Disclaimer: Posts are for your consideration only. I am not responsible for the content of the articles within posts or for the communications given to me by others. I only pass along this information for you to consider and what you do with it is up to you.

 photo 121-4.jpg



Blue Lives Matter - ALL LIVES MATTER!

Saturday, December 17, 2016

The European Union Times

The European Union Times

Link to The European Union Times – World News, Breaking News

Posted: 15 Dec 2016 02:54 PM PST

The majority of Americans reject the claim that "Russian hackers," not voters, chose Donald Trump as president.
When asked if "Russian cyberattacks" helped Trump win the White House, 59% of Americans said no, according to a poll conducted by Fox News.
Surprisingly, the poll revealed the respondents weren't die-hard Trump supporters given their responses to the president-elect's various campaign proposals.
In fact, 67% of the respondents also said they have confidence in the CIA, which makes their rejection of "Russian hacking" even more damning; rouge, anti-Trump elements of the intelligence community have been pushing the Russian conspiracy theory along with the mainstream media.
The poll is a significant example of the lack of influence the mainstream media now has over public opinion, which has been on a downward decline for decades ever since global elites began buying up major media brands to promote establishment propaganda rather than objective news.
To illustrate, the federal government already admitted there was no increase in cyberattacks on election day, an admission which was later conveniently ignored by the mainstream media who used the "Russian hacking" theory as a last-ditch effort to stop Trump.
"Trust in the news media is being eroded by perceptions of inaccuracy and bias, fueled in part by Americans' skepticism about what they read on social media," the AP admitted in April. "Just 6% of people say they have a lot of confidence in the media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public's view of other institutions."
More recently, a French journalist launched a poll asking people if they believed the media was dishonest.
"At least 91 percent of the respondents said 'yes,' adding that the media hides information, and even comparing journalism to prostitution," reported RT. "The poll was launched by French journalist Jean-Jacques Bourdin, editor-in-chief of RMC radio, earlier in December."
One of the 8,000 respondents said mainstream reporters are "partisan and distribute biased information."
Posted: 15 Dec 2016 02:22 PM PST

One of Obama's Somali refugees raped a woman on a bus in Minneapolis.
Mohamed Harir Ayanle had been in the United States for three months before the attack.
Breitbart reported:
A 22-year old Somali man who arrived in the United States in September faces charges of criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to 30 years in prison.
"A Minneapolis man is being charged with criminal sexual conduct after being accused of raping a woman on a bus passing through Crookston Friday," according to the Crookston Times.
"Mohamed Harir Ayanle, 22, was released from the Northwest Regional Correction Center Monday on a $5,000 bond and on the condition that he does not leave Minnesota," the Times reported.
According to the criminal complaint filed with the Minnesota 9th Judicial District Court in Polk County, the suspect "just moved to Minnesota on September 22, 2016 from Somalia."
Breitbart News contacted the Crookston Police Department and asked whether Ayanle spoke English, whether he arrived under the federal refugee resettlement program or a different immigration program, and for details on his current visa status, but did not receive a response.
Posted: 15 Dec 2016 02:06 PM PST

Anonymous allegations that Russian government hackers interfered with the US elections are "evidence-free," several retired intelligence professionals argued in an open letter. Any hack would have been noticed by the NSA, which has stayed silent, they say.
Last Friday, the New York Times and the Washington Post cited anonymous sources claiming the CIA believed Russia was behind hackers who exposed emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta, with the intent of aiding the campaign of Donald Trump. Several Democratic senators have called for a special investigation into the allegations, while Trump dismissed it as a "conspiracy theory."
"Reading our short memo could save the Senate from endemic partisanship, expense and unnecessary delay," wrote the former CIA and NSA spies, part of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), adding that "harder evidence of a technical nature points to an inside leak, not hacking – by Russians or anyone else."
A hack, the group explained, is when someone remotely enters a computer system and extracts data. Any such attempt, however, would have been detected by the NSA.
"Thanks largely to the material released by Edward Snowden, we can provide a full picture of NSA's extensive domestic data-collection network including Upstream programs like Fairview, Stormbrew and Blarney," they wrote. This gives the agency "unparalleled access to data" being transmitted both inside and outside the US.
Pointing out that the statements by anonymous intelligence officials contain equivocating phrases such as "our best guess" or "our opinion" or "our estimate," the veterans argued that the NSA has not produced evidence of hacking. Such evidence can be easily produced "without any danger to sources or methods," they added.
"In sum, given what we know of NSA's existing capabilities, it beggars belief that NSA would be unable to identify anyone – Russian or not – attempting to interfere in a US election by hacking," the group wrote, drawing the conclusion that servers allegedly hacked "were, in fact, not hacked" and that the emails disclosed by WikiLeaks and other sites were leaked.
Former NSA technician and whistleblower Bill Binney, one of the letters signers told RT Wikileaks Julian Assange had already said publicly it was not the Russians but "a leaker inside,” and that the leaks might be political motivated.
"Certainly that's behind some of it. Hillary Clinton and a number of people were going that way, and certainly the military intelligence complex fosters that because that means for a ‘new cold war’ trillions of dollars going into the coffers of those people, they would certainly be advocates for this thing. There is a lot of vested interest to keep this kind of thing going," Binney added.
Binney said previously when there was allegations about a hack from China, the NSA showed trace route evidence, even the building where the hack originated in China
“There is no reason to withhold this kind of information especially if they [CIA] can prove it, and so far as I can see they won't even brief the House Intelligence Committee on the evidence they are using to make this statement that tells me that what they are saying is a pack of crap," said Binney.
In one example of such equivocating, three anonymous officials from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) told Reuters on Monday that their agency did not dispute the CIA's reported opinions, yet it would not accept them either.
Clinton, who was considered to be a hands-down favorite to win the election, lost the Electoral College vote to Trump, garnering only 232 electors to his 306. The electors are scheduled to assemble on December 19 and formally cast their votes. However, a number of Democratic electors have requested an intelligence briefing concerning the accusations of "Russian hacking."
With the CIA depending on NSA for communications intelligence, "it remains something of a mystery why the media is being fed strange stories about hacking that have no basis in fact," the veteran intelligence officials wrote.
The letter was signed by retired NSA technical director and whistleblower William Binney, former Senator and counterintelligence agent Mike Gravel, former CIA intelligence officer Larry Johnson, former CIA and military intelligence analyst Ray McGovern, retired CIA intelligence officer Elizabeth Murray, and former NSA SIGINT analyst Kirk Wiebe.
Posted: 15 Dec 2016 01:48 PM PST

