Harvard-Harris Poll: Majority says mainstream media publishes fake news

TruthFact
Source: TheHill.com
Jonathan Easley
May 24, 2017

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the mainstream press is full of fake news, a sentiment that is held by a majority of voters across the ideological spectrum.

According to data from the latest Harvard-Harris poll, which was provided exclusively to The Hill, 65 percent of voters believe there is a lot of fake news in the mainstream media.

That number includes 80 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of independents and 53 percent of Democrats. Eighty-four percent of voters said it is hard to know what news to believe online.

“Much of the media is now just another part of the partisan divide in the country with Republicans not trusting the ‘mainstream’ media and Democrats seeing them as reflecting their beliefs,” said Harvard-Harris co-director Mark Penn. “Every major institution from the presidency to the courts is now seen as operating in a partisan fashion in one direction or the other.”

President Trump has railed against the “fake news” media, casting the press as the “opposition party” and opening the White House to once-fringe outlets, to the frustration of the mainstream press.

The president’s critics have accused him of using the “fake news” moniker for any story that casts him in a negative light.

Many conservatives believe the media has dramatically loosened its reporting standards when it comes to Trump, taking an anything-goes approach and running with anonymously sourced material that it would never print about a more traditional Republican or Democratic administration.

A cottage industry of conservative media critics has sprung up online to draw attention to the salacious details about Trump that spread across social media or are aggregated countless times before they’re revealed to be mischaracterized or untrue.

The net affect is that Trump’s image, and public trust in the media, are at all-time lows.

Trump’s job approval rating is at 45 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval in the latest Harvard-Harris survey. Gallup’s annual survey on public trust in the media — conducted before the election — found that only 32 percent trusted the press.

However, the Harvard-Harris survey found that 60 percent of all voters believe Trump is treating the press unfairly. Only 48 percent said the media is treating Trump unfairly.

“Voters show concern about direct attacks on the media by the president even when they have questions about it,” Penn said.

The Trump administration has been dogged by an unprecedented string of government leaks in recent weeks that have played out in the major newspapers, including media stories about the president asking fired FBI Director James Comey to pull back from an investigation and another about how he revealed classified information about a terrorist plot to Russian diplomats during an Oval Office meeting.

At hearings on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, former CIA director John Brennan and director of national intelligence Dan Coats expressed deep concerns with the leaks, which were printed in the New York Times and Washington Post, respectively.

Seventy-four percent of voters say the leaks are a serious matter that should be investigated, including 84 percent of Democrats.

However, 62 percent say that journalistic organizations that publish information — even if it is received illegally, through hacking — should be protected by law.

“It is very clear in the poll that overwhelming majorities of the country take leaks and potential political unmasking of members of the Trump campaign in wiretapped conversations merit full and even independent investigation,” Penn said.

The Harvard-Harris online survey of 2,006 registered voters was conducted between May 17 and May 20. The partisan breakdown is 36 percent Democrat, 32 percent Republican, 29 percent independent and 3 percent other. The poll uses a methodology that doesn’t produce a traditional margin of error.

The Harvard–Harris Poll is a collaboration of the Harvard Center for American Political Studies and The Harris Poll. The Hill will be working with Harvard-Harris throughout 2017. Full poll results will be posted online later this week.

Read More At: TheHill.com

Advertisements

Harvard & Yale Open Sharia Law Studies

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
January 12, 2017

Just when you think the assault on Western civilization by the crazed universities of America cannot possibly get any stupider or more insane, they step boldly on to the stage once again to demonstrate their sheer irrelevance and cultural treason:

Harvard University Launches Fellowships in Islamic Law to Influence U.S. Policy

Yale Establishes Islamic Law Center Thanks to $10M from Saudi Sharia-Banker, Alleged Bin Laden Financier

What I found intriguing here is that while the progressivist controlled corporate media of the left is still hollering to the heights about Russian attempts to influence the last election, I haven’t heard a peep about the foreign influence to manipulate the culture that the funding of a Sharia center at Yale by a Saudi banker might portend. Note in the second article the following:

Saleh Abdullah Kamel, a Saudi banker who is now worth billions of dollars thanks to his success with Sharia-compliant financing, has donated $10 million to Yale University as part of a successful effort to build an Islamic Law Center at the Ivy League school.

