Saturday, September 29, 2018

Kavanaugh Confirmation: Fake Rape Victims Are More Fun Than Real Ones

New Federal laws need to be enacted to prosecute false accusers of rape  

By Deborah C. Tyler

To grasp why members of the American left come out to rant and root for their favorite fake victims like Colin Kaepernik and Christine Blasey Ford while they ignore real victims like Juanita Broaddrick, we will introduce two new concepts: narcissistic authoritarianism and its ethical strategy, the fake victim-rescuer delusional system.

In the last century, science and technology conferred astonishing and ubiquitous material improvements to life around the world and especially in America. The dizzying ascendance of wealth and material privilege set the stage for a fundamental shift in consciousness from morality and law (which infuse compassion and justice into the daily struggle for survival) to consciousness oriented around narcissistic gratification. In this paradigm, the struggle for survival is over, and the goal of ethical consciousness is to feel good about oneself. 

This vast transition arose when scientific advancement, mass affluence, and material comfort afforded shortcuts around historic American righteous authority articulated in our biblical and constitutional heritage. Moral absolutes became the refuge of simpletons, and maintaining a constitutional republic more bother than it's worth.

Modern American consciousness, as a whole, has shifted from social control based on historic righteous authority to social control based on modern narcissistic authoritarianism. One way of conceptualizing the difference between the conservative right-wing mindset and the progressive left-wing mindset is that the left has more completely abandoned traditional righteous authority, allowing narcissistic authoritarianism to more completely fill the religious and moral vacuum for the left. Narcissistic authoritarianism relies on a fallacious victimology regarding race, sex, and sexuality, as a primary means of considering oneself good and virtuous. This psychology is narcissistic because it is a closed self-referential belief system devoid of absolute, universal, or unchanging truth about human worth. It is authoritarian because narcissism is inherently tyrannical. There is no escape from or appeasement of this tyranny in the pursuit of imaginary glories of self-image. 

But the greatest impact of the shift from adherence to traditional righteous authority to modern narcissistic authoritarianism is that in the former, virtue derives from actual self-sacrifice and good deeds, whereas in the latter, virtue derives from displaying concern for supposed victims – and the louder, the better – without having to do any real service for anybody. That is so much easier and more fun.

Although narcissistic authoritarianism rejects traditional morality, the ego still needs to organize the world in categories of good and evil. In the absence of religiously based schemata of virtue and sin by which the ego can consider itself good, a new system of judgment and ethical differentiation developed, primarily among the left wing. It can be termed the fake victim-rescuer delusional system. In this psychological system, virtue lies in advocating for and rescuing accredited victims. This ethical system, which to a great degree has replaced traditional morality in left-wing psychology, is a defense mechanism that answers the question, "How do I feel good about myself without the bother of doing anything practical for the actually downtrodden?" The ego's answer is, "Why go to the trouble of actual service to real victims when it feels better to rant, rave, curse, and scream about fake ones?"

Because the psychological payoff of the fake victim-rescuer delusion is not to actually protect or help anybody, but rather to enable the delusional rescuer to feel good, fake victims work much better than real ones. Victims who have experienced actual pain, oppression, and suffering might dampen one's spirits.

Narcissism is authoritarian by nature because it works in service of the ego, whose job is to be a self-serving tyrant, while protecting the ego from making sacrifices. Psychologically, such sacrifices require sincere introspection. Introspection is by nature quiet. Those providing real help to real victims tend to be quiet because they are subsumed in the work. Those reveling in rescuing fake victims tend to be noisy and histrionic and to direct attention to themselves. Consider these victim-rescuers. Their activism, purportedly in support of the "victim" Christine Blasey Ford, is pure spectacle characterized by noise, execrable manners, and mob (rather than individual) action. Nowhere is Dr. Ford to be seen. However, these intrepid rescuers made sure their own video selfies were seen by millions. 

Christine Blasey Ford is already one of the most ideologically useful and emotionally gratifying fake victims in American history. Her victimization sideshow has provided such service to the narcissistic authoritarianism of the left wing that the Democrats should strike a Fake Victim Medal of Honor. If you had a fifteen-year-old daughter and learned that she went to an unsupervised party, drank herself stupid, and was momentarily pinned to a bed before getting free and sneaking home, would your first thought be to call the police? She may have had a harrowing experience while in the 9th grade, but if such an event did occur, it was a frightening life lesson, one that apparently Dr. Ford failed to learn. She is reported to have continued as a heavy drinking, hard partying surfer girl for years, before becoming a professional victimology scripturalist. She first unpacked her victimhood in marital therapy, which is a propitious moment for elaborating upon one's grievances.

