New American - EU Boss: Citizens Should Not Get to Vote on Important Issues. The establishment hates democracy. It is always that way.
Huffington Post - Uber Unveils ‘Movement’ Tool To Help City Planners Better Analyze Traffic Patterns. Yes, they want taxpayers to pay for infrastructure to support self driving vehicles and kill over 3 million jobs.
MSN - Racist CEO Called Out After Controversial Tweet. Here is a quote from the article, "The Founder of Time Share CMO Melinda Byerley was recently under fire for calling rural America a “shithole full of stupid people.” The Midwest is the new peons and peasants in the mind of the establishment and the wealthy.
MSN - CNBC - Facebook's Zuckerberg sues hundreds of Hawaiians to force property sales to him. He has a problem with peasants, even native ones.
Express - Human-pig HYBRID? Scientists hoping to create part man, part pig organs. Nothing new, just fewer and fewer regulations and oversite of this technology.
Friday, January 27, 2017
Friday, January 20, 2017
President Donald J Trump, the 45th President.
It is now official, Donald J Trump is the 45th President of the United States. You may like him or hate him but he is now the President and I will refer to him as such, same as I referred to Obama as President Obama. So what does his election mean for this blog? Well, it means that I will question his action same as I question other politicians and criticize when appropriate.
Here is what scares me, that nobody will listen when honest criticism or Trump is given because the corporate media will twist everything he does as negative. You are going to find it hard to read or hear objective analysis of anything he does. Beyond media bias against him, there is something deeper at stake. Globalism versus nationalism.
The heads of the world's economy are meeting in Davos and they are discussing Trump. They are not discussing how they believe he is racist, misogynistic or homophobic. In fact, they know he is none of those things or simply don't care. What they are discussing is the effect of Brexit and the Trump election getting in the way of international law (mainly through treaties) being the main form of law for all nations.
To understand what Trump plans and looking beyond the candidate's hyperbole, lets look at his actual inauguration speech for his priorities.
CNBC - Read President Trump's full, blistering inaugural speech, attacking Washington, promising 'America first'.
He talks about returning this country to the people and away from the forces that were controlling Washington. That is called populism or if you will democracy, majority rule.
He then talks about how the establishment has been successful; but, not the people and that the people have not shared in the increase in wealth of this nation. The statistics will prove this out as in the last 8 years all the gains have gone to the 1% and the vast majority of those gains to the .1%.
He then talks about how this nation is here to serve the people and not just the few. He outlines the priorities of the nation as education, safety and jobs. I want you to understand this is not a Republican speech. His priorities are not those of the Republican party since the Bushes and not even the Democrats priorities since the Clintons.
He now gets into how we have given away our industry to foreign nations and states that it is the nations job to put America first in it's priorities. His next initiative is to rebuild America infrastructure. He then talks about foreign relations and says we will cease trying to force our beliefs on others; but, will work with others. That is not going to please arms manufacturers.
Here is what he did not discuss. He did not discuss restricting abortion. He did not discuss getting rid of gay marriage. He did not discuss ANY race as being our enemy. He did not discuss ANY nation as being our enemy.
Here is the reality. Trump has never been very vocal on social issues like abortion, gays or race. Funny that those are the only issues the media pressed him on. From day one his focus has been on nationalism and the middle and working class.
Here is why I would have preferred Sanders. Sanders would have basically agreed with all that Trump said and added in putting more regulations on the banks and Wall Street and breaking up monopolies. The reason I disliked Hillary is simple, she didn't support any of those things or what Sanders would have added. I consider the Clintons no better than the Bushes. Do you know what else President Trump didn't spend much if anytime on, Obamacare.
From this day forward the question is how should he be judged? I will evaluate him on his ability to bring manufacturing back to the United States, his ability to stay out of war and his ability to protect our borders. Not because those our my first three priorities; but, because those are the priorities he was elected on. If he meets those I will say he was the first one in decades to actually worked on the promises he made. If I find that he in fact enacts socially restrictive laws on gays, minorities or women then I will say he was horrible and attack him anytime I see him do such things; but, I don't believe he will. If he fixes a system where all the benefits only go to the wealthy then I will say he was a great President. How will you judge him? These are the things I will write about in the future along with continuing themes or spirituality, technology and economic trickery.
Let us all hope, and for those of us who are spiritual let us all pray, that he is a good President. Because he is now our President whether you like it or not. I personally refuse to swear on a bible, even in court. I do not pledge allegiance to a flag, only a nation. I pray for this nation. I pray for the people to be loving to each other and to those of other nations.
