Tag: media

Measles Fear Is Being Used To Sell A Schedule — Follow The Numbers

According to the below October 6 Fox News Report, measles cases in the US are at nearly 3,900 – the worst year for the virus since 1991, declares the CDC. Pennsylvania has over 1,000 cases and five measles-related deaths. New York has declared a disaster emergency.

The video opened with the number of measles cases reported by the CDC this year. But it was the death toll that reached for the biggest number of all – five. That number is reported by the state of Pennsylvania, which counts anyone who died within 30 days of a lab-confirmed case of measles. The segment never mentioned that the CDC lists only two measles deaths for the entire year, counting only deaths where measles is the underlying cause on the death certificate, according to KFF. The CDC is still working with state epidemiologists to come up with a national definition of a measles death.

The same goes for the figure officials repeat most. The CDC reports that 95% of cases are in people who are unvaccinated or whose vaccination status is unknown. These are two separate groups folded into one number. A missing record is not the same as a refused shot. Only about 10% of cases have resulted in hospitalization, according to CIDRAP. And the 1991 comparison leaves out the rest of the picture: that year there were 9,643 cases, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, and this year’s 4,080 is still less than half of that.

Pennsylvania administered more than 56,000 doses of MMR vaccine in September alone, more than double a typical month. New York declared its statewide emergency on October 5 with about 100 cases of the highly contagious disease in a state of roughly 20 million people. As part of the emergency, additional groups of health care providers will be able to administer vaccine, including paramedics, pharmacists and midwives. Merck and GSK sell the MMR vaccines in the US. More immunizations equal more sales of these vaccines.

Also this week, New York Attorney General Letitia James and 15 other states are suing HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over the childhood vaccine schedule the CDC issued in January. The schedule stopped recommending seven vaccines for every child, and most were moved to what the CDC calls “shared clinical decision-making” between parents and doctors. James’ suit seeks to put the old schedule back, and it also challenges Kennedy’s firing of all 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee. Her office calls Kennedy one of the nation’s most prominent anti-vaccine activists.

Follow the money! New York AG Letitia James has received over $71,000 from the Soros family (yes, that Soros family) since 2019, according to state filings, and over $100,000 from health care unions, nursing homes and industry PACs in her 2018 attorney general primary, according to City & State. (Note: no reports have surfaced regarding money from vaccine makers, but the biomedical industry that benefits when fear is turned into doses of vaccine is the same industry whose schedule she is defending.)

Together, the case count leads a report about measles that makes a great case for alarming families, states declare emergencies and allow more people to give vaccines, and then the alarm becomes the argument for putting back a childhood vaccine schedule. None of the seven vaccines in her lawsuit is the MMR shot for measles.

Georgia families deserve the raw numbers, the definitions behind them, and the names of those who benefit when fear leads to prescriptions.

Keep reading

“Too Combustible”: New York Times Calls For Canceling Sophie Cunningham

The New York Times demonstrated again this week that it remains solidly part of the cancel campaign culture. The Athletic, owned by the Times, joined the mob in calling for the Indiana Fever to dump Sophie Cunningham for publicly opposing biological males playing in women’s sports – a position shared by the vast majority of citizens.

The column by Candace Buckner blames Cunningham for creating a “circus” and says that she is a distraction from the game due to her public stance. So, she is now “too combustible, her takes too “turbulent” to play basketball.

Of course, if she supported transplayers, she would presumably not be combustible but admirable.

Notably, the Times does not view those who have attacked Cunningham and her fans as too “combustible,” including coaches wearing opposing slogans and statements in favor of biological males in women’s sports. The New York Times itself reported that almost 80% of citizens hold the same position as Cunningham.

The Oct. 6 column called on Indiana not to renew Cunningham’s contract after two seasons when she becomes a free agent because she is “too combustible.”

However, the Times does not believe that those coaches and players speaking out in favor of such inclusion are “too combustible.”

There was no call for sacking figures like Storm co-owner Celeste Keaton, who reportedly yelled profanities at girls who were simply supporting women in sports and Cunningham.