Beyond the historical significance of helping the rageful left destroy the most qualified nominee to the Supreme Court since Antonin Scalia, the ongoing value of fake victims for the left is that they are much more fun to advocate for than the real ones. Having worked in a crime victim's assistance program with rape-survivors, I can attest that the difference between "victims" like Blasey Ford and the real ones is striking.

Real rape victims tend to come from lower-income, lower-educational level backgrounds. Often their lower socioeconomic status makes them more vulnerable to victimization. The rape of a teenager or adult does not tend to submerge for years. It has an immediate, often devastating effect on the person's life and behavior. Psychologically disabled people are often difficult to help. They often make self-defeating choices and set up conditions of re-victimization to expiate their shame. Psychotherapy for a sexually victimized person is an exquisitely delicate process of supporting the recovery dynamics of the mind. It is truly "leading from behind."

Acquaintance rape victims tend to come from the same culture and political belief system of the rapist. They are not driven by a political agenda, like the cadre of hard-left lawyers Blasey Ford has around her. Juanita Broaddrick was honored to meet with the politician who subsequently raped her. Clinton preyed on women who worked for him and trusted him. 

It is often said that fake victims do terrible damage to the credibility of real victims. But the damage goes deeper than undermining credibility. The fake victim-rescuer delusional system, which amounts to little more than rage and self-directed virtue-signaling, excuses the left wing from providing or supporting the actual difficult, compassionate, and patient service that may help real crime victims.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Indonesia 7.5 Earthquake, Tsunami Hits Palu

Communications reported cut on Palu  


A 7.5 magnitude earthquake hit just off central Sulawesi at a depth of 10km (6.2 miles) just before 18:00 (11:00 GMT), the US Geological Survey has reported and a tsunami has hit the coastal city of Palu, officials say. Another 5.8 quake followed shortly after.

The head of Indonesia's meteorology and geophysics agency (BMKG) Dwikorita Karnawati reported that the tsunami had receded.

Sutopo Purwo Nugroho, an official with the local disaster agency Akris said the Donggala area in central Sulawesi Province has sustained significant damage. “The earthquake and tsunami caused several casualties ... while initial reports show that victims died in the rubble of a collapsing building. The number of casualties and the full impact is still being calculated."

Images released by the agency showed a badly damaged shopping mall and major damage to buildings that were reduced to rubble.

Friday's large quake was centred 78km north of Palu the capital of Central Sulawesi province and was felt on the island of Lombok in its largest city Makassar and on the neighbouring island of Kalimantan. Lombok was recently hit by a series of powerful quakes killing over 550 people on the neighboring island of Sumbawa.

The 7.5-magnitude quake caused major damage to structures and roads

As of 7:40 p.m. Western Jakarta time authorities had yet to fully determine the full extent of the damage.

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Democrats, Kavanaugh, And "The End of Civilization"

CNN/MSNBC/MSM fake news seditionists pound yet another nail into their coffins with the smearing of a Supreme Court nominee  

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Judge Robert Bork used to tell a prescient and darkly humorous story about watching Clarence Thomas’s Senate confirmation hearings — etched in pre-hashtag history as the “Thomas–Hill hearings,” in homage to Anita Hill’s role as the Left’s heroic accuser.

At the time, Thomas was a judge of the same eminent D.C. Circuit federal appeals court on which Bork had served. As he viewed Thomas’s “high-tech lynching” in horror, Bork recalled, a friend of his, the iconic Irving Kristol, approached and asked him what was happening.

“The end of civilization,” the judge sadly quipped.

“Of course it is,” Kristol deadpanned. “But it’ll take a long time. Meanwhile, it’s still possible to live well.”

It was a poignant story coming from Bork. A scholar of great breadth, the late judge was a man from another time: a patriot who’d enlisted in the Marines at 17 during World War II and been called back to duty when the Korean War broke out, even as he embarked on a legendary life in the law. In 1987, four years before the Thomas–Hill hearings, the slide from civilization he so lamented — the slouch toward Gomorrah — had started when he himself was mugged by Senate Democrats. This libelous character assassination, derailing Bork’s nomination by President Reagan to the Supreme Court, had been led by Ted Kennedy.

Democrats And Women

Back in 1969, Senator Kennedy had recklessly caused the death of a young woman, not his wife, by driving her off a rickety bridge on Chappaquiddick Island as they sped away from a booze-soaked bacchanal. Kennedy managed to save himself by swimming to safety. He then abandoned the scene for hours, failing to alert police and rescue workers while Mary Jo Kopechne, submerged in the car, eventually drowned.

Kennedy's car and the bridge at Chappaquiddick

Ms. Kopechne did not live to see “Me Too.” That “movement,” in which the Left is front and center, was not forged until long after leftists had raised the notoriously lecherous Kennedy to “Lion of the Senate” status. Indeed, it was not forged until 20 years after Democrats, prominently including women’s-rights advocates, closed ranks around President Bill Clinton, Kennedy’s equally lascivious political ally.