Here is what scares me, that nobody will listen when honest criticism or Trump is given because the corporate media will twist everything he does as negative. You are going to find it hard to read or hear objective analysis of anything he does. Beyond media bias against him, there is something deeper at stake. Globalism versus nationalism.
The heads of the world's economy are meeting in Davos and they are discussing Trump. They are not discussing how they believe he is racist, misogynistic or homophobic. In fact, they know he is none of those things or simply don't care. What they are discussing is the effect of Brexit and the Trump election getting in the way of international law (mainly through treaties) being the main form of law for all nations.
To understand what Trump plans and looking beyond the candidate's hyperbole, lets look at his actual inauguration speech for his priorities.
CNBC - Read President Trump's full, blistering inaugural speech, attacking Washington, promising 'America first'.
He talks about returning this country to the people and away from the forces that were controlling Washington. That is called populism or if you will democracy, majority rule.
He then talks about how the establishment has been successful; but, not the people and that the people have not shared in the increase in wealth of this nation. The statistics will prove this out as in the last 8 years all the gains have gone to the 1% and the vast majority of those gains to the .1%.
He then talks about how this nation is here to serve the people and not just the few. He outlines the priorities of the nation as education, safety and jobs. I want you to understand this is not a Republican speech. His priorities are not those of the Republican party since the Bushes and not even the Democrats priorities since the Clintons.
He now gets into how we have given away our industry to foreign nations and states that it is the nations job to put America first in it's priorities. His next initiative is to rebuild America infrastructure. He then talks about foreign relations and says we will cease trying to force our beliefs on others; but, will work with others. That is not going to please arms manufacturers.
Here is what he did not discuss. He did not discuss restricting abortion. He did not discuss getting rid of gay marriage. He did not discuss ANY race as being our enemy. He did not discuss ANY nation as being our enemy.
Here is the reality. Trump has never been very vocal on social issues like abortion, gays or race. Funny that those are the only issues the media pressed him on. From day one his focus has been on nationalism and the middle and working class.
Here is why I would have preferred Sanders. Sanders would have basically agreed with all that Trump said and added in putting more regulations on the banks and Wall Street and breaking up monopolies. The reason I disliked Hillary is simple, she didn't support any of those things or what Sanders would have added. I consider the Clintons no better than the Bushes. Do you know what else President Trump didn't spend much if anytime on, Obamacare.
From this day forward the question is how should he be judged? I will evaluate him on his ability to bring manufacturing back to the United States, his ability to stay out of war and his ability to protect our borders. Not because those our my first three priorities; but, because those are the priorities he was elected on. If he meets those I will say he was the first one in decades to actually worked on the promises he made. If I find that he in fact enacts socially restrictive laws on gays, minorities or women then I will say he was horrible and attack him anytime I see him do such things; but, I don't believe he will. If he fixes a system where all the benefits only go to the wealthy then I will say he was a great President. How will you judge him? These are the things I will write about in the future along with continuing themes or spirituality, technology and economic trickery.
Let us all hope, and for those of us who are spiritual let us all pray, that he is a good President. Because he is now our President whether you like it or not. I personally refuse to swear on a bible, even in court. I do not pledge allegiance to a flag, only a nation. I pray for this nation. I pray for the people to be loving to each other and to those of other nations.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Climate Change and Ignored Data
LA Times - Earth sets heat record in 2016 — for the third year in a row.
The article claims that we began checking temperatures in 1880. I have discussed this before but the article just highlights it well. The article says, " “For the first time in recorded history, we have now had three consecutive record-warm years,” Recorded history goes back beyond 1880. If they meant recorded climate history, again we have information going further back than 1880. We have data from tree rings and from ice coring's in Antarctica; but, none of that is used in the discussions of climate change.
Wikipedia - Ice Core.
Think about this. We have 800,000 years of climate science, yet, only 120 years worth of data is used to claim global warming. Does that make sense?
The article claims that we began checking temperatures in 1880. I have discussed this before but the article just highlights it well. The article says, " “For the first time in recorded history, we have now had three consecutive record-warm years,” Recorded history goes back beyond 1880. If they meant recorded climate history, again we have information going further back than 1880. We have data from tree rings and from ice coring's in Antarctica; but, none of that is used in the discussions of climate change.
Wikipedia - Ice Core.
Think about this. We have 800,000 years of climate science, yet, only 120 years worth of data is used to claim global warming. Does that make sense?
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Jackie Evancho, Juliet Evancho and Donald Trump.
Jackie Evancho is a 16 year old singer. She came in second on America's Got Talent when she was 11. She sings what is now called Classic, a combination of classical music, opera and a certain style of more modern songs that still require real vocal talent. I have attended two of Miss Evancho's concerts and enjoyed them immensely. I am pretty sure I wrote about both of them at the time. When her brother came out as transgender, I wrote about that too. Actually, I wrote about Juliet to bring up issues unrelated to her personally, bigger issues, things for people to consider about themselves. I do that sometimes, use actual facts to investigate issues that might otherwise be overlooked.
Miss Evancho agreed to sing the national anthem at Donald Trumps inauguration. She was immediately vilified in the papers which claimed they didn't even know who she was. Lets talk about the press. If your job is to write articles about the news, wouldn't you investigate first. If the writers had investigated they would have found that she was the youngest person ever to go platinum. Take a moment and think about that because the reporters never mentioned it. Instead they said she was a nobody trying to help her career until they discovered Juliet Evancho was transgender. Yeah.
After discovering Miss Evancho had a transgender sibling they stopped talking about her; but, she was already receiving death threats from people for singing the national anthem at the presidential inauguration from so many open minded and loving people who acted like she was a Nazi. Thanks New York Times and Washington Post for showing just who you are.
Miss Evancho did not need to sing at Trump's inauguration. In fact it may or may not hurt her career long term; but, she did it anyways and she will not be stopped. She is an amazing young lady. I think I know why she accepted the invitation and it is quite simple. Her sibling, Juliet, is seeking transgender rights to use the bathroom. During the election Trump was asked which bathroom he would make Caitlyn Jenner use (transgender previously known as Bruce Jenner) and Trump said he did not care which bathroom she used. Jenner then entered Trump tower and used the women's restroom without a problem.
When Elton John married his partner Trump sent him a congratulatory letter; but, Elton is a douche and declined to sing at Trump's inauguration because he is a punk. Cher said she would move to another country if Trump won; but, unfortunately she has not. Funny, Cher has a transgender offspring, previously named Chastity and now named something else. Sorry, I really don't care what change she made to her name; but, would learn it if I was to meet him. Why should I have to do more research than major newspapers that claimed they don't know who Jackie Evancho is? Why didn't Cher at least recognize Trump for supporting the rights of her son who used to be her daughter?
Oh my, where is all of this going? I believe Miss Evancho is singing at the inauguration because Trump supported her transgender sister's right to be whatever she is. Miss Evancho's response to reporters questions was to say only that her family has been under scrutiny (read attack) ever since her sister came out as transgender. I believe Miss Evancho is singing at the inauguration to support transgender rights and the media does not want you to know that, it messes up the narrative they wish to manipulate you with.
Miss Evancho agreed to sing the national anthem at Donald Trumps inauguration. She was immediately vilified in the papers which claimed they didn't even know who she was. Lets talk about the press. If your job is to write articles about the news, wouldn't you investigate first. If the writers had investigated they would have found that she was the youngest person ever to go platinum. Take a moment and think about that because the reporters never mentioned it. Instead they said she was a nobody trying to help her career until they discovered Juliet Evancho was transgender. Yeah.
After discovering Miss Evancho had a transgender sibling they stopped talking about her; but, she was already receiving death threats from people for singing the national anthem at the presidential inauguration from so many open minded and loving people who acted like she was a Nazi. Thanks New York Times and Washington Post for showing just who you are.
Miss Evancho did not need to sing at Trump's inauguration. In fact it may or may not hurt her career long term; but, she did it anyways and she will not be stopped. She is an amazing young lady. I think I know why she accepted the invitation and it is quite simple. Her sibling, Juliet, is seeking transgender rights to use the bathroom. During the election Trump was asked which bathroom he would make Caitlyn Jenner use (transgender previously known as Bruce Jenner) and Trump said he did not care which bathroom she used. Jenner then entered Trump tower and used the women's restroom without a problem.
When Elton John married his partner Trump sent him a congratulatory letter; but, Elton is a douche and declined to sing at Trump's inauguration because he is a punk. Cher said she would move to another country if Trump won; but, unfortunately she has not. Funny, Cher has a transgender offspring, previously named Chastity and now named something else. Sorry, I really don't care what change she made to her name; but, would learn it if I was to meet him. Why should I have to do more research than major newspapers that claimed they don't know who Jackie Evancho is? Why didn't Cher at least recognize Trump for supporting the rights of her son who used to be her daughter?