Noticeably left out of the press release is the fact that Mr. Kamel’s Dallah Al Baraka Group, for which he is the Chief Executive, has been investigated by U.S. officials for bankrolling al-Qaeda’s operations worldwide.

Moreover, the bank was founded by former al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden along with a group of Sudanese jihadists, the State Department has alleged, according to the Wall Street Journal.

And in the 1998 New York City trials of al-Qaeda members, witnesses testified that Mr. Kamel’s bank had previously transferred hundreds-of-thousands of dollars to al-Qaeda to help them buy an airplane, the report stated.

Additionally, Kamel’s father’s name appears on the “Golden Chain,” a list of alleged al-Qaeda funders that was confiscated by Bosnian authorities after raiding an al-Qaeda front group in 2002.

The new Yale Islamic Center becomes the latest of many Saudi-funded influence operations on American university campuses throughout the continental United States.

Is it any wonder that our universities no longer reflect American legal and cultural virtues, let alone western ones, or have anything good to say about the influence of Christianity or Renaissance humanism, or anything else that makes the West the “West”, when money from one of the most backward, corrupt, and inhuman and inhumane barbaric regimes on the planet are funding such nonsense?

Of course, the Yale article has the usual banal and cotton-mouthed pronouncements from scions of American quackademia justifying this “glorious generosity”:

“Mr. Kamel’s extraordinary generosity will open up exciting new opportunities for Yale Law School and for the entire university, said Yale President Peter Salovey. “The Abdullah S. Kamel Center for the Study of Islamic Law and Civilization will enhance research opportunities for our students and other scholars and enable us to disseminate knowledge and insights for the benefit of scholars and leaders all over the world.”

Professor Anthony Kronman, a new co-director of the Islamic Law Center, said of the school’s new addition:

“The contemporary challenges of Islamic law are broadly relevant to political events throughout the entire Islamic world and those are developments that are watched by a much larger audience of people who in many cases have not much knowledge at all of the history and traditions of Islamic law.”

“It’s the responsibility of universities to teach and instruct and that obligation applies with particular force where an issue or a subject tends to be viewed in an incomplete or inadequate or even caricatured way. There the responsibility to teach and enlighten is even stronger,” he added.

Let there be no mistake: with Saudi funding behind this latest nonsense, there will be no academic freedom to question the “glories” of Sharia, there will be no attempt to invite former Muslims, and scholars, such as Christian Luxemburg, or Muslims who recognize and advocate a non-political Islam, or scholars whose critical scholarship questions the whole narrative of Islamic orthodoxy, such as Christian Luxemburg, who has to write under a pseudonym to avoid the fatwahs of death sentences because of the radical and sweeping conclusions he (or she) came to. That genuine academic freedom and critique will have to continue to be done where it is being done now, in the free and independent media; the corporate controlled propaganda organs – with but a few exceptions – will not do it. And the big name institutions of American quackademia will continue to slide further into the morass of irrelevance.

In short, this move is a discredit to moderate voices within the Muslim world itself, to disenfranchise them from having any voice or forum whatsoever, and its a disgrace to…

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”.

Victimhood Dujour: “I’m triggered, I’m triggered, I need a safe space”

QuestionEverything
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
JonRappoport
August 30, 2016

Everyone needs a victim-story these days. Don’t leave home without one. Or two or three.

Colleges are institutionalizing victimhood.

HeatStreet reports on an innovation: “Brown University last year turned a room on campus into a safe space by outfitting it with cookies, coloring books, soft music, pillows and a video of frolicking puppies, along with trauma counselors, after students complained that a speaker invited to campus would be too upsetting.”

My, my.

Reason.com explains: “At Brown University last fall, for instance, the prospect of a debate between leftist-feminist Jessica Valenti and libertarian-feminist (and Reason contributor) Wendy McElroy was so horrifying to some students…that the creation of a ‘safe space’ was necessary.”

Sure it was necessary. These college kiddies are fragile. They can crack like eggs at the slightest provocation. A word here, a word there, and they require a vacation.