Nor was there a call to sack Minnesota Lynx head coach Cheryl Reeve for wearing a T-shirt supporting trans players in a game against the Indiana Fever and Cunningham.

Liberal sentiments are never combustible for the Times. The newspaper ran a long line of columns supporting Colin Kaepernick in his kneeling protests during games. Conversely, columns attacked former player Enes Kanter Freedom for wearing a T-Shirt reading “WOMAN noun. adult human female.”

For most of us, the hatred for Cunningham is baffling. These athletes have a unique perspective on this controversy that can help inform the debate on both sides. We should welcome the insights of athletes for and against transgender players in this national discussion.

Instead, Cunningham has been subject to the same hateful, unhinged attacks that we have seen on other influential figures such as J.K. Rowling. There is no room for civil debate or any difference of opinion.

The purpose of these campaigns is obvious. Even with the vast majority of citizens supporting Cunningham’s position, press and pundits want to deter others from publicly taking such positions. It is designed to chill speech and deter dissent.

On Friday’s episode of “No Hesitation with Sophie Cunningham & Drew Hanlen,” Hanlen correctly called the piece an “absolute hate piece.” Cunningham responded even more succinctly to the Times with “suck it.”

I am not concerned for Cunningham, who has shown great courage and steadfastness in the face of these critics. Rather, it was the latest evidence that the Times has changed little in fueling the mob and canceling opposing voices.

The Times has thrilled the extreme left with its signature relativism in defending any abuse on the left, from looting to murder. It has continued to feature violent extremists as political attacks rise around the country.

The same newspaper that fired editors and denounced Sen. Tom Cotton for his NYT column quelling violent protests would go on to print individuals who have said that they are ok with killing conservatives or capitalists.

Just before the anniversary of the Cotton controversy, the New York Times published a column by University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.

After canceling Sen. Cotton, the Times had no problem with publishing the views of a Chinese figure called the enforcer of Beijing in the crushing of protests.

The New York Times is undeterred because its readers seem to value the very hypocrisy revealed in these controversies. They can rely on the Times to offer spins and deflections to relieve them of any self-examination after tragedies like the Kirk assassination.

While denouncing disinformation, the Times has embraced false narratives and continues to publish distorted historical claims.

Keep reading

Former Spymasters, a Taped Mouth, and the Market in Cross-Border Snatching

Just after midnight on New Year’s Day 2024, a man and his two children stood near the harbor in the Danish town of Gråsten, watching fireworks over the water a short walk from the house where the children had been living. A witness later told a court in Hamburg that several gray cars had drawn up near the quay in the last minutes of the old year, and that around a quarter past midnight masked men rushed the family and knocked the father, then forty-nine, to the ground. The same witness described one child being loaded into a car while the other fought back, held by two men who carried it by the limbs. The six attackers dragged the children through forest and mud, and both feared for their lives. One of them managed to press an alarm button that Danish police had issued the family after an earlier scare, and cried out into a night where officers were already searching with dogs and flashlights.

It did them no good. By the time the vehicles reached the German frontier the children had been moved to a camper van bought for the operation, and the men had taped the ten-year-old boy’s mouth and bound his thirteen-year-old sister’s hands. One of the kidnappers, an Israeli, told the children to keep quiet or be killed. They were carried more than eight hundred kilometers south to a farm in Baden-Württemberg and held in a mobile home until their mother arrived to collect them and take them to Hamburg.

The mother is Christina Block, heiress to the Hamburg steakhouse dynasty built on the Block House and Jim Block chains, a group of nearly eighty restaurants and a five-star hotel, with several food producers besides, employing some 2,400 people. She is on trial in Hamburg, charged with aggravated child abduction, grievous bodily harm and unlawful detention, facing up to ten years, alongside her partner, the former television sports presenter Gerhard Delling, accused of helping her. She denies all of it.

The men she is accused of hiring were not ordinary criminals. The prosecution’s case and the testimony of the operatives themselves describe an operation brokered by the former head of Germany’s foreign intelligence service and carried out by veterans of Israel’s. The skills used to seize two children on a Danish quay were the skills of the state, available for a fee.