Oh my, where is all of this going? I believe Miss Evancho is singing at the inauguration because Trump supported her transgender sister's right to be whatever she is. Miss Evancho's response to reporters questions was to say only that her family has been under scrutiny (read attack) ever since her sister came out as transgender. I believe Miss Evancho is singing at the inauguration to support transgender rights and the media does not want you to know that, it messes up the narrative they wish to manipulate you with.
Friday, January 13, 2017
Continued Media Failures With Trump and the Truth
CNN, Mother Jones and Buzzfeed all reported rumors as news even though they had been unable to verify or fact check any of them as being true. I am quite sure that Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow are turning over in their graves. The problem with having mainstream media fail the most basic tenants of reporting are not just pitiful; but, put us all at risk.
This blog started about philosophy and religion. It then turned to other items, it was only in the third iteration that I began to discuss the news. Once I began discussing news I began linking to the reports and to the source documents. That isn't journalism, that is just responsible writing, which in the case of this blog is really opinion and investigating claims made in the media. I discuss things that many would not and am read by people of varying sexual preferences, races, religions and just about anything else you can imagine. I am also read in countries that I could have never anticipated. In all these 7 years I have never once received a comment calling me bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic. In 7 years I have only received two negative comments and one of them was by a relative that was high and angry and it wasn't about this blog, it was removed.
Why do I mention this. Well, I think it is because what I say is just a reasonable opinion. That doesn't mean that my readers agree with me; but, I don't think they will say I am unreasonably biased or negative unfairly. I want my readers to think about my questions, not follow my biases. I would like to think that overtime people who read this blog trust me because of how I have been in the past, at least enough to consider what I am saying. This is not NBC so I have to earn trust, that is why I link to source documents most of the time. Trust but verify. Unfortunately, that is not working for the mainstream media. We try to trust them but what they say cannot be verified about simple things, like facts.
When I began talking about self driving vehicles, gene splicing, ICANN and how the United States government owns the internet I was laughed at by my own friends and family even though I had provided links to the research reports and industry magazines. It all became apparent in the last few years, all of it. For years I have talked about the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations and other organizations that people didn't believe were real and I linked to their own web pages. This was not good investigative reporting, it was simply objective research. How sad that the mainstream media wasn't telling people what was going on at the same time I was. They knew.
Here is the problem. The mainstream media is more concerned with propaganda than reporting and this election has exposed that to everybody. WikiLeaks proved that debate questions had been leaked to Hillary Clinton and she never told anyone. In gold you are required to give yourself a penalty if certain things occur even if you are the only one that knows. I did not see ONE reporter ask Hillary why she never told anyone she had been given debate questions in advance. They sure would have asked Nixon that.
The media is no longer interested in the news, they are interested in revenue. They are no longer interested in facts, they are interested in impact. The more they influence opinion the more they make. Pretty simple equation. The problem is that the more they are openly pandering the less they are trusted. I watched a year and a half of news reports which spent everyday exaggerating and twisting the most simple things that Donald Trump said and I was a Bernie supporter.
The media is failing to discuss what is going on in many areas and increasingly only presenting a corporate perspective on the news. Here is where this becomes a problem, soon all media will be viewed as biased and incapable of being fair or accurate. When people don't trust any news, they ignore it. That happened in the Soviet Union. Even people who hate Trump will be unable to know if he ever does anything really wrong because they will be told everything he does is wrong. The media is creating a perfect situation for Trump to ignore them and the audience too by being merely propaganda machines.
I have serious questions about what Trump is going to do. Once he is President I am quite sure I will write about many of the things he actually proposes. I don't have to worry about a slow news day costing me money, it won't. I don't have to make things up to get more readers, this site is not monetized and has no advertising of any type. It also only has about 95,000 hits.
The thing to consider is that Buzzfeed, the site that published the 35 page "intelligence" report written by an ex British intelligence agent working as a private company that claimed Trump paid prostitutes to pee on a bed the Obama's had slept on was proven wrong on many aspects and that Buzzfeed could not verify any fact contained in it was true is owned by the same multinational company that owns NBC. MSN- NBC - Comey Told Trump About Dossier After Briefing. The second to last last paragraph says that "BuzzFeed is partially funded by the parent company of NBC News".
This blog started about philosophy and religion. It then turned to other items, it was only in the third iteration that I began to discuss the news. Once I began discussing news I began linking to the reports and to the source documents. That isn't journalism, that is just responsible writing, which in the case of this blog is really opinion and investigating claims made in the media. I discuss things that many would not and am read by people of varying sexual preferences, races, religions and just about anything else you can imagine. I am also read in countries that I could have never anticipated. In all these 7 years I have never once received a comment calling me bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic. In 7 years I have only received two negative comments and one of them was by a relative that was high and angry and it wasn't about this blog, it was removed.
Why do I mention this. Well, I think it is because what I say is just a reasonable opinion. That doesn't mean that my readers agree with me; but, I don't think they will say I am unreasonably biased or negative unfairly. I want my readers to think about my questions, not follow my biases. I would like to think that overtime people who read this blog trust me because of how I have been in the past, at least enough to consider what I am saying. This is not NBC so I have to earn trust, that is why I link to source documents most of the time. Trust but verify. Unfortunately, that is not working for the mainstream media. We try to trust them but what they say cannot be verified about simple things, like facts.
When I began talking about self driving vehicles, gene splicing, ICANN and how the United States government owns the internet I was laughed at by my own friends and family even though I had provided links to the research reports and industry magazines. It all became apparent in the last few years, all of it. For years I have talked about the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations and other organizations that people didn't believe were real and I linked to their own web pages. This was not good investigative reporting, it was simply objective research. How sad that the mainstream media wasn't telling people what was going on at the same time I was. They knew.
Here is the problem. The mainstream media is more concerned with propaganda than reporting and this election has exposed that to everybody. WikiLeaks proved that debate questions had been leaked to Hillary Clinton and she never told anyone. In gold you are required to give yourself a penalty if certain things occur even if you are the only one that knows. I did not see ONE reporter ask Hillary why she never told anyone she had been given debate questions in advance. They sure would have asked Nixon that.
The media is no longer interested in the news, they are interested in revenue. They are no longer interested in facts, they are interested in impact. The more they influence opinion the more they make. Pretty simple equation. The problem is that the more they are openly pandering the less they are trusted. I watched a year and a half of news reports which spent everyday exaggerating and twisting the most simple things that Donald Trump said and I was a Bernie supporter.
The media is failing to discuss what is going on in many areas and increasingly only presenting a corporate perspective on the news. Here is where this becomes a problem, soon all media will be viewed as biased and incapable of being fair or accurate. When people don't trust any news, they ignore it. That happened in the Soviet Union. Even people who hate Trump will be unable to know if he ever does anything really wrong because they will be told everything he does is wrong. The media is creating a perfect situation for Trump to ignore them and the audience too by being merely propaganda machines.
I have serious questions about what Trump is going to do. Once he is President I am quite sure I will write about many of the things he actually proposes. I don't have to worry about a slow news day costing me money, it won't. I don't have to make things up to get more readers, this site is not monetized and has no advertising of any type. It also only has about 95,000 hits.
The thing to consider is that Buzzfeed, the site that published the 35 page "intelligence" report written by an ex British intelligence agent working as a private company that claimed Trump paid prostitutes to pee on a bed the Obama's had slept on was proven wrong on many aspects and that Buzzfeed could not verify any fact contained in it was true is owned by the same multinational company that owns NBC. MSN- NBC - Comey Told Trump About Dossier After Briefing. The second to last last paragraph says that "BuzzFeed is partially funded by the parent company of NBC News".
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Slander, Libel, Buzzfeed, CNN and "Peegate"
Pimpernel is very cautious regarding what I post. Opinion is one thing; but, posting things as fact requires verifiable evidence. One should also remember that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". This is a mandatory part of reporting. Somehow it no longer is followed by mainstream media, at least not as far a Donald Trump is concerned.
Yesterday an internet "news" site released a 35 page document which made multiple claims about Donald Trump, including allegations that he hired prostitutes to urinate on a bed in a hotel that President Obama had slept in. I can provide a link to this document; but, I choose not to link to news sources that are not verifiable. I have read the document and have some comments on the document itself.
The document purports to be a "Company Intelligence Report". It is NOT a government intelligence report. If you would like to know what actual intelligence reports by the government look like, go to "The Black Vault". The Black Vault was started by John Greenewald, Jr and is probably the most extensive collection of government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act on all of the internet. Like WikiLeaks, nothing published by Mr. Greenwald has ever been proven to be false. So, what is a "Company Intelligence Report", well, just that. The term is used to define corporations reports, often contracted for that are meant to provide management with information that will help their business.