The whole notion of classes is obsolete. No teacher can avoid triggering students now and then. So send your child to Ooey-Gooey College, where he can lounge in a marshmallow annex for four years. Protect him. Keep him safe.

What’s the most prestigious college in America? Harvard, hands down. Let’s take a peek at what’s going on at the Harvard Law School, where the best and brightest college graduates in the land matriculate:

The New Yorker (12/15/14): “Individual [Harvard law] students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word ‘violate’ in class—as in ‘Does this conduct violate the law?’—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.”

Here’s what I envision:

One of these newly minted lawyers lands a job with a New York firm. The firm decides to take on a rape case, pro bono, and defend a suspect they believe has been wrongly accused. At a meeting, the CEO of the firm announces: “And we’re going to have one of our new attorneys, the very brilliant Harvard grad, Corky Muffy Zwicker-Landsman-Feldstein-Ho-Fernandez-Washington in the second chair.”

Corky replies: “Sorry, I can’t take this one. When they were teaching rape law at Harvard, I was wearing ear plugs.”

CEO: “What? Why?”

Corky: “Because the words ‘rape’ and ‘violate’ trigger me.”

CEO: “Trigger? What do you mean?”

Corky: “I experience a deep, deep emotional disturbance. So I know nothing about rape cases.”

CEO: “But what if all young law students followed your example? How would we defend people accused of rape in this country?”

Corky: “I’ve given the question a great deal of thought. I think a properly programmed computer could act as defense attorney. There would be no jury, of course, because they could be triggered, too. Ditto for the judge. The judge, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney would all be computers. They would decide the case. Besides, if a man is on trial for rape, he’s guilty. He’s a man.”

CEO: “You’re fired.”

Corky: “You can’t fire me. I would be triggered by that.”

CEO: “You ARE fired.”

Corky: “Then I AM triggered. I’m suing you and the firm for damage.”

CEO: “If that’s where you’re going with this, then I’m triggered by you being triggered.”

Corky: “Let’s take it to a jury and see what they think.”

Another young lawyer in the room pipes up: “This whole conversation is triggering me. Do we have a safe space in the building? I need to go there right now.”

CEO: “A what? A safe space?”

Young lawyer: “Yes. A room with soft music, beds, cookies, videos of kitty cats, trauma counselors, and surrogate mommies.”

CEO: “You’re fired, too.”

Young lawyer: “I’m double triggered.”

Corky: “And I’ll represent him when he sues this firm. His wife and son and parents and cousins will be triggered when he tells them what happened to him here today. They deserve compensation, too.”

On a more serious note, how did such an absurd social trend take hold at Harvard Law School, one of the most prestigious educational institutions in America?

There are many conspiring factors, but one that should be understood clearly is the promotion of victimhood. This is key.

The young are taught that “being oppressed” is an absolutely essential element in gaining any sort of legitimacy. Only those groups who lay claim to such a title are worthy.

Against that background, people who don’t have a victim-story readily available are going to have to cook one up.

And so they do.

It becomes fashionable and trendy to insist on being weak and vulnerable.

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.

Top Harvard Nutritionist Warns Processed Milk Is Dangerous, Food Pyramid Is ‘Utterly Ridiculous’

[Editor’s Note]

For those seeking of additional information please read Dr. Mercola’s:

What A Food Pyramid Based On Nutrition Looks Like

Milk

Source: NaturalNews.com
Ethan A. HuffAugust 2, 2016

In order to maintain strong bones and promote good health, you need to drink three glasses of milk every single day – at least according to official U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) guidelines. But one of the world’s top scientists says this is horrible advice, calling it “udderly ridiculous,” and out of step with what we know about sound nutrition.

Dr. Walter Willett, M.D., Ph.D., from the Harvard School of Public Health, is the second-most cited scientist in the entire field of clinical medicine, so he knows what he’s talking about. And government recommendations concerning milk intake, he says, are absolute bunk, and shouldn’t be adhered to by anyone looking to reduce his risk of bone fractures.

