re deeply, deeply offended. Their little trick—“how dare you insult us”—won’t work. In fact, it’ll make things worse for them. Not long ago, one survey placed the public’s trust in media at 6%, which is about on the same level as the trust in public bathrooms in scuzzy bars by the railroad tracks next to mining camps in the 19th century.

These media honkers can stand in front of their mirrors and keep combing their hair and they can bring in new make-up people, and adjust the studio lighting and build new desks, and they can laugh and smile at cocktail parties and pretend they’re still in the ascendance, but they’re rapidly turning into laughingstocks, and the derision keeps building. If you feel sorry for them, your sympathy is grossly misplaced.

The final straw here is Steve Bannon, Trump’s new chief strategist and special counselor. The editor of Breitbart, Bannon recently stated in an interview: “The media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what’s wrong with this country. It’s just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no f—ing idea what’s going on. If…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
______________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Google/Facebook Now Targeting “Fake News Sites”; I’ve Been Doing It For 15 Years

QuestionEverything2
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 16, 2016

Only I’ve been doing it for real, here at NoMoreFakeNews.com. That’s the difference. Google and Facebook are up to something else. They’re attacking truth emanating from the alt media.

It’s a reverse play on their part. Google will refuse to allow “fake sites” to use their AdSense Program. FB will try to limit “fake” posts.

They’re really getting desperate.

Major media election coverage was so phony it was laughable. Inside their bubble, Hillary was winging her way to victory. She was way out ahead in the polls. Wikileaks and Project Veritas were spooling out devastating revelations almost every day, and the press was studiously ignoring the implications. Why don’t FB and Google go after the NY Times and WaPo and CBS and NBC and ABC and CNN and FOX, if they want to limit fake news? Why? Because all those jokers, including Google/FB, are on the same page. They’re all PR firms fronting for the concoction called Globalism.

And they’re losing.

In mainstream news, everything should begin with the concept of a staged event.

Every television newscast: staged reality

“The news is all about manipulating the context of stories. The thinner the context, the thinner the mind must become to accept it. If you want to visualize this, imagine a rectangular solid. The news covers the top surface. Therefore, the mind is trained to work in only two dimensions. Then it can’t fathom depth, and it certainly can’t appreciate the fact that the whole rectangular solid moves through time, the fourth dimension.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Focus on the network evening news. This is where the staging is done well.

First, we have the image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals authenticity.

Actually, those reporters in the field rarely dig up information on location. A correspondent standing on a rooftop in Cairo could just as well be positioned in a bathroom in a Las Vegas McDonald’s. His report would be identical.

The managing editor, usually the elite news anchor, chooses the stories to cover and has the final word on their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air: “Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. Gridlock is bad. Just like traffic on the I-5. A bad thing. We want the government to get something done, but they’re not. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

The anchor: “The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a hundred are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? I don’t need a gun. The police have guns. Could I kill somebody if he broke into the house?”

The anchor: “Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against autism…”

Viewer: “That would be good. More research. Laboratory. The brain.”

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned nothing. But reflection is not the game.

In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of (false) continuity.

It would never occur to him to wonder: are the squabbling political legislators really two branches of the same Party? Does government have the Constitutional right to incur this much debt? Where is all that money coming from? Taxes? Other sources? Who invents money?

Is the flu dangerous for most people? If not, why not? Do governments overstate case numbers? How do they actually test patients for the flu? Are the tests accurate? Are they just trying to convince us to get vaccines?

What happens when the government has overwhelming force and citizens have no guns?

When researchers keep saying “may” and “could,” does that mean they’ve actually discovered something useful about autism, or are they just hyping their own work and trying to get funding for their next project?

These are only a few of the many questions the typical viewer never considers.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context thin—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this staging is small viewer, small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

Next we come to words over pictures. More and more, news broadcasts are using the rudimentary film technique of a voice narrating what the viewer is seeing on the screen.