Now that you have a little background lets get into some specifics. Firstly, the report does not identify who has prepared it and that is odd. When someone prepares a report for a company they usually use their letterhead or at a minimum identify the company that prepared it. Such does not occur in the 35 page document. Secondly, the document does not identify how the information it presents is to be used by the company it is being provided to. That makes no sense. I personally have prepared documents for use by private companies and ALWAYS explain how the information can be of benefit. It is the purpose of these types of documents.
The publisher of these documents, Buzzfeed, published with disclaimers. Buzzfeed - These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia. The article starts with this, "A dossier, compiled by a person who has claimed to be a former British intelligence official, alleges Russia has compromising information on Trump. The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors." Moving past the fact that Buzzfeed does not know who wrote the document and cannot verify the person's history or purpose for preparing the document lets get to the "errors". The "dossier" claims that Trumps attorney travelled to Prague when in fact, he was in Los Angeles at USC at the time and that has been verified. In fact, the only thing we can prove is that the report intentionally lied about Trumps attorney. That is not a good starting point.
Let me explain something that is relatable. Imagine you are getting a divorce and you go into court with a document claiming your spouse was paid money to have sex with animals in Baja California; but, you didn't know who prepared the document and your spouse could show they had never been to Baja California. How do you think the judge would react? There is a very good chance you would be found in contempt of court.
This report has since been repeated by CNN. That is hypocritical on their part. When "Pizzagate" was being discussed on the internet I specifically said that my readers should NOT post articles about it because there was no evidence, there was no witness, there was no person claiming to be a victim and it was irresponsible to publish such things as they would be used to censor the internet. This is no different. There is not ONE person mentioned in the "dossier" that has come forward and claimed any of it is true. That is a problem, it is a credibility problem.
So, what are the allegations. Simply put, it claims that Trump is compromised by Russia and that they have the ability to blackmail him. Here is where this gets ridiculous. The document claims that this has been going on 5 and 8 years, they really should pick one of the other. NOBODY knew or believed Trump would run for President 5 years ago and they certainly did not know that Hillary would run for President after her last loss to Obama. The report would make more sense if it was about Jeb Bush back then. NOBODY thought Trump would run and nobody thought he would win 5 years ago. Why would Russia risk so much to provide information to Trump for a race they didn't believe he would run in or win 5 years ago? The whole assertion in the report is nonsensical.
UPDATE:
The Wall Street Journal is now claiming that they have identified Christopher Steele of Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd as the author. Wall Street Journal - Christopher Steele, Ex-British Intelligence Officer, Said to Have Prepared Dossier on Trump. Again the Wall Street Journal has not been able to confirm this. More nonsense. Here is a link to their site, Orbis. Orbis prepares reports for companies so that the companies can plan. Simple question, what company paid for the report and how would it assist that company? And a statement, if this is the best Orbis can prepare a report, nobody would hire them because you cannot use unsubstantiated allegations to influence deals. It is really simple, companies do not hire Orbis to give information to the intelligence community. They hire such companies to give them inside information that they can use to make more money. The release of this information alone is contrary to that and if Orbis is identified it will cost them business.
UPDATE 2:
By the way, if this is, as is alleged by CNN and Buzzfeed, part of the secret report given to Obama and Trump then why didn't the US Intelligence agencies release it? Lets be clear, it was claimed that the report was not released because it was Confidential, Secret and or Top Secret. Guess what, that doesn't apply to private companies reports which is what the Wall Street Journal is now claiming. What does this mean, it means that Orbis can be taken into court in England and be forced to prove their allegations. Anyone who actually cares about the truth would promote such a law suit so that the truth can at least be investigated.
UPDATE 3:
Daily Mail - NAMED: The former British spy behind 'dirty Kremlin dossier' that claimed Trump was in bed both with Putin - AND pervert prostitutes. Hunt on for former UK ambassador who handed report to US politician.
McClatchy DC - Russian tech expert named in Trump report says US intelligence never contacted him. Guess U.S. intelligence couldn't even be bothered to talk to people mentioned in the peegate report. Yet, they were still willing to release it.