According to the victim’s credible accusation, Clinton had raped Juanita Broaddrick in 1978. That was before Brett Kavanaugh could even have pondered hitting underage beer parties. Clinton, at the time, was the 32-year-old attorney general of Arkansas.

Bill Clinton justifies rape of Juanita Broaddrick, saying it was acceptable in 1978

His sexual assault against Ms. Broaddrick came to light during the investigation of Clinton’s obstruction of a sexual-harassment suit filed against him by another woman, Paula Jones. She alleged that, while governor of Arkansas, Clinton had exposed himself to her, demanding oral sex. She declined and fled from the room.

There was no Twitter back then but, in the face of Jones’s entirely credible allegation, a top Clinton White House aide set the narrative: “Drag a hundred dollars through a trailer park and there’s no telling what you’ll find.” President Clinton eventually paid $850,000 to settle the matter out of court.

Bill Clinton 'mocked Paula Jones as a "floozy trying to get her moment in the sun"' after she accused him of sexual harassment

The president was later held in contempt of court by a federal judge for providing perjurious testimony. That testimony was about Monica Lewinsky. It was also through Ms. Jones’s case that we discovered that Clinton, while the 50-year-old president of the United States, had arranged Oval Office sexual liaisons with the then-22-year-old White House intern.

These were just some of the many sexcapades in which Clinton leveraged his physical and political muscle against vulnerable women. He did it because he felt immune, the women having been intimidated into silence. In this regard, his enabler-in-chief was his political partner and wife, Hillary, who took charge of the jihads against her husband’s bevy of potential accusers. Think of them as a Me Too precursor, strangled in the cradle lest Democrats be separated from power.

And how did Democrats respond to this outrageous affront against all that Me Too stands for? Why, by nominating Mrs. Clinton for president and championing her bid to return to power as — what else? — a symbol for women everywhere who challenge our sexist, predatory, Good Old Boy society.

Democrats And Judges

Some more not-so-fun facts. Not that long after Clarence Thomas’s nomination was very nearly defeated, and within easy memory of Bork’s character assassination, President Bill Clinton got to nominate two Supreme Court justices. How did Republicans react? They couldn’t leap on the confirmation bandwagon fast enough. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were confirmed by the lopsided margins of 96–3 and 87–9, respectively.

See how this works?

Justices Ginsburg and Breyer were well qualified. But, of course, so had been Bork and Thomas. Because they were Democrats, however, Ginsburg and Breyer sailed through. The two things Democrats and Republicans have in common are 1) abiding respect for the personal integrity and legal acumen of Democratic judicial nominees and 2) effective acceptance of the Democrats’ claimed prerogative to “Bork” any Republican court nominee, no matter how impeccably credentialed, no matter their obvious integrity.

One-time Supreme Court nominee, Bork (at left) was a lauded from many corners of the public square

Republicans have defeated Democratic nominees, but they never Bork them. They never demagogue Democratic nominees as sex offenders, racists, or homophobes. There are no “Spartacus” moments.

Even when Republicans are put off by a Democratic nominee’s progressive activism, they seem apologetic, quick to concede that the progressive in question adheres to a mainstream constitutional philosophy — one that is championed by leading American law schools and bar associations because it effectively rewrites the Constitution to promote progressive pieties. Old GOP hands then typically vote “aye” while mumbling something about bipartisanship and some “presumption” that the president is entitled to have his nominees confirmed (a grant of deference that Democrats do not reciprocate, and that actually applies only to offices in the executive branch that exercise the president’s own power, not to slots in the independent judicial branch).

Even in 2016, when Republicans blocked Merrick Garland, President Obama’s late-term gambit to fill the vacancy created by the titanic Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, there was no besmirching of Judge Garland’s character. It was pure political calculation and exactly what Democrats would have done if roles had been reversed (minus the character assassination).

The Constitution did not require Republicans to conduct hearings or vote on the president’s nominee — something of which Democrats were well aware, having stonewalled on President George W. Bush’s nominees, saving slots for his Democratic successor to fill. This time, with the 2016 election looming, Republicans had the votes to block Garland and allow the American people, in the 2016 election, to determine whether they wanted the court vacancy filled by Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. It was a rare show of backbone by the GOP, and it undoubtedly won the election for Trump.

No one, however, questioned Garland’s sterling character, patriotism, or legal acumen. These attributes, in fact, created real political risk for Republicans. For the GOP, Garland — then a 63-year-old moderate progressive with a strong law-enforcement background — was as good as it gets (which is why Obama, as a lame duck with no leverage, nominated him). Trump was expected to lose. Had Mrs. Clinton won the presidency, Obama might well have retracted Garland’s nomination. A President Clinton would then have tried to fill the seat with a young leftist firebrand. Do you think Republicans, with the thinnest of Senate majorities in the first year of America’s first woman president, would have blocked such a nomination? I think she (it would have been a she) would have cruised to confirmation.

On the other hand, if Clinton had pressed Garland’s nomination, he’d have been confirmed with 80 or more votes.

That doesn’t happen for Republican nominees anymore. Fifteen years ago, with the Senate in firm GOP control at the start of George W. Bush’s second term, Judge John Roberts was confirmed as chief justice, 78–22. But just a year later, notwithstanding his stellar credentials, Judge Samuel Alito was confirmed by a historically slim 58–42 vote due to near-unanimous Democratic opposition.

In the Obama years, even as it finally dawned on some Republicans that unrequited solicitude might not be the best strategy, the question was still not whether Democratic nominees could be confirmed to the High Court but by how much — Judge Sonia Sotomayor by 68–31, Dean Elena Kagan by 63–37. Those were easy rides compared to last year’s 54–45 nail-biter for President Trump’s first nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch. Like Alito over a decade earlier, Gorsuch faced nigh-unanimous Democratic opposition despite being manifestly worthy, with a proven track record of high-caliber judicial work.

Democrats And Kavanaugh

Now, with Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, we appear to have reached the metaphorical end of civilization that Bork foresaw: when Republicans are disqualified based on unprosecuted, unprovable, and largely unremembered misconduct that allegedly occurred when they were in high school.

CNN, MSNBC fake news seditionists attempt to smear Supremo Court nominee

Judge Kavanaugh is as superbly qualified as any jurist ever nominated to the Supreme Court. In a dozen years sitting on the same distinguished appellate tribunal as Bork, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Garland, he has generated over 300 opinions. This prodigious jurisprudence is cited regularly by the Supreme Court, as well as by other circuit courts of appeal and federal district judges.

Kavanaugh’s hiring of clerks has been exemplary by any standard of not only scholarship but diversity(more women than men, a healthy percentage of African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics). If you’re into this numbers game, as the Left surely is (at least when conservative judges are at issue), it’s worth noting that Justice Ginsburg hired no African-American clerks or administrators in 13 years on the D.C. Circuit and has hired only one African-American clerk during her ensuing quarter-century on the Supreme Court. Of course, she’s a good progressive committed to placing her judicial power in service to the March of History, so the matter is quietly tucked into the Left’s bulging “Not to Be Spoke Of” file. Meanwhile, clerks from Kavanaugh’s eclectic stable are coveted by Supreme Court justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum. He has, moreover, been a stalwart champion of women in the legal profession, as well as girls in his community.

Now, however, Kavanaugh’s nomination is imperiled because of a highly dubious, unverifiable allegation of bumbling, drunken sexual aggression when he was a high-school student: An assault the purported victim never told anyone about — not the police, not a friend, not her parents — until therapy sessions 30 years after the “fact.”

Christine Blasey Ford, a Palo Alto University biostatistician and professor of psychology, is a Democrat — a Bernie Sanders contributor and an anti-Trump activist. Some 36 years ago, when she was 15, she says the 17-year-old Kavanaugh tried to force himself on her, clumsily trying to get her clothes off. A friend of Kavanaugh’s, Mark Judge, who had been watching, jumped on the two of them, allowing Ms. Ford to wriggle away and lock herself in a bathroom until the boys left.

There is no way to prove that this happened. That’s not just because Kavanaugh and Judge, the only witnesses besides Ms. Ford, vehemently deny it. Ford cannot even place it: She doesn’t recall in whose Maryland home it supposedly happened, what she did afterwards, how she got to or from the place. She never breathed a word of it at the time. When she finally told a therapist about it three decades later, notes indicate that there were four assailants — a discrepancy she blames on the therapist.

Then there is the studiously duplicitous way Democrats handled the unprovable allegation, even as they slandered Kavanaugh’s character. The ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, has known about the allegation for months, yet sat on it — all through personal interviews with Kavanaugh and hours of Senate testimony. On the eve of the committee vote on the nomination, she sprang it as an allegation she decided to refer to the FBI while maintaining the anonymity supposedly desired by the victim. As Feinstein knew would happen, Democrats began carping that the committee vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation could not go forward until the bureau ran down the hopelessly stale, impossible-to-verify claim. Meanwhile, the determined-to-remain-anonymous Ford came very publicly forward, after scrubbing her social-media accounts and retaining Debra Katz, a notoriously partisan Democratic lawyer.