People are shouting and running and falling in a street. The anchor or a field reporter says: “The country is in turmoil. Parliament has suspended sessions for the third day in a row, as the government decides what to do about uprisings aimed at forcing democratic elections…”

Well, the voice must be right, because we’re seeing the pictures. If the voice said the riots were due to garbage-pickup cancellations, the viewer would believe that, too.

We see Building #7 of the WTC collapse. Must have been the result of a fire. The anchor tells us so. Words over pictures.

We see footage of Lee Harvey Oswald inside the Dallas police station. The anchor tells he’s about to be transferred, under heavy guard, to another location. Oswald must be guilty, because we’re seeing him in a police station, and the anchor just said “under heavy guard.”

Staged news.

It mirrors what the human mind, in an infantile state, is always doing: looking at the world and seeking a brief summary to explain what that world is, at any given moment.

Since the dawn of time, untold billions of people have been urging a “television anchor” to “explain the pictures.”

The news gives them that precise thing, that precise solution, every night.

“Well, Mr. Jones,” the doctor says, as he pins X-rays to a screen in his office. “See this? Right here? We’ll need to start chemo immediately, and then we may have to remove most of your brain, and as a follow-up, take out one eye.”

Sure, why not? The patient saw the pictures and the anchor explained them.

After watching and listening to a month or two of news planted with key words, the population is ready to see the President or one of his minions step up to a microphone and say, “Quantitative easing…sequester…”

Reaction? “Oh, yes, that’s right, I’ve heard those words before. Good.”

A month later, those two terms disappear, as if they’d never existed.

Eventually, people get the idea and do it for themselves. They see things, they invent one-liners to explain them.

They’re their own anchors. They short-cut and undermine their own experience with vapid summaries of what it all means.

And then, of course, when the news cuts to commercial, the fake products take over:

“Well, every night they’re showing the same brand names, so those brands must be better than the unnamed alternatives.”

Which devolves into: “I like this commercial better than that commercial. This is a great commercial. Let’s have a contest and vote on the best commercial.”

For “intelligent” viewers, there is another sober mainstream choice, a safety valve: PBS. That newscast tends to show more pictures from foreign lands.

“Yes, I watch PBS because they understand the planet is interconnected. It isn’t just about America. That’s good.”

Sure it’s good, if you want the same thin-context or false-context reporting on events in other countries. Instead of the two minutes NBC might give you about momentous happenings in Iraq, PBS will give you four minutes, plus congenial experts commenting abstractly, employing longer words.

PBS’ experts seem kinder and gentler. “They’re nice and they’re more relaxed. I like that.”

Yes, the PBS experts are taking Valium, and they’re not drinking as much coffee as the CBS experts.

Anchors deliver the long con every night on the tube, between commercials.

Staged.

They’re marketing thin context.

And of course, the “science” promoted on the network news is also derived from marketing efforts at major government agencies, such as the CDC.

The anchor says, “Medical experts are now taking a heavier approach to parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and deny the benefits of vaccines.”

What sits behind that statement?

The announcement of so-called epidemics and outbreaks are part of a strategy for marketing vaccines. It’s obvious.

For example, read this from the World Health Organization Fact Sheet, Number 11, dated March 2014:

“Influenza occurs globally…Worldwide, these annual epidemics are estimated to result in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness, and about 250 000 to 500 000 deaths.”

Now consider a “measles outbreak” in the US. 150 cases.

In the matter of worldwide flu, WHO and the CDC choose not to hype and propagandize; but in the case of the measles, it’s suddenly all hands on deck and fear, fear, fear.

Why?

Because it’s time. It’s time to inflate the seriousness of a standard childhood disease. It’s time to focus on “the children.” It’s time, once again, to offset the massive rebellion against vaccination exploding in the US population. It’s time to engender fear. It’s time to attack anti-vaccination researchers. It’s time to take another step in the direction of mandating vaccines. It’s time to introduce…

Continue Reading At: NoMoreFakeNews.com
_____________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

MSM FAIL: All the major polls were wrong, which should tell you everything you need to know about the corrupt media

Polls
Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
November 12, 2016

Yes, we get the irony. Natural News is part of the “media,” but as we’ve always said and demonstrated, we’re not a part of the so-called mainstream media (MSM), which has long been considered little more than the propaganda division of the Democratic Party.