UPDATE 4:
And as the day ends... the report is proven to be garbage. The set up is, a retired English intelligence agent was hired by Republicans to come up with garbage about Trump; but, they didn't end up using it (probably because it is garbage and filled with blatant falsehoods). It was then given to Democrats who also didn't use it. It was then passed around news publishers who still didn't use it because it continued to be unverifiable and garbage. Finally it was given to Senator McCain who turned it over to the FBI who also didn't use it. At no point in time is it claimed that Obama or Trump was given a copy of the report though they may have been told there was a report implying Trump had been offered business deals in Russia as a bribe; but, the report itself said Trump never took any deals from the Russians because HE HAS NO BUSINESSES IN RUSSIA.
The end result of all of this is that the intelligence agencies and the media both have less credibility today than they did yesterday, and they were not looking that good yesterday to begin with..
Yesterday an internet "news" site released a 35 page document which made multiple claims about Donald Trump, including allegations that he hired prostitutes to urinate on a bed in a hotel that President Obama had slept in. I can provide a link to this document; but, I choose not to link to news sources that are not verifiable. I have read the document and have some comments on the document itself.
The document purports to be a "Company Intelligence Report". It is NOT a government intelligence report. If you would like to know what actual intelligence reports by the government look like, go to "The Black Vault". The Black Vault was started by John Greenewald, Jr and is probably the most extensive collection of government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act on all of the internet. Like WikiLeaks, nothing published by Mr. Greenwald has ever been proven to be false. So, what is a "Company Intelligence Report", well, just that. The term is used to define corporations reports, often contracted for that are meant to provide management with information that will help their business.
Now that you have a little background lets get into some specifics. Firstly, the report does not identify who has prepared it and that is odd. When someone prepares a report for a company they usually use their letterhead or at a minimum identify the company that prepared it. Such does not occur in the 35 page document. Secondly, the document does not identify how the information it presents is to be used by the company it is being provided to. That makes no sense. I personally have prepared documents for use by private companies and ALWAYS explain how the information can be of benefit. It is the purpose of these types of documents.
The publisher of these documents, Buzzfeed, published with disclaimers. Buzzfeed - These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia. The article starts with this, "A dossier, compiled by a person who has claimed to be a former British intelligence official, alleges Russia has compromising information on Trump. The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors." Moving past the fact that Buzzfeed does not know who wrote the document and cannot verify the person's history or purpose for preparing the document lets get to the "errors". The "dossier" claims that Trumps attorney travelled to Prague when in fact, he was in Los Angeles at USC at the time and that has been verified. In fact, the only thing we can prove is that the report intentionally lied about Trumps attorney. That is not a good starting point.
Let me explain something that is relatable. Imagine you are getting a divorce and you go into court with a document claiming your spouse was paid money to have sex with animals in Baja California; but, you didn't know who prepared the document and your spouse could show they had never been to Baja California. How do you think the judge would react? There is a very good chance you would be found in contempt of court.
This report has since been repeated by CNN. That is hypocritical on their part. When "Pizzagate" was being discussed on the internet I specifically said that my readers should NOT post articles about it because there was no evidence, there was no witness, there was no person claiming to be a victim and it was irresponsible to publish such things as they would be used to censor the internet. This is no different. There is not ONE person mentioned in the "dossier" that has come forward and claimed any of it is true. That is a problem, it is a credibility problem.
So, what are the allegations. Simply put, it claims that Trump is compromised by Russia and that they have the ability to blackmail him. Here is where this gets ridiculous. The document claims that this has been going on 5 and 8 years, they really should pick one of the other. NOBODY knew or believed Trump would run for President 5 years ago and they certainly did not know that Hillary would run for President after her last loss to Obama. The report would make more sense if it was about Jeb Bush back then. NOBODY thought Trump would run and nobody thought he would win 5 years ago. Why would Russia risk so much to provide information to Trump for a race they didn't believe he would run in or win 5 years ago? The whole assertion in the report is nonsensical.
UPDATE:
The Wall Street Journal is now claiming that they have identified Christopher Steele of Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd as the author. Wall Street Journal - Christopher Steele, Ex-British Intelligence Officer, Said to Have Prepared Dossier on Trump. Again the Wall Street Journal has not been able to confirm this. More nonsense. Here is a link to their site, Orbis. Orbis prepares reports for companies so that the companies can plan. Simple question, what company paid for the report and how would it assist that company? And a statement, if this is the best Orbis can prepare a report, nobody would hire them because you cannot use unsubstantiated allegations to influence deals. It is really simple, companies do not hire Orbis to give information to the intelligence community. They hire such companies to give them inside information that they can use to make more money. The release of this information alone is contrary to that and if Orbis is identified it will cost them business.