This has all the hallmarks of a set-up. If the Democrats had raised the allegation in a timely manner, its weakness would have been palpable, it would have been used for what little it’s worth in examining Kavanagh during his days of testimony, it would be put to rest as unverifiable, and we’d be on to a confirmation vote. Instead, we’re on to a delay — precisely the Democrats’ objective. They want to slow-walk Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote until after the midterms, in the hopes that they swing the Senate in their favor and have the numbers to defeat the nomination.

Republicans should not be rewarding this mendacious gambit by giving the perpetrators the start of what they calculate will be the delay they need. But alas, come Monday, the circus is scheduled to be in town: Anita Hill 2.0.

Or, as Bob Bork would say, “the end of civilization.”

President Trump says a lot of things that are not true and says a lot of other things that are foolish and unsavory. But his supporters are drawn to him, in large part, because he is willing to get into the muck with Democrats, fight them on their own demagogic terms — especially on things he cares about, like his nominees. They are tired of Republicans’ being caught flat-footed, continually underestimating how low Democrats are willing to go, how much they are willing to destroy reputations, institutions, and traditions in order to win.

We’re beyond the time when it’s still possible to live well. If Democrats get away with what they are trying to do to Kavanaugh, the only decent people in politics will be decent progressives; people who reflect the broader range of opinion and civility in the country will not participate in or pay much mind to our politics because it is too savage. The cut-throat operators who do not believe in the Constitution, pluralism, and civility will be running the country, until they inevitably push too far and provoke ugly pushback.

That’s what our politics is supposed to prevent. But you can’t go on forever under circumstances in which only one side of our politics gets the benefit of decorum and the presumption of good faith and rectitude. We can’t continually have judicial nominees — and everyone else — treated under different sets of rules depending on whether they’re Democrats or Republicans.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Sunday, September 16, 2018

FAKE NEWS CRASH: CNN Ratings Down 41 Percent From Last Year – Now Trails Nickelodeon

Now is the time for the DOJ to open investigations into CNN/NYT/MSNBC/FBI seditious collusion and their failed coup against a sitting administration utilising RICO statutes, prosecuting their frauds and hacks collectively and individually  


Daytime television ratings of the leftist cable network, CNN, infamously tagged as “fake news” by President Donald Trump have dropped 41 percent from last year, while the conservative Fox News’ ratings ranked number one in total viewers across the 24-hour day on Labor Day weekend – putting it at the top for 35 consecutive weeks.

And CNN’s primetime viewership is not much better – dipping by more than a third, compared to last year at this time.

“CNN ranked No. 6 across basic cable in total prime time viewers, and No. 5 in total day this past week,” AdWeek revealed. “Despite the top 10 finishes, the network was -36 percent in primetime viewers, and -41 percent in total day viewers vs. the same week last year. The audience drop-off for CNN isn’t totally shocking – relative to that of its rivals …”

CNN Sinking

CNN’s dilemma of dwindling viewership is compounded by its competitors’ rise to the top.

“Not only did CNN see a devastating drop from last year’s ratings, the network was once again bested by its competitors,” Breitbart News reported. “Fox News came in first place with during the day, while MSNBC came in second. In basic cable, CNN was in fifth behind ESPN and Nickelodeon, [and] during primetime, CNN slid down to sixth place, while ESPN came in first. Fox News, MSNBC, HGTV and the USA network all defeated CNN.”

In the months leading up to the midterm elections, CNN’s viewership has continued to decline by double digits.

“The network has repeatedly seen embarrassing viewership losses compared to 2017 …,” Breitbart’s Justin Caruso pointed out. “During one week in August, the network dropped 23 percent during the day and 24 percent in primetime – compared to the same week last year.”

The double-digit drop in CNN’s primetime was also registered for the entire month of August, when its viewership came close to dipping below the 1 million mark.

“CNN continued to severely struggle with its ratings – experiencing a 12-percent drop in primetime viewers and a massive 15-percent drop in total day – [as] CNN’s primetime viewership reached just 1,052,000,” The Daily Caller noted. “Despite the addition of CNN’s touted Chris Cuomo Primetime program, the network still failed to crack the top five in primetime ratings …”

Besides its embarrassing descent in the ratings, CNN suffered even more humiliation recently, as it continues to be exposed for its inaccurate news coverage – apparently affirming Trump’s “fake news” assertion on a regular basis.

“This week, it was announced that reporter Jim Sciutto would begin co-hosting a morning program for the network – despite the fact that Sciutto had recently made serious errors and was a key figure in CNN’s ongoing fake news scandal over their misreporting of a story about Michael Cohen’s knowledge of a Trump Tower meeting with Russians,” Caruso recounted. “Jeffrey Toobin – an analyst for CNN – also humiliated the network further recently by falsely blaming Antifa violence on black Americans.”