The MSM proved it once more during this past presidential election cycle, when nearly every single major media outlet picked Hillary Clinton to defeat Donald Trump for the presidency.

It was the modern equivalent of a “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” headline – comical and monumentally false at the same time, but with dire implications for the future of the country.

That said, perhaps the biggest chump of the entire election cycle was none other than the Huffington Post, whose clueless and politically compromised editors devised an “election model” that predicted a 98.2 percent chance that Clinton would win.

That same model, as we reported, had Clinton winning 323 electoral votes, though in reality all she picked up (as of this writing – some counting is still going on) was 228, meaning the HuffPo presidential prediction model was off by nearly 100 electoral votes. That’s incredible, when you also figure that the prediction percentage of 98.2 percent was off by just as much.

The only people who are really shocked by that, however – besides the editors and founder of HuffPo, Ariana Huffington – are the rest of the mainstream media pollsters who were just as wrong, though maybe not by as much. It seems their polling methods and statistical models were also inaccurate.

80 percent of major national polls were wrong, and by a lot

As reported by The Hill, what took place on election night in the polling industry was nothing less than an “industry-shattering embarrassment,” though Trump had long said he knew the polls were biased against him.

Turns out he was exactly right, even though he was dismissed and mocked for saying so.

“It’s going to put the polling industry out of business,” said CNN anchor Jake Tapper. “It’s going to put the voter projection industry out of business.”

As the nation headed into Nov. 8, the vast majority of polling firms – in partnership with most MSM outlets – and election modelers were predicting an easy Clinton victory. For weeks, in fact, and despite reports that many of these MSM outlets were oversampling Democratic voters, most predicted, like HuffPo, that she would win something north of 300 electoral votes.

Here are some examples:

— The final University of Virginia Center for Politics model predicted Clinton would win 322 electoral votes to Trump’s 216, with Clinton taking Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and North Carolina, all states that Trump won.

— A number of Left-wing critics attacked supposed data guru Nate Silver at the FiveThirtyEight.com blog for saying Trump had a better than one-in-three shot – 35 percent – of pulling off a victory. Ironically (and hypocritically), they claimed that Silver was intentionally trying to influence the public into making the race appear to be closer than it was.

— Of the 11 major national polls that were released during the final week of the campaign, just two – an LA Times/USC survey (which had consistently shown Trump ahead) and one from Investor’s Business Daily/TIPP – showed Trump in the lead.

But the Times poll was lambasted as “experimental” for polling the same pool of people, and for the way that it weighted black voters. It was dismissed as an outlier and, therefore, not to be taken seriously.

It was Trump, not Clinton, who ran the table in the battleground states

The remainder of the surveys for the final week showed Clinton up between 2 and 6 points, which boosted her to a 3.3-point lead nationally in the Real Clear Politics average.

Battleground polling data was just as inaccurate, as evidenced by the fact that there were no surveys at all from Wisconsin this year that showed him ahead (though he won the state’s 10 electoral votes). In fact, heading into election day, Clinton was up there by 6.5 points, and in fact, no political analysts were even discussing the possibility that Trump could win there (his victory marks the first time the state has gone to a Republican since President Reagan won it in 1984).

In other deep blue states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, where Republicans have not won in decades, polls did show the race tightening up in the final days, but all had Clinton pulling off the win. Only a single poll, from the Trafalgar Group, showed Trump leading.

But overall, election modelers did not have Trump flipping either state – which he would need to secure enough electoral votes to seal the deal – even though the Clinton camp rushed in over the past few days to defend them.

Also, in North Carolina Trump won by nearly 4 points, even though polls showed that state to be a toss-up.