The war that produced that night had been running for a decade. Christina Block met Stephan Hensel through friends in 1999 and married him in 2005, and they had four children. Hensel had trained as a banker and gone to work inside the Block business, moving into the meat trade, and then, as happens to executives who fall out of favor in the family’s world, he lost the job. He blames the dismissal on the patriarch Eugen Block and holds it responsible for the collapse of the marriage. They separated in 2014 and divorced in 2018, and the fight moved to money and to the right to decide where the children would live.

It was the children who moved first. In early 2021 the eldest daughter left her mother and went to her father after a holiday on Sylt. That August, Hensel kept the two youngest in Denmark after what was meant to be an ordinary visit, telling the youth welfare office that Block beat the children, a charge she rejects as freely invented. She answered that Hensel had turned the children against her and was holding them away from her and the rest of the family. Hensel’s position was that the children lived with him by choice. A youth-office worker would later testify that his isolation of them looked like a demonstration of power.

On paper, the German courts sided with the mother. The Hanseatic Higher Regional Court in Hamburg gave Block the authority to decide where the children lived and ordered Hensel to hand them back. He refused, and a Danish court had already granted him provisional custody, so Denmark declined to enforce the German order. In February 2023 a Danish court rejected the return of the children outright and left Block with a visitation right she could not exercise. “I still have no contact with my children, although I have a contact order,” she told Bild in late 2024.

The operation grew in this gap. Germany and Denmark run on separate legal systems, and Denmark sits outside the European framework that would have forced automatic recognition of the German ruling, leaving the matter to the slow machinery of the Hague Conventions. A German court had named Block the parent entitled to the children and could not deliver them across a border fifty kilometers from Hamburg. After two years of stalemate, German jurisdiction lapsed on the ground that the children had settled with their father, and the case passed to Denmark. A woman holding what a German court had called the right to decide where her own children lived watched the German state prove unable to enforce its own decision.

That failure is real, and it is the part of the story that the tabloid account of a monstrous heiress erases. It does not make what happened on the quay defensible, and the record does not let Block stand as a wronged innocent either. The children had run toward their father, not away from him. Her defense in court is that holding the German custody order, she could hardly have kidnapped her own children, and that she had been talking to the security firm only about an assignment for a family hotel. Against that sits her own phone, which investigators say held a diary of schemes to recover the children, from a hired makeup artist to a body double for the father’s new partner. She called it blue-sky thinking that kept her sane, and said she only drove south after someone told her to come quickly because it was about her children.

The money behind all of this sits inside a second family war that the coverage mostly leaves out. Block has been a shareholder in the Eugen Block holding company since 2011, yet she does not control the fortune, and she has been in open conflict with her own father over the succession, pushed at times out of the company’s management. Eugen Block, in his eighties and still the group’s dominant figure, told the Hamburger Abendblatt he had nothing to do with the abduction and could say nothing about it. The war over the children was being waged by a woman who had been sidelined inside her own family’s empire by the man who held its purse.

The operatives tell a story that begins long before the camper van. Block and Delling, by the Israeli side’s testimony, started looking for ways to retrieve the children in 2021. An early attempt to brand Hensel and his lawyer as pedophiles failed. Investigators drawing on the security firm’s own data found that in September 2023 there was an effort to plant incriminating material on Hensel, and the charge sheet carries the allegation that the firm was to place fabricated child-abuse material on him to break him in the custody courts. A security contractor is separately accused of watching Block’s Hamburg house so the children could not flee once they were brought there. By the time of the New Year’s operation this had stopped being a parent’s desperation and had become a sustained private campaign, run by professionals, against a man and his household.

The person who connected a Hamburg heiress to an Israeli intelligence cell was August Hanning. He ran the Bundesnachrichtendienst, Germany’s foreign intelligence service, from 1998 to 2005, and afterward went into private security. Prosecutors say he put Block in touch with former Israeli intelligence officers and, with a retired police officer, took more than €100,000 from her in connection with the job. A letter from the veteran German private investigator Werner Mauss to the domestic intelligence service in January 2025 named Hanning as the man who had approached the former Shin Bet chief Yaakov Peri to assemble a team. Days later, by the same account, Peri offered to tell the court about Hanning’s role if his confidentiality were guaranteed. Hanning denies all of it, saying he never contacted Peri and knew of no payment.

His name surfaced because of an accident that the author reported on last week. On 6 October 2026 Hanning, the former chief of Germany’s intelligence service, was arrested on suspicion of treason and espionage, a case that grew out of the search of his home in the Block investigation. The man accused of brokering the abduction of two children was found to have a second life worth a separate indictment – and a movie. For the children, the simpler fact holds. The broker was a former chief of the German state’s intelligence service, and the state he once served had lost track of what he did next.

The firm named in the German courtroom is Cyber Cupula Operations, an Israeli outfit whose team, by the reporting around the trial, included former Mossad operatives and ran to at least eight people, most of them Israeli. The man described as the head of the abduction cell is David Ram Barkai, a veteran of the Israeli military’s Unit 504 and, by various accounts, a former Mossad agent. Over four days of testimony he told the court that Block and her lawyer had paid him and his men around €220,000 to take the children from their father and deliver them to her. Prosecutors have charged a second Israeli, Tal Sasson, and sought the arrest of Barkai and of Keren Tenenbaum, who left Germany. One member of the team, arrested earlier in Cyprus, told the court he had taken part not for money but to help the children, having been told their father was evil. He apologized to Hensel, who accepted it.

Above the cell, the name German media attached to the operation is Yaakov Peri, for six years the director of Israel’s internal security service and later a government minister, now president of a private intelligence firm called CGI. Bild reported that Peri assembled the Israeli team. In testimony, Block was asked whether she knew Peri’s name or knew of seven million euros said to have moved to CGI, and she said nothing. Peri could not be reached, his wife saying he was in a clinic. CGI’s chief executive told Der Spiegel the firm had nothing to do with the affair and did not know how its name had become attached to it. Block, for her part, has said the operatives acted on their own and that her late mother had engaged them.

CGI is a business-intelligence company of the kind Israel’s security establishment has produced in quantity, staffed from the alumni of its spy services and sold to governments and corporations around the world. The same firm was hired to review security after the 2019 theft of jewels worth more than a hundred million euros from the Green Vault in Dresden. These are not fringe operators. They are the commercial afterlife of state intelligence, and their client list is a question of who can pay. The defense in Hamburg has leaned on a related point, its lawyer telling the court that none of this could have happened if the police had done their job, which is a strange thing for an accused to argue and an accurate description of the vacuum these firms were hired to fill.

The method on display in Gråsten belongs to a wider pattern. Seizing a person by force across a border and delivering them to where someone else has decided they belong is the privatized retail form of something states have made routine. On 3 January 2026 the president of the United States announced that American forces had struck Venezuela and “captured” its president, Nicolás Maduro, flying him out of the country “in conjunction with U.S. Law Enforcement” to stand trial in Manhattan, a fifty-million-dollar bounty on his head. The abduction in Denmark happened two years before that, so the point is not imitation. The taboo against reaching across a border to take a person has dissolved at the top, and the men who built their careers performing such operations for states are now for hire to anyone with a grievance and the means. A sidelined heiress bought it for a custody fight.

The custody fight ended within days. A German court ordered the children returned to Denmark, and Block complied. She had held them for a long weekend. In the time since, a Danish family court has given Hensel sole custody, and a higher Danish court has barred Block from any contact with the children. Danish authorities say the two children want no further contact with their mother. They now live with their father at a secret address under changed names.

The operation worked, for about a day, and the working of it destroyed the thing it was meant to secure. A woman who believed, with a German court order behind her, that the law had abandoned her children reached outside the law and lost them completely. The children were the one party in this with no lawyers and no say, taped and bound in the back of a van while adults who had run the secret apparatus of two states collected their fees. The courts that could not move two children to safety across fifty kilometers of border proved able, once they had been taken by force, to move them only further out of reach.

Keep reading

New York Times report on AIPAC hides a central truth about Israel’s unpopularity

At first glance, that recent New York Times article on AIPAC, the wealthy pro-Israel lobbying organization, may have looked promising. It ran on the front page of the Sunday print edition, the week’s most prominent location. It jumped inside, where it covered nearly an entire page. It was 53 paragraphs long. The byline indicated that 4 Times reporters had worked on the article.

But, astonishingly, not a single one of those 53 paragraphs explained that AIPAC’s efforts to influence American elections have changed dramatically in recent years. These days, the organization often actually hides its pro-Israel views, even though promoting Israel is the only reason it exists in the first place. Instead, it dumps money into political campaigns and frequently raises issues that have absolutely no connection to Israel and Palestine.

Let’s take, for example, the Democratic primary earlier this year for the House seat in New Jersey’s 13th Congressional district. AIPAC decided to target Tom Malinowski, a former congressman who had the temerity to mildly suggest that military aid to Israel should be “conditioned” on its human rights record. This site’s estimable Michael Arria succinctly explained how AIPAC acted:

“Of course, AIPAC can’t actually run ads telling Democratic voters to reject Malinowski for being sufficiently pro-Israel as the [Democratic] base has completely soured on the country, and lobbying groups supporting that relationship.

“So, the AIPAC-funded [television] ads attack Malinowski for allegedly supporting Trump’s immigration policies. The allegation stems from a 2019 vote, in which that year Congress passed a funding bill that included money for law enforcement at the southern border. Most Democrats, including Malinowski, backed the package.”

(In that race, AIPAC’s strategy backfired. It dumped $2 million into TV ads attacking Malinowski — which apparently damaged him enough so that Analilia Mejia, who is even more progressive on Israel/Palestine, won the Democratic primary, and is presently in Congress.)    

AIPAC’s new stealth strategy was by no means a secret. Both Politico and MS Now covered the New Jersey race, and revealed the Israel lobby’s behind the scenes maneuvering.

AIPAC deployed the same stealth strategy in August, when it helped defeat progressive former Rep. Cori Bush’s effort to win back her seat in Missouri’s Democratic primary. The pro-Israel lobby had already helped her opponent, Wesley Bell, two years before. This time around, AIPAC’s ads sidestepped Israel again, and instead emphasized Bush’s alleged missed votes in Congress and her supposed criticism of the Biden administration. 

So: how did 4 NYTimes reporters, who were handed 53 paragraphs of space, miss this vital Stealth AIPAC angle? How did the echelon of editors who reviewed the report also fail to do anything? The only plausible explanations are institutional bias and conscious whitewashing and self-censorship.

Keep reading

Zelensky Responds to Trump Calling for New President – Nearly Cries While Playing Victim and Demanding More US Support

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky ran to ABC for an interview on Sunday to respond to Trump’s fury toward him and whine about the United States not giving enough support for him to try and win the war. 

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Trump went off on Zelensky yesterday after announcing a deal with Russia to sell diesel to the US. While speaking to reporters on Friday, Trump blasted the Ukrainian President’s refusal to make peace and blamed him for the continuation of the war with Russia after Ukraine’s latest attack on a Russian oil export hub.

“I think it’s time for Ukraine to get a new president,” Trump said, blaming Zelensky for high oil and diesel prices.

Trump later doubled down last night, saying Zelensky “should have an election” and that “Putin would like to see a settlement strongly,” but “Zelensky does not want to make a deal.”

Zelensky on Sunday told ABC’s Jonathan Karl that it’s Russia’s fault that the war has continued, calling for a ceasefire. “Don’t attack us. Don’t kill our children. We will stop attacking your diesel. And I think it’s fair, fair deal,” he said. It should be noted that Zelensky turned down a US-backed ceasefire back in February 2025 when he and Trump had an explosive meeting in the Oval Office.

Zelensky further responded to Trump’s calls for an election and new president, claiming “it’s up to our people” to choose a leader as he continues to hold the country under martial law, barring an election.