There are a lot of reasons for this, one being that “milk” today is nothing but a highly-processed, milk-like substance that’s been heavily altered through pasteurization, homogenization and the addition of synthetic vitamins and minerals, making it a processed food that provides little in the way of actual nutrition. But beyond this, the idea that drinking processed milk somehow strengthens bones is an industry myth.

According to Dr. Mark Hyman, M.D., a leading nutrition expert, milk and dairy products in general are something that people should avoid at all costs. Not only is milk a pro-inflammatory food (at least the processed kind), but it’s also counter-intuitive in terms of strengthening bones and reducing one’s risk of disease, and here are some reasons why:

1) The calcium in milk isn’t as bone-protective as we’ve all been led to believe. Studies show that vitamin D, magnesium and other nutrients are more important for strengthening bones than calcium. And the calcium in milk, when consumed by itself, may actually increase one’s risk of bone problems.

2) Processed dairy lacks the enzymes needed for proper digestion. When milk is pasteurized, the lactase enzyme that digests lactose is destroyed, which is why many people now suffer from lactose intolerance, and can’t stomach dairy products without supplemental support.

3) Drinking processed milk can actually increase your risk of cancer. That’s right, the calcium in milk has been shown to increase a man’s risk of prostate cancer by up to 50 percent. Milk consumption also increases levels of insulin-like growth factor-1, or IGF-1, a hormone that’s known to promote the development of cancer.

Don’t bother with the USDA’s food pyramid; it’s garbage

Dr. Willett is also outspoken in condemning the USDA’s food pyramid as a whole, which recommends heavy intake of carbohydrates and low intake of fats, two pieces of advice that constitute a recipe for chronic disease and death. The pyramid also pushes the low-calorie myth, failing to differentiate between the types of calories consumed, and how they affect the body differently.

The scientific consensus is finally switching to an understanding that calories aren’t what we need to look at, but rather the ratios of the types of foods we eat, and when we eat them. We now know that saturated fats are actually good for the body, and should be consumed in high amounts along with clean proteins, complex carbohydrates in the form of whole vegetables and lots of hydration.

Sugars, grains, artificial sweeteners and additives, and low-fat foods, on the other hand, only fuel inflammation and weight gain, leading to chronic health problems in the long run. Salt, which has long been vilified, is another important nutrient that you need as part of your diet, just so long as it’s unrefined sea or mineral salt.

Check out the new book Food Forensics by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, to learn more about how to eat better and avoid disease.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

DrHyman.com

BMJ.com

The Transhumanist Scrapbook – Volunteer’s Needed To Bear Neanderthal…

 THE TRANSHUMANIST SCRAPBOOK: VOLUNTEERS NEEDED TO BEAR NEANDERTHAL ...
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
July 25, 2016

…yes, you read that correctly, if you’re a woman and have nine months (or thereabouts) to kill, a Harvard professor wants you to bear (and raise?) a nice Neanderthal baby:

Wanted: ‘Adventurous woman’ to give birth to Neanderthal man – Harvard professor seeks mother for cloned cave baby

Here’s the project in outline:

Professor George Church of Harvard Medical School believes he can reconstruct Neanderthal DNA and resurrect the species which became extinct 33,000 years ago.

His scheme is reminiscent of Jurassic Park but, while in the film dinosaurs were created in a laboratory, Professor Church’s ambitious plan requires a human volunteer.

He said his analysis of Neanderthal genetic code using samples from bones is complete enough to reconstruct their DNA.

He said: ‘Now I need an adventurous female human.

‘It depends on a hell of a lot of things, but I think it can be done.’

Professor Church’s plan would begin by artificially creating Neanderthal DNA based on genetic code found in fossil remains. He would put this DNA into stem cells.

These would be injected into cells from a human embryo in the early stages of life.

It is thought that the stem cells would steer the development of the hybrid embryo on Neanderthal lines, rather than human ones.

What is interesting here are the “memes”, in the form of “reasons”, for why such a bizarre project would be attempted:

He believes his project could  benefit mankind.

He told German magazine Der Spiegel: ‘Neanderthals might think differently than we do. They could even be more intelligent than us.

‘When the time comes to deal with an epidemic or getting off the planet, it’s conceivable that their way of thinking could be beneficial.’