UPDATE 2:
By the way, if this is, as is alleged by CNN and Buzzfeed, part of the secret report given to Obama and Trump then why didn't the US Intelligence agencies release it? Lets be clear, it was claimed that the report was not released because it was Confidential, Secret and or Top Secret. Guess what, that doesn't apply to private companies reports which is what the Wall Street Journal is now claiming. What does this mean, it means that Orbis can be taken into court in England and be forced to prove their allegations. Anyone who actually cares about the truth would promote such a law suit so that the truth can at least be investigated.
UPDATE 3:
Daily Mail - NAMED: The former British spy behind 'dirty Kremlin dossier' that claimed Trump was in bed both with Putin - AND pervert prostitutes. Hunt on for former UK ambassador who handed report to US politician.
McClatchy DC - Russian tech expert named in Trump report says US intelligence never contacted him. Guess U.S. intelligence couldn't even be bothered to talk to people mentioned in the peegate report. Yet, they were still willing to release it.
UPDATE 4:
And as the day ends... the report is proven to be garbage. The set up is, a retired English intelligence agent was hired by Republicans to come up with garbage about Trump; but, they didn't end up using it (probably because it is garbage and filled with blatant falsehoods). It was then given to Democrats who also didn't use it. It was then passed around news publishers who still didn't use it because it continued to be unverifiable and garbage. Finally it was given to Senator McCain who turned it over to the FBI who also didn't use it. At no point in time is it claimed that Obama or Trump was given a copy of the report though they may have been told there was a report implying Trump had been offered business deals in Russia as a bribe; but, the report itself said Trump never took any deals from the Russians because HE HAS NO BUSINESSES IN RUSSIA.
The end result of all of this is that the intelligence agencies and the media both have less credibility today than they did yesterday, and they were not looking that good yesterday to begin with..
Coastal Bias
Here is what people in New York, Washington and California do not understand and it is simple. Let me start with a hypothetical. Imagine waking up in California, where I live, and finding that the entertainment and tech industries had just stopped being here and moved to China. The studios would close and quickly become rundown, the people who support those industries would move away and the state would begin to deteriorate quickly. Imagine if the Financial Industry moved from New York to London, same thing. The physical pillars of American capitalism such as the skyscrapers of New York would sit empty just like the factories of the Midwest and nobody would maintain them. If you doubt what it would look like, look at the abandoned skyscrapers of Detroit.
That is what has happened throughout most of the Midwest and when those people asked for improvement in their lives they were told they were angry, racist, uneducated, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic. Do you really think those people will really be returning to the Democratic party soon? To this day those people are still being vilified by the media on the coast and they have no way to respond because they lost control of the media in their states to New York and Los Angeles and the six multinational companies that own 90% of the media in the United States.
Who represents the working class now? Not the Libertarians, they believe it is everyone for themselves. Not the Democrats as they have decided to represent minorities and foreigners and have embraced open borders and globalism. Not the Green Party which is quite alright with killing industries in America. The only person who actually reached out to them was Donald Trump. Biden and Bill Clinton begged Hillary to reach out to them and she didn't because she had the media on her side and the big banks. She felt she didn't need them and they heard that. She went as far as saying that she was going to end all coal mining in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and other states. What did she offer them in exchange? She offered them federal support and funding for abortion, gay marriage (long after Trump had already supported it) and open borders. Is it really that hard to understand why they didn't vote for her?
That is what has happened throughout most of the Midwest and when those people asked for improvement in their lives they were told they were angry, racist, uneducated, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic. Do you really think those people will really be returning to the Democratic party soon? To this day those people are still being vilified by the media on the coast and they have no way to respond because they lost control of the media in their states to New York and Los Angeles and the six multinational companies that own 90% of the media in the United States.
Who represents the working class now? Not the Libertarians, they believe it is everyone for themselves. Not the Democrats as they have decided to represent minorities and foreigners and have embraced open borders and globalism. Not the Green Party which is quite alright with killing industries in America. The only person who actually reached out to them was Donald Trump. Biden and Bill Clinton begged Hillary to reach out to them and she didn't because she had the media on her side and the big banks. She felt she didn't need them and they heard that. She went as far as saying that she was going to end all coal mining in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and other states. What did she offer them in exchange? She offered them federal support and funding for abortion, gay marriage (long after Trump had already supported it) and open borders. Is it really that hard to understand why they didn't vote for her?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)