Competitors Rising Over Dipping CNN

The president’s consistent lashing out at CNN for disseminating its relentless anti-Trump coverage over the years appears to be bolstering the ratings of other news choices – particularly the conservative Fox News.

“Fox News was No. 1 across cable news, not just in total viewers (2.33 million), but also in the key demo, delivering 431,000 A25-54 viewers in prime time – more than MSNBC’s 373, 000 and CNN’s 354,000, per Nielsen live-plus-same-day data,” AdWeek’s A.J. Katz divulged. “Fox News was also was No. 1 in total day in the demo, with 268,000 to CNN’s 223,000 and MSNBC’s 207,000.”

Here’s a look at the Nielsen Ratings’ top-10 total-day viewership for basic cable presented by AdWeek:
Fox News (1,426,000)
MSNBC (1,145,000)
ESPN (1,023,000)
Nickelodeon (833,000)
CNN (789,000)
HGTV (750,000)
Investigation Discovery (706,000)
Hallmark Channel (628,000)
USA (590,000)
History (554,000)

“FNC claimed 11 of the top 25 cable telecasts overall in total viewers last week – including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Five, and The Ingraham Angle,” Katz added. “In fact, Hannity made up three of the top 10 telecasts in all of basic cable.”

While CNN licks its wounds inflicted by declined viewership and fake news, Fox News’ ratings continue to soar, as it is repeatedly landing at the top of the ratings war between cable networks.

“Fox News topp[ed] its cable news competitors for the 200th straight month in August – according to data released Tuesday Nielsen Media Research,” The Hillinformed in late August. “Fox News' Hannity was once again the most-watched program in cable news – delivering an average of 3.079 million total viewers per night.”

In addition, Fox News continues to be the No. 1 choice for the business-minded American TV viewer.

“Fox Business Network also earned its 15th consecutive month as the top network in business news,” The Daily Caller’s Amber Athey noted.

Despite Fox News’ dominance at the top, an interruption in its No. 1 ranking was registered earlier this month by the leftist sports network, ESPN, which has a monopoly on cable sports – leaving viewers few alternatives for major televised sporting events.

“Yet the basic cable powerhouse lost its stranglehold on the No. 1 ranking in primetime,” Katz pointed out. “Its 14-week streak as the No. 1 basic cable network in the key daypart came to an end this past week, with ESPN seizing the top spot – thanks to its coverage of the 2018 U.S. Open.”

During the week of September 3, ESPN edged out Fox News on the basic cable top 10 list of primetime total viewers by just over 200,000 TV watchers, according to the Nielsen Ratings provided by AdWeek:
ESPN (2,561,000)
Fox News (2,326,000)
MSNBC (2,043,000)
HGTV (1,385,000)
USA (1,347,000)
CNN (1,174,000)
Hallmark Channel (1,070,000)
Investigation Discovery (1,049,000)
History (1,016,000)
BET (1,007,000)

America’s burgeoning interest in major professional tennis tournaments – compounded by much attention in the news over tennis icon Serena Williams’ widely covered confrontation with an official during a match in which she alleged discrimination – appears to have been just enough to nudge ESPN over Fox News during Labor Day week.

“ESPN’s presentation of the U.S. Open was seen by an average of 1.04 million viewers – +9 percent from last year (949,000) and the most for the event since 2015 … ESPN’s first year of exclusivity (1,265,000),” Katz noted."

“The most-watched telecast of ESPN’s presentation of the 2018 Open was the Women’s Championship on Sept. 8 – Naomi Osaka defeating Serena Williams–which earned an average of 3,101,000 viewers – ranking third all-time. On the men’s side, Novak Djokovic winning his third U.S. Open and 14th Major title over Juan Martin del Potro averaged 2,065,000 viewers.”

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

17 years after 9/11, Al-Qaeda Rebranded By U.S. Government & Fake News Media As "Besieged Rebels"

CNN/NYT/MSM fake news frauds, hacks and CIA shills will be indicted by the ICC for WAR CRIMES    

Seventeen years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the US government and media outlets have decided that Al-Qaeda is now a rebel group worthy of our sympathy. The cynical narrative change is par for the course, experts told RT.

As somber newspaper headlines mark the anniversary of the devastating attacks, some commentators have pointed out that the terrorist group accused of murdering 3,000 Americans seventeen years ago is now occupying northeastern Syria – with the US threatening to take military action if the "rebels" are evicted from the region by the Syrian army and its allies. The United States has spent an estimated $1.5 trillion on its Global War Against Terrorism, launched in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

But the United States now seems to find itself providing diplomatic cover – not to mention excellent press – to the terrorists that it once vowed to eradicate.

The majority of Syria's Idlib province is controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a State Department-designated terrorist group that is regarded as indistinguishable from Al-Qaeda. 