Scientists say that his plan is theoretically possible, although in Britain, like most countries, human reproductive cloning is a criminal offence.

But Professor Church’s proposal is so cutting-edge that it may not be covered by existing laws.

However, experts worry that neo-Neanderthals might lack the immunity to modern diseases to survive, and some fear that the process might lead to deformity.

There is also uncertainty over how they would fit into today’s world. Bioethicist Bernard Rollin of Colorado State University said: ‘I don’t think it’s fair to put people… into a circumstance where they are going to be mocked and possibly feared.’

Bionic Leaf Turns Sunlight Into Free, Liquid Fuel 10x Faster Than Plants

leaf
Source: UndergroundReporter.org
Christina Sarich
June 13, 2016

Scientists think they’ve just outsmarted the process of photosynthesis created by Mother Nature over a 3 billion year span with a bionic leaf. Harvard University labs have created a leaf that processes light faster than a real Maple leaf, and could deliver biofuels to an energy-hungry world.

Though their claims are imbued with hubris, the researchers are confident they’ve stumbled on something profound that could change global warming, and other environmental concerns.

Harvard Professor Daniel Nocera’s lab teamed up with microbiologists led by biochemist and systems biologist Pamela Silver, of Harvard Medical School.

“This is a true artificial photosynthesis system,” says Nocera, a leading researcher in renewable energy. “Before, people were using photosynthesis for water-splitting, but this is a true A-to-Z system, and we’ve gone well over the efficiency of photosynthesis in nature.”

The bionic leaves work by utilizing a hybrid system based on cobalt-phosphorus alloy catalyst partnered with bacteria called Ralstonia eutropha, which splits water into oxygen and hydrogen at low voltages. They say that the bionic leaf would allow them to capture CO2 but bypass the vegetative state.

These artificial leaves could capture carbon dioxide on a massive scale, but then, so could real leaves, if we’d stop clear-cutting forests and native plants for shopping malls, urban development, or palm oil.

Then again, humankind is constantly using nature as a source of inspiration to improve upon itself.

Recently, a thirteen-year-old boy used the Fibonacci sequence (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34…) found in nature to create a solar tree that is 50 percent more efficient at creating solar energy than a traditional solar array — so why not use nature’s brilliant leaf as a template for other energy saving devices?

Read More At: UndergroundReporter.org

Harvard Scientists Say There May Be An Ancient Earth Inside Our Planet

a300e3605f9889fbf8d5a4b8581c77f0
Source: Ancient-Code.com
May 22, 2016

A group of researchers from Harvard University believes they have found enough evidence to support the idea that there is an ancient Earth existing inside out planet. By ancient, we mean at the time our planet formed, billions of years ago.

The team of researchers believes that a previously unexplained isotopic ratio from deep within the planet might be leftover materials from an ancient Earth prior to colliding with a gigantic celestial body that eventually lead to the creation of Earth’s moon. Harvard scientists believe that this could be the remnants of an ancient Earth that existed 4.5 billion years ago, before the collision mentioned above.

The creation of Earth’s Moon and its origin are among some of the greatest scientific mysteries of science. While we are still unsure as to how the moon formed, there are several scientific theories which attempt to explain the formation of Earth’s ‘natural’ satellite. Among the theories, the most widely accepted one suggests that the Moon formed some 4.5 billion years ago when our planet collided with a celestial object the size of Mars called ‘Theia.’ According to this theory, the heat generated by the cosmic collision melted the planet causing debris to fly off, eventually creating the moon we see today.

However, according to Harvard scientists led by Professor Sujoy Mukhopadhyay, there is enough evidence to suggest only part of the Earth melted and that an ancient part still exists within Earths mantle. In other words, this means that parts of the ancient Earth, before the formation of the moon still exist below our feet, untouched for billions of years.

“The energy released by the impact between the Earth and Theia would have been huge, certainly enough to melt the whole planet. However, we believe that the impact energy was not evenly distributed throughout the ancient Earth. This means that a significant part of the impacted hemisphere would probably have been completely vaporized, but the opposite hemisphere would have been partly shielded, and would not have undergone complete melting.” –Professor Mukhopadhyay.

Continue Reading At: Ancient-Code.com