Keep reading

Outrage over plan to livestream US military firing squad execution

The Pentagon’s plan to livestream the firing squad execution of a convicted military base mass shooter has met widespread condemnation, with the UN saying it would amount to torture and US lawmakers from both parties slamming the move.

Nidal Hasan’s execution – which is scheduled for December 3 at Fort Hood, Texas, where he gunned down 13 people in 2009 – is set to be the first by US military firing squad since 1945.

Representative Austin Scott, a member of US President Donald Trump’s Republican Party, said he supported executing Hasan but that “livestreaming executions is what jihadists do. America is better than that.”

Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said broadcasting the execution would be “a barbaric spectacle” that would give Hasan “more attention and more control” and “a global platform to amplify his hateful, anti-American message”.

Reed added: “This is a gift to anti-American terrorist recruiters.”

Trump on Friday backed the execution – saying Hasan “deserves it” and branding him a “maniac” – but did not comment on the livestreaming.

A Pentagon official told AFP the previous day that the execution would be streamed live, after US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said “we’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public”.

Later, Hegseth wrote “correct” when retweeting a media report about the planned livestream.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights condemned the move, telling AFP yesterday that “the livestreaming of an execution is tantamount to a public execution and would breach the absolute prohibition of torture”.

Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, said it was a “barbaric promotion of a culture of death and must be reconsidered”.

Hegseth said it would be the military’s first firing squad execution since World War II – a reference to Eddie Slovik, who was put to death for desertion in 1945.

Hegseth said: “People need to understand that … there’s serious consequence for these types of things.

“I kind of like the mentality we had in World War II, which was win, which was understand when the enemy attacks you, you need to stand your ground.”

The last US military execution was in 1961, when John Bennett was hanged for rape and attempted murder.

The Death Penalty Information Centre says that 135 soldiers have been executed by the US military since 1916.

According to rights group Amnesty International, at least 17 public executions are known to have been carried out in 2025 – six in Afghanistan and 11 in Iran.

Amnesty’s Justin Mazzola said on Friday that the death penalty is “a violation of human rights”, and that streaming Hasan’s execution “would only compound the cruelty”.

Twelve of the 13 people Hasan killed and 30 of those he wounded were soldiers. He was shot and partially paralysed by a civilian police officer who responded to the attack.

Keep reading

After 3 Years, Mainstream Media Accepts That Netanyahu Knew Oct 7 Would Happen—And Allowed It

The mainstream corporate media — always a mere two to three years behind on every story — is finally coming to terms with (some of) the reality of the October 7, 2023, attack. It is suddenly acceptable for the liberal corporate pro-Israel outlets to say Netanyahu obviously knew October 7th was going to happen.

It’s been three years since the attack. For three whole years, many of us in the endlessly maligned and suppressed independent media world have been shouting from the hills that Israel’s ruling elite knew the attacks would happen, knew exactly how they would happen, facilitated them by pulling troops and security away from the border wall, then greatly amped up the death count by having the Israeli military massacre hundreds of innocent people via the Hannibal Directive.

For revealing the truth, per usual, we are mocked, suppressed, harassed and called conspiracy theorists.

And just this week, our beloved corporate media outlets such as NPR, MS Now, The Atlantic, BBC, the New York Times and more have “realized” we were right all along.

Keep reading

Genocide Treated as Afterthought by Media on Third Anniversary of October 7 Attacks

October 7 marked three years since the Hamas attacks on Israel that left some 1,200 people dead and 251 taken hostage. It also marks three years since Israel launched its genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip with material and moral support from the United States, with an official death toll surpassing 74,000—including more than 20,000 children.

The official death toll is no doubt an underestimate, given the large number of missing and disappeared persons. (When Western corporate media outlets cite this toll, they often feel compelled to qualify it—e.g., as the BBC [10/7/26] had it, the “war between Israel and Hamas has killed more than 74,200 people in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run health ministry, whose overall figures are seen as accurate by the UN”—lest, presumably, they be seen as taking Hamas’s word for it that the figure is so high.)