Nationally, most pollsters believed the race would be within 2–3 points, but with Clinton winning all of the key battleground states just as President Obama did, which would determine the outcome.

It didn’t happen.

The bottom line is this: The pollsters all favored Clinton ideologically and it showed in their modeling. Plus, none of the major pollsters bothered to try to learn about who formed Trump’s base of support. They were too satisfied with remaining in their bubble of pre- and misconceptions.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

TheHill.com

TheGatewayPundit.com

Trump.news

Fakery: major media preparing to steal election-night outcome?

TruthLies
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
October 17, 2016

Note: this article is about the early projections media outlets make on election night—when they call the winner.

Here it is in a nutshell: major media consider the election a media event.

Therefore, they control it.

Therefore, when they project the election-outcome the night of the vote, even though that call is unofficial, they want compliance from the candidates. THEY WANT A FAST CONCESSION SPEECH from the loser. Well, a concession from Trump, because the networks and their allies in print newspapers are already painting a picture of a Hillary victory (for example, see this WaPo article). The picture is: Trump’s campaign is falling apart, Hillary is leading in battleground states, and she may even expand her reach into states Trump was previously thought to have wrapped up.

On Meet the Press Sunday, Mike Pence was asked point blank: if you lose on election night, will you and Donald concede? And Pence said yes.

The media-concocted story line: if Trump loses and he refuses to concede, because he believes the count was rigged, he’ll be inciting violence and endangering the country.

Of course, the networks calling the election victory is unofficial. It’s all happening in a bubble.

The networks are terrified that Trump will refuse to concede if they say he lost. Instead, he will say: “My team and I have definite knowledge of widespread vote fraud in many states. As I speak, we are filing suits. We not only want an accurate recount, we want criminal charges brought against the vote riggers. We know who they are. Some of the culprits are media networks. You can say I’m a sore loser but I’m not. I’m for fairness, and we don’t have that. We’re going all the way with our accusations and our facts. All along I’ve been saying the system is corrupt. Now we’re going to prove that…”

The media could then be accused of direct complicity in stealing the election.

So…how do the networks decide who wins an election? Buckle up. Here is a concise description from Wikipedia. Notice that the media are basically getting their vote-info from…themselves:

“The National Election Pool (NEP) is a consortium of American news organizations formed in 2003 to provide ‘information on Election Night about the vote count, election analysis and election projections.’ Member companies consist of ABC News, the Associated Press, CBS News, CNN, Fox News and NBC News. The organization relies on the Associated Press to perform vote tabulations and contracted with Edison Research and Mitofsky International to ‘make projections and provide exit poll analysis.’ Edison Research has provided this data since 2004.

“The precursor was Voter News Service, which was disbanded in 2003, after controversies over the 2000 and 2002 election results. The NEP plan is largely the suggestion of CNN, which used Edison/Mitofsky as consultants in the past. Mitofsky headed the original pool that preceded VNS.

“The organizers of the pool insist that the purpose of their quick collection of exit poll data is not to determine if an election is flawed, but rather to project winners of races. Despite past problems, they note that none of their members has incorrectly called a winner since the current system was put in place. However, to avoid the premature leaking of data, collection is now done in a ‘Quarantine Room’ at an undisclosed location in New York. All participants are stripped of outside communications devices until it is time for information to be released officially.”

Doesn’t that warm the cockles of your heart and give you great confidence?

Back in 2012, I wrote this about Edison Research and Mitofsky:

“Both Edison Research and Mitofsky were involved in the 2004 election scandal (Kerry-Bush), in which their exit polls confounded network news anchors, because the poll results were so far off from the incoming vote-counts.

“Edison and Mitofsky issued a later report explaining how the disparity could have occurred; they tried to validate their own exit-poll data and the vote-count, which was like explaining a sudden shift in ocean tides by saying clouds covered the moon. It made no sense.”

But wait. Even though media giants are getting their election-night info from themselves, they must be basing that info on actual vote counts in the 50 states, as reported by the secretaries of states. Right? Read the last two paragraphs again. The exit polls differed greatly from the vote counts.

And remember, if widespread electronic vote fraud occurs on election night (read my previous piece on the crooked GEMS vote-tabulating system used across the US in 25% of the vote), the early media projections of a Presidential winner will serve to cut off any doubt about, or investigation into, the veracity of the GEMS system.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

CNN admits vaccinations spread disease, as dengue vaccine creates more outbreak cases

Failed vaccines

Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
September 7, 2016

It’s not an admission you’d expect to hear from a cable news broadcaster that has lambasted presidential candidates and others when they have suggested that vaccines are not 100 percent effective or safe, but CNN has made one, contradicting earlier stances taken by contributors.

On it’s website, CNN reported in recent days that a vaccine aimed at preventing dengue fever, which is spread by mosquitoes, may (unsurprisingly) actually do more harm than good. Citing a just-released study, the network said that the drug, which has the trade name Dengvaxia, “could lead to an increase” in the number of dengue fever cases if not properly administered. And given the fact that an entire study was done on the issue, problems must not be that rare.

“Vaccination in low-transmission settings may increase the incidence of more severe ‘secondary-like’ infection and, thus, the numbers hospitalized for dengue. In moderate transmission settings, we predict positive impacts overall but increased risks of hospitalization with dengue disease for individuals who are vaccinated when seronegative,” says an abstract of the study which was published in the journal Science.

Barely 50 percent effective

In recent years, the number of people infected with dengue has grown. Today, the disease spreads to an estimated 390 million people every single year, and it has gone global; cases have been reported in more than 100 countries around the world.

Hence the vaccine. But one that is obviously infecting more people than anyone likely anticipated.

Dengvaxia is the product of Sanofi Pasteur, a Big Pharma firm aligned with Merck. It took two decades to develop, and the company published results on its efficacy in the New England Journal of Medicine last year. In trials, the vaccine demonstrated 59.2 percent efficacy against dengue when all results were pooled across various populations and age groups. Figures varied when comparing various types of dengue, the age of vaccine recipients and whether or not they had been infected before. Study authors did not appear to measure its effectiveness in individuals who had substantially improved dietary intake.

“It’s effectiveness depends on the local epidemiology of dengue and how intense the transmission is,” Neil Ferguson, director of the MRC Center for Outbreak Analysis and Modeling at Imperial College London, which published the recent study, told CNN.

Now licensed in six countries, the Philippines was the first to introduce Dengvaxia. Recently, Brazil, which is dealing with an outbreak of another mosquito-borne disease, Zika, said that it too would begin using the vaccine. Mexico, Paraguay, Singapore and El Salvador also recently said that they will roll out the vaccine due to the high numbers of people in their respective countries who are infected.

Where is the apology to Trump?

However, in the recently published study, Ferguson used data from clinical trials of Dengvaxia to analyze the impact of utilizing the vaccine in a variety of settings. He found that using it in areas where there is a low incidence of dengue fever, and people are far less likely to have been exposed, could lead to an increase in the incidence of the disease. That, he concluded, is due to the complex nature of the virus and the manner in which it interacts with the human immune system.

“Unlike most diseases, the second time you get dengue, it’s much more likely to be severe than the first time you get it,” Ferguson told the news network. When a person who has never experienced dengue is immunized for it, the vaccine can act like a silent infection, which could set them up for an even greater infection if they are ever exposed to the virus in real form.

“The immunity we develop both protects us and places us at risk,” noted Derek Cummings, a professor of biology at the University of Florida, a co-leader of the study.

“It can have the potential to make things worse if it’s misused,” Ferguson said.

In the meantime, we’re sure that the Trump campaign won’t be getting an apology from CNN anytime soon for questioning the efficacy of the modern medical system’s regimen of vaccines, though he likely isn’t sitting around waiting for one either.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Edition.CNN.com

Trump.news

NEJM.org

Science.NaturalNews.com