But the US has signaled that it will respond militarily to any efforts by Damascus to evict the internationally-recognized terrorist group from its last stronghold in Syria, with the New York Times even fawningover the jihadists as "a de facto governmental authority, facilitating trade across the long border with Turkey and organizing aid deliveries." What happened?

Never Forget?

Even as social media fills up with maudlin GIFs vowing to "Never Forget" the September 11 attacks, one of the reasons that Al-Qaeda has been able to remain in Idlib is because Americans have actually "forgotten," analysts say.

"A lot of time has passed since 9/11. They got Osama bin Laden and people have moved on, and they have other issues that they're focusing on," former Pentagon official Michael Maloof told RT. According to Maloof, many Americans are now preoccupied with domestic scandals like "Russian collusion," and they're "not focused on the extent to which the Trump administration is providing backing and support to Al-Qaeda today in Syria. And it's really tragic."

However, those who are paying attention are "tired of the lies," Willy Wimmer, a former state secretary to the German defense minister, told RT.

"I think the public in the West is tired of the lies of their own government concerning Al-Qaeda, or other terrorists groups." He noted that it's an open secret that the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia and Gulf states provide direct and indirect support to "rebel"groups that under normal circumstances would be considered terrorists.

What's The Endgame?

But what does the United States hope to gain from deterring an attack on Al-Qaeda's last enclave in Syria?

Washington's threats of military action are a way of preserving a "modicum of influence" in Syria, Maloof said. "The US is looking at Idlib and support for Al-Qaeda to maintain influence and try to deflect attention away from domestic problems." He added that the US is using the excuses of "humanitarian disaster and chemical weapons" to justify its military activity in the country.

CNN fake news frauds and CIA hacks scramble to cover for their Al-Qaeda terrorist allies and proxies in Syria

"They're going to go kinetic if there's an attack in Idlib," Maloof predicted.

Wimmer warned against trying to overthink Washington's shocking change of heart concerning Al-Qaeda. "You can't look at US foreign policy under logical terms," he said.

"These groups are used to topple whole regions, not only Syria but also other countries, and at the end we fight against a threat that was organized by our own governments. And I think people are tired of this."

"Never forget" - the families of dead U.S. military personnel will never forget who lied them into the bogus "war on terror"

He noted that the US has "danced on its own argument" by accusing Russia of using anti-terrorism operations as a false pretext for getting militarily involved in Syria, adding that unlike Russia and Iran's presence in the country, "under all legal terms, there is no justification for a US presence in Syria under international law."

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

International Criminal Court Unfazed By U.S. Threats Of Sanctions Over Afghan War Crimes Probe

ICC needs to investigate/indict the CNN/NYT/MSM fake news frauds and Bush/Cheney warmongers that lied and shilled Americans into the illegal, bogus "war on terror"  


The International Criminal Court (ICC) has said it will “continue to do its work undeterred,” after US National Security Advisor John Bolton threatened sanctions if the tribunal investigates alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan.

The Hague-based court investigates genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes and is backed by 123 countries - but not by China and the US. 

“The ICC, as a court of law, will continue to do its work undeterred, in accordance with those principles and the overarching idea of the rule of law,” it said in a statement on Tuesday. The tribunal’s remarks came in response to a scathing verbal attack launched by Bolton in Washington DC on Monday during a speech to the conservative Federalist Society.

“Today, on the eve of September 11th, I want to deliver a clear and unambiguous message on behalf of the president,” Bolton began, before launching into the blistering offensive against the ICC.

“The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court. We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC… We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us.”

Bolton then issued a very clear threat: If the international court continues to pursue the probe, Washington will ban ICC judges from entering the country, prosecute them and sanction their funding. His main objection is the notion that the ICC could have higher authority than the US constitution and US sovereignty.

“In secular terms we don't recognize any higher authority than the US constitution,” he said, adding that Trump “will not allow American citizens to be prosecuted by foreign bureaucrats, and he will not allow other nations to dictate our means of self defence.”

The CNN/MSM fake news frauds and CIA shills like Perino believe they have escaped justice for lying America into the illegal, immoral wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: the ICC has news for them

In November 2017, an ICC prosecutor requested approval to launch a probe into potential war crimes by the US armed forces and the CIA through the torture of detainees in Afghanistan.

However, Bolton didn’t come out swinging solely on the behalf of the US - he also attacked the ICC’s threat to Washington’s “friend and ally” Israel, as the Middle Eastern country faces an investigation into alleged war crimes against Palestinians.

American military families look forward to justice and the prosecution of the Bush/Cheney/MSM murderers of their loved ones

Bolton said the probe into the actions of Israel, which he described as a “liberal, democratic nation,”was unacceptable, and added that any countries supporting the investigation and cooperating with the ICC would be subject to secondary sanctions.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Washington’s ICC Hypocrisy 'Without Limits," U.S. Doesn’t Care About Human Rights

The Bush/Cheney war criminals take one more step towards the dock at The Hague as Bolton squeals in terror  


Washington’s threats against the International Criminal Court (ICC) are evidence of American hypocrisy, as the US is “continually calling for the heads of others” and doesn’t actually care about human rights, analysts told RT.

As US National Security Advisor John Bolton said the ICC is “dead to us” in response to a probe into US war crimes in Afghanistan, international criminal lawyer Christopher Black told RT that American hypocrisy is clearly “without limits.” 

He believes the US is “continually calling for the heads of others, and their entire war against Syria is based on the pretext of justice for the alleged crimes of the Syrian government.”

Francis A. Boyle, and international law professor at the University of Illinois College of Law, expressed a similar sentiment to RT regarding US hypocrisy, despite the fact that Washington likes to to take the moral high ground.

“The US government never cares about human rights...this is pure propaganda,” he said.

Headed for incitement for war crimes: Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Feith, Franks, Perle et al. along with the CNN/MSM fake news frauds and hacks that aided and abetted them 

What Bolton does care about, however, is “protecting the highest level officials of the United States government from investigation and prosecution,” Boyle said, while stressing that the national security adviser is not at all concerned with the fate of ordinary servicemen, servicewomen, and CIA agents.

But while the US is finally being put under a microscope by the ICC, its motivation to do so came only after “disastrous blows to the court” surrounding its prestige and credibility, after African countries threatened to withdraw from the ICC last year, Black said.

Tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel have been killed or maimed in the Bush/Cheney illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

“Something needed to be done to try to restore some credibility, some appearance of impartiality; and that is what the announcement did, or tried to do…”

Boyle agreed, saying that the decision to look into the alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan amounts to a “propaganda move” by ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.

“She felt she had to do something to placate Africa so then she said ‘alright, I’m going to look into what the Americans did in Afghanistan,’” Boyle said. “So now Bolton has responded to that.”

As for America’s behavior towards the ICC and its commitment to shield Israel from the court, Black said: “The US sees itself as above the law and therefore is an outlaw state. It has no respect for law whatsoever, its leadership only respects and its client states in NATO in the Middle East and elsewhere are free to do as they please under their protection. They act as a criminal gang.”

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.



The real truth on 9/11 slowly continues to bleed out

Technical experts are mounting major challenges to official U.S. government accounts of how three World Trade Center skyscrapers collapsed in near-freefall after the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago.

Many researchers are focusing especially on the little-known collapse of



The Geopolitics Of The United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire

The Empire and the inevitable fall of the Obama criminal regime

STRATFOR Editor’s Note: This installment on the United States, presented in two parts, is the 16th in a series of STRATFOR monographs on the geopolitics of countries influential in world affairs.

Like nearly all of the peoples of North and South America, most Americans are not originally from the territory that became the United States.



Geopolitics Of The United States Part 2: American Identity And The Threats of Tomorrow

A look back at 2011 predictions for the future in order to put events of today into perspective

 photo capitalism_zpsah78uy5p.jpg
We have already discussed in the first part of this analysis how the American geography dooms whoever controls the territory to being a global power, but there are a number of other outcomes that shape what that power will be like. The first and most critical is the impact of that geography on the American mindset.



By Robert S. Finnegan

This e-mail outlines and confirms the acts of espionage against Indonesia and Indonesians by Akiko Makino and the others involved both in Kobe University and in AI Lab at University of Airlangga, Surabaya; Bahasa Indonesia original follows English translation...



UPDATED 01/07/2015 : New Analysis Challenges Tamiflu Efficacy; Hong Kong Corona Virus Outbreak


 photo TAMIFLU_small_zpssojx6okt.jpg

Obama criminals now resulting to biowarfare in quest to destroy Chinese and ASEAN economy; "novel virus substrain" points directly to a Kawaoka / Fouchier / Ernala-Ginting Kobe lab virus weaponized and genetically altered to specifically target and infect the Asian population: Ribavirin...



 photo WHO02_zpsplmhtlpr.jpg
The 5th Estate has just purchased a library on H5N1 "Novel" virus pandemics, there are dozens of PDF and Exel documents we feel will assist you in saving lives following intentional releases of the H5N1 and now MERS viruses; we will begin by printing those that appear to be extremely relevant here: H5N1 Kobe-Kawaoka-Ernala series continues soon with more "Smoking Gun" e-mails from Teridah Ernala to The 5th Estate . . .



By Robert S. Finnegan

On October 12, 2002 the Indonesian island of Bali experienced a terrorist attack that rocked the world. It was unquestionably well-coordinated and executed, the largest in the country's history.