The killing spree continues in spite of an alleged ceasefire implemented last year, although the Jerusalem Post (10/5/26) charitably reckons that “less than 50%” of the casualties have been civilians.

The genocide was not, of course, a sudden violent outburst that came out of nowhere. Rather, it was a climax of genocidal momentum that had been building since the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, which was itself achieved via the destruction of some 530 Palestinian villages, the killing of 15,000 Palestinians, and the expulsion of three-quarters of a million more.

Now, three years later, the corporate media still can’t bring themselves to refer to the genocide of Palestinians as such—notwithstanding it being a pretty textbook case of the phenomenon. Predictably, then, the third anniversary of the commencement of mass slaughter and devastation in Gaza has been cast in corporate media as an afterthought to the anniversary of the Hamas attacks.

Keep reading

BUSTED! Far-Left ABC News Caught Spreading Defamatory Lies About Trump’s Sons — Then Quietly Deletes Fake News Hit Piece Without Issuing a Retraction or Apology

The Corporate Fake News Media has reached a brand-new, shameful low, and this time, Disney-owned ABC News needs to be sued straight into bankruptcy.

On Wednesday, the radical hacks at ABC News published a completely fabricated, malicious hit piece targeting Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump.

The mainstream media propaganda outlet falsely claimed that the Trump brothers’ conservative venture capital firm, 1789 Capital, had taken a massive, multi-billion dollar stake in the defense technology company Anduril.

On Wednesday, October 7, ABC published a story under the headline “Trump sons’ investments have won billions in Pentagon contracts since his election.”

The hit piece claimed that 1789 Capital, the venture firm where Donald Trump Jr. is one of six partners, had taken a “major stake” in defense tech company Anduril out of a $2.5 billion funding round.

It further asserted that Anduril went on to score more than $6 billion in lucrative Pentagon contracts directly tied to this investment, including a massive new shipyard deal, implying pay-to-play favoritism under the Trump administration.

“The company is one of the largest manufacturers to receive an investment from Donald Trump Jr. and his brother Eric Trump, but they are not the only one,” according to the now-deleted article.

“An ABC News analysis found defense companies backed by the president’s sons, including Anduril, have now raked in more than $6 billion dollars in active or promised government contracts since those investments were made, according to the government’s official contract reporting,” the outlet said.

Naturally, the Far-Left smear machine immediately went into overdrive. Radical California Governor Gavin Newsom and a army of unhinged Democrats quickly weaponized ABC’s outright lies, pushing the viral hit piece across social media to frame the First Family.

Keep reading

Liberals accused of feeding bill details to CBC and Globe before MPs

Conservative and NDP MPs are accusing the Liberal government of giving journalists advance details of legislation before parliamentarians could examine it, alleging the leaks undermine parliamentary scrutiny.

As reported by Blacklock’s Reporter, NDP MP Don Davies joined Conservative Opposition House Leader Andrew Scheer in condemning disclosures about Bill C-40, which would make the Defence Investment Agency a Crown corporation.

The government tabled the bill Tuesday. A day earlier, the Globe and Mail reported the planned change, citing three unnamed sources. CBC published a similar report that evening, citing two federal sources.

Both outlets said their sources were not authorized to speak publicly. The Prime Minister’s Office told the Globe it would not comment on legislation before it was tabled.

Davies, who represents Vancouver Kingsway, argued that the reports contained substantive details unavailable to MPs and beyond what the bill’s title disclosed on the order paper.

He accused the government of repeatedly using unauthorized disclosures to influence public debate, saying leaks become a parliamentary privilege issue when legislation is already on notice, but MPs have yet to see it.

Davies said parliamentarians must defend their right to receive legislative details before journalists do.

Scheer also raised the matter in the Commons, arguing that leaking provisions of Bill C-40 showed contempt for Parliament.

“The House must stand up for its rights,” Scheer said, criticizing a government he accused of treating Parliament as “a mere speed bump.”

The objections concern opposition allegations of a breach of parliamentary privilege. The supplied report does not identify a Speaker’s ruling on the matter.

Keep reading