On Monday, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte admitted he was purposely absent from a group photo and gala at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Peru to avoid an uncomfortable encounter with US President Barack Obama. Duterte confessed that he was not telling the truth when he originally claimed that he was not feeling well.
“I was there. I attended the meetings, actually. Do not believe those idiots out there. But you know, Obama was there, and because we had an exchange of words, I was just trying to avoid an awkward situation,” he said during a speech at the Wallace Business Forum, citing concerns that Obama would reject his "gesture of handshake or his getting out of the way to avoid him.”
Duterte said, “Because I did not want to create a scene, an awkward situation, I just stayed on the sidelines. That’s the truth, I was avoiding an awkward situation, especially an international awkward behavior…I did not have a bum stomach; do not believe it. That was just an excuse. But really, I would not know how to react if he would just push my hand.” according to Philstar.
In September the leader also admitted to skipping a scheduled meeting with Obama at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)-US in Laos, “as a matter of principle.”
After presidential spokesman Martin Andanar claimed that Duterte was suffering from a migraine, Duterte later said, “I did attend, but I purposely did not attend the bilateral talks between ASEAN countries and the ambassador of the President of the United States. [I intentionally skipped those meetings]. I attended all others… The reason is not [because] I am anti-West. The reason is not I do not like the Americans. It’s simply a matter of principle for me,” according to ABS-CBN News.
Tensions between Duterte and the Obama administration increased after Washington voiced concerns over possible human rights violations taking place in Manila's ongoing anti-drug campaign, which has claimed close to 2,000 lives since Duterte took office in June.
In August US State Department spokesman Mark Toner remarked, “We continue to make clear to the Philippines government…our concern about human rights, extrajudicial killings, but we are also committed to our bilateral relationship and strengthening that bilateral relationship.”
Duterte responded angrily to the comment, calling the US President a “son a whore,” which prompted the Obama administration to cancel a scheduled meeting at the ASEAN conference.
In November former Philippine President Fidel Ramos denounced Duterte's behavior, saying, “As president, it is his duty to be there at all times even if he’s not feeling well.”
Posted: 15 Dec 2016 01:30 PM PST

Facebook has announced it will empower Snopes, an organization with a clear left-wing bias, to bury so-called "fake news" on its news feed, a move that clearly opens the door for the outright censorship of conservative content and opinion.
"To combat fake news, Facebook has partnered with a shortlist of media organizations, including Snopes and ABC News, that are part of an international fact-checking network lead by Poynter, a nonprofit school for journalism located in St. Petersburg, Florida," reports Business Insider.
This network will identify stories it deems to be "fake news" and then flag the URL, ensuring the story is buried in users' news feeds and seen by significantly less people.
One of the organizations on the list tasked with burying "fake news" is Snopes, which represents a clear conflict of interest given that Snopes is clearly not impartial.
As the Daily Caller reported, Kim Lacapria, Snopes' main political "fact checker," describes herself as "openly left-leaning" and a liberal. She has previously equated Tea Party conservatives with jihadists
Lacapria "regularly plays defense for her fellow liberals," according to Peter Hasson, and has betrayed her partisan bias on numerous occasions by defending Hillary Clinton and claiming that Orlando nightclub terrorist Omar Mateen wasn't a Democrat when he was actually a registered Democrat.
Lacapria even denied that Facebook's burying of trending news topics was an issue after Facebook employees admitted it was happening and Facebook subsequently vowed to change the policy.
Does this sound like someone who is impartial? Or does it sound like someone who, given the power to do so, will exercise bias by burying conservative opinion as "fake news" even when such content is perfectly legitimate?
Snopes itself is run by a left-wing couple based out of California. These are the people who will be deciding what's "fake news" and what isn't.

Snopes is run by a bunch of disgusting fat liberal scumbags. Just look at them, they’re pathetic.
The list also includes the Washington Post Fact Checker, an inclusion that will also raise concerns given that only last week the Post had to admit that it couldn't "vouch for the validity" of a Russian propaganda blacklist that a story published by the newspaper was entirely based on.
The Post was subsequently savaged by Glenn Greenwald for promoting a "McCarthyite blacklist".
Another name on the list of organizations that will police "fake news" for Facebook is ABC News, an outlet that still employs Brian Williams even after he spread the fake news that he was under RPG fire while helicoptering in Iraq.
Facebook has basically empowered a bunch of highly partisan left-wing mainstream media outlets to bury "fake news".
Given that the mainstream media is distrusted by around two thirds of Americans, an image blackened further by Wikileaks revelations about innumerable journalists being in bed with the Clinton campaign, how can an institution with such low levels of trust be handed the power to flag and bury so-called "fake news" without abusing it?

No comments: