NO STRINGS ATTACHED NEWS THAT MAINSTREAM JUST WON'T COVER.
A teaching assistant at Cornell University accused right-wingers of supporting the sexual abuse of children. The accusation was made in the context of a larger criticism of a decision to host former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) on campus.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/XKF_NiswdAQ/
Photos Show Greek Fighter Jet 'Locked On' To Turkish Warships Near Cyprus
A Greek fighter jet allegedly obtained 'missile lock' on a Turkish frigate that was traveling off the coast of Cyprus on December 8, 2019, the Aviationist reported.
Citing photos from the Twitter profile of journalist Yannis Nikitas, the Aviationist reported that a Greek Mirage 2000 jet targeted the Turkish frigate with Exocet anti-ship missiles during a show of force over the weekend.
“In the photos we can see the HUD of a Mirage 2000, recognizable also by the characteristic Mirage refueling probe, as it gets a lock on a ship which, according to the caption, could be a Turkish frigate. On the left side of the HUD we can see a 'M39' label, showing that the pilot selected the AM-39 Exocet anti-ship to perform the lock on the ship,” the publication said.
Relations between Greece and Turkey have been rocky this year after Ankara began drilling for oil off the coast of Cyprus.
This move by Ankara prompted Cyprus, Greece, and Egypt to issue a joint statement condemning Turkey for violating international law.
They specifically pointed out that in the statement that Turkey was operating in Cyprus’ Exclusive Economic Zone and territorial waters.
Turkey continues to maintain that their activities are within the framework of international law, despite the joint statement from Egypt, Greece, and Cyprus.
* * *
More on the alleged "missile lock" from the original Aviationist report:
The images in question first appeared on the Twitter profile of Yannis Nikitas, an embedded journalist of the Hellenic Ministry of Defense.
Η Τουρκική φρεγάτα στοχοποιημένη από τα Mirage της #HellenicAirForce σε αποστολή ναυτικής κρούσης στο #Αιγαιο Αυτή είναι η γλώσσα που καταλαβαίνει ο Τούρκος. Καμία υποχώρηση στα εθνικά συμφέροντα. Καμία έκπτωση στην εθνική κυριαρχία. Υπέρ βωμών και εστιών σε ξηρά, θάλασσα κ αέρα. pic.twitter.com/H4qynMZrlv
— Ioannis Nikitas (@Ioannis_Nikitas) December 8, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsDiscussing the possibilities, the analysis describes:
Even if the caption states that the target is a Turkish frigate, we can’t confirm it yet due to the distance the image was taken from, as it’s impossible to discern useful features of the ship for an identification. However, if we extract an approximate shape from the ship in the photo and we consider only frigates, the target could be either a Turkish Barbaros-class frigate or a Greek Hydra-class frigate. We can’t still rule out the possibility of a Greek frigate as the HUD shows the PRAC label, which means that the missile was not armed and ready to be fired but rather set in training mode, or better as practice mode as shown in the image. If that’s the case, the photo could have been taken during TASMO training with the Hellenic Navy.
The other possibility in addition to the photos perhaps showing a Greek naval exercise in progress (and not a threatening missile lock on a Turkish frigate), is that it does indeed show an encounter with a Turkish ship, but from a prior incident:
While searching online for more info about the photos and the background of the specific mission of the Mirage from which they were taken, we found the same photos in an article published by Nikitas in September 2018 on his website DefenceReview.gr with two additional shots. If the additional photos are from the same mission (although the weather is different…), the top one shows a closer look at the ship that allows us to confirm that this is indeed a Barbaros-class frigate belonging to the Turkish Navy and the photos were not taken recently but last year during a show of force (i.e. flying low and fast close to a foreign warship in international waters).
Yet the photo set is still driving angry exchanges between Greek and Turkish commentators online, at a moment of heightened tensions over Turkish oil and gas exploration inside Cyprus' exclusive economic zone.
Tyler Durden Tue, 12/10/2019 - 01:00The Woke Media: Apologists For The State
Authored by William Anderson via The Mises Institute,
In an earlier article, I looked at the rise of “Woke Capitalism” and the challenges that this development presents for a free society (or, to be accurate, a somewhat free society). For the time being we probably do not need to worry about the establishment of the People’s Republic of Google, but a much greater problem than left-wing business corporations has invaded our body politic: The Woke Mainstream Media.
It is one thing for Nike to discontinue a line of sneakers because the Betsy Ross flag offended someone or for PayPal to refuse to serve as a pay conduit for a conservative organization. One may decry the narrow-minded thinking from company executives, but they are private outfits that have — and should have — the privilege of refusing to do business with certain people — and if they make a bad economic choice, the company will pay financially. And, as I pointed out in the article, corporations are not governments, which really can kill and cage people who are helpless against state-sponsored predations.
Private sector Wokeness is not limited to profit-making businesses, however, as the giants of American media now are subscribing to the same hard-left political and social theories, and this development has become a much greater problem to American society and American liberty because of the symbiotic relationship between media and government. While Google’s squelching of libertarian speech within its ranks might make it unpopular with libertarians, nonetheless, the company has taken no one’s freedom away.
However, a media campaign against someone, even someone who is innocent of a crime, can result in imprisonment or worse. As one who for more than a decade has written about prosecutorial misconduct and unjustified pursuit of innocent people, I have yet to find a case in which the worst kind of prosecutorial behavior was not aided by irresponsible and dishonest journalists.
Furthermore, the rise of Woke Media presents a problem in this country, one in which the progressive news media becomes a partner with government to strip people of their rights and to impose authoritarian rule. While that is not the picture of the media that the media itself tries to present or is the dominant theme in journalism school, it is much closer to the truth than anyone tied to the media will admit. On top of that, almost all of the national media (with the exception of Fox News) is closely linked to the Democratic Party, and most journalists now being on the left. In the years of the Donald Trump presidency, that has meant that much of the media now acts in concert with the Democrats to weaken and even end his term in office.
With the upcoming movie “Richard Jewell” to be released soon, we see the spotlight on misconduct by American media outlets that helped to falsely accuse an innocent person of the infamous Olympic bombing in Atlanta in 1996. But media problems hardly begin and end with the saga of Richard Jewell.
When the New York Times calls for curtailing free speech or when its reporters actively work to promote a corrupt prosecutor in order to frame innocent people for rape, as the NYT did in the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case, when the press wrongly accused the high school boys from Covington Catholic School of harassing a Native American, which led to active death threats against the students, or when media outlets recklessly repeat false statements by government officials, as was done in the Jewell case, such transgressions are open attacks on a free society.
When these things happen, a media outlet then becomes an advocate for oppressive government, which seems to openly conflict with the media’s self-declared label of “government watchdog.” As I wrote a decade ago:
Despite that fact that every student in J-school is taught that the press is a "watchdog" of government, the truth is that journalists are the lapdogs of the state. From the local police beat reporter to the top journalist at the New York Times, journalists pretty much repeat what government officials tell them. When journalists actually do pressure government, it is either for the authorities to pass laws that are stricter than what they are at the present or to demand that governments regulate businesses in a draconian fashion.
In other words, modern journalism emphasizes a vastly-expanded role of state power, which is at odds with why a supposed free press exists in the first place, and certainly at odds with the First Amendment, which has been the bedrock of free speech and freedom of the press, not to mention freedom of religion. Unfortunately, the NYT and other Woke Media outlets have not stopped with attacking the First Amendment; they also have played a major role in promoting academic fraud in history and economics. Like the Bolsheviks which the NYT lionized in its series on the 1917 Russian Revolution and its murderous afterlife (which might as well have been named “Paradise Lost,” given how the NYT gave near-uncritical support to the revolution and the growth of the USSR), the journalists and editorial writers at the “Newspaper of Record” seem hellbent on recreating a new world in which truth takes a backseat.
While ideology plays a role in establishing the left-wing narratives that American journalists seem to embrace, that is not the only reason that modern journalism is statist at its core. First, and most important, the modern media is a product of the Progressive Era in which journalists sought respectability through the Canons of Journalism issued in 1923 by the American Society of Newspaper Editors.
As was often the case during the Progressive Era, there were advocates in various lines of work seeking to “professionalize” their craft. From medicine to teaching to journalism, these advocates attempted to make their occupations more “respectable” by requiring or strongly encouraging formal education in their fields. For example, following the Flexner Report of 1910, authorities — encouraged by the American Medical Association and, of course, the progressive media — began to close medical schools (and especially those medical schools educating black doctors) to limit practice of medicine to a relatively-small number of physicians ostensibly to raise the quality of care by ensuring that only the “top students” can be practitioners.
Professional journalists sought to do the same thing with their vocation, starting journalism schools and trying to turn journalism into an academic endeavor. During the 1920s, very few journalists had college degrees and organizations like the Society of Professional journalists (formerly Sigma Delta Chi), tried both to present the profession as respectable people engaged in “muckraking” in order to “reform” America. (When I was in journalism school during the Watergate years, many students and faculty wore “Rake Muck” buttons to proclaim solidarity with every Woodward and Bernstein wannabe.)
The Canons of Journalism stressed that newspapers (which in 1923 were by far the most dominant form of mass media) should be “independent” in their coverage, not being tied to political parties or political movements. Whether or not the press ever held to such lofty standards is debatable, as the media always seemed to take the side of state power, be it the promotion of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, U.S. victory in World War II, or the Kennedy-Johnson years in power.
For example, President Lyndon Johnson in his 1964 presidential campaign against Sen. Barry Goldwater, used the CIA to infiltrate the opposition and engaged in numerous political dirty tricks, yet the media was happy to aid the president in large part because much of Goldwater’s campaign centered around reducing the role of state power in the ordinary lives of people. (While Goldwater also advocated aggressive war against North Vietnam — the press painting him as an unstable cowboy ready to irresponsibly unleash nukes at any time – it was Johnson who escalated the war, which ultimately proved to be his undoing.)
At least the media turned on Johnson after he no longer could hide the lies about the Vietnam War and the war became unpopular. One senses today that the Woke Media won’t even question politicians that they favor. For example, there has been much news coverage about the policy in which immigration authorities separate children from their parents when picked up at the country’s southern border, a policy that the press tends to tie to President Trump.
However, Trump was continuing the policy that first was set by the Obama administration. The New York Post recently wrote about how Reuters, a news agency, and a French news agency suddenly killed stories they had earlier published “exposing” the high rate of child detention in the country. However, to their surprise, they were quoting numbers that generated from the Obama administration, not that of Donald Trump. The Post writes:
So the United States has “the world’s highest rate of children in detention.”
Is this worth reporting? Maybe, maybe not.
Nevertheless, Agence France-Presse, or AFP, and Reuters did report it, attributing the information to a “United Nations study” on migrant children detained at the US-Mexico border.
Then the two agencies retracted the story. Deleted, withdrew, demolished.
In other words, since the offending actions occurred during the Obama years, they didn’t happen at all. While that seems to be an extreme case, one senses that the Trump phenomenon has pushed the American media into a much more partisan mode than ever before, which is even more stark given the media’s reluctance to be critical of the Obama administration.
The hard-left move of much of the U.S. media can be seen in comparing coverage of events over the past few decades.
In the Jewell case, the FBI leaked material to friendly reporters to implicate Richard Jewell in the Olympic bombing, and there was the usual feeding frenzy early in the case. The frenzy wore itself out, however, when it became clear via pure logistics that Jewell could not have done what the FBI had claimed. In their defense, media figures said that they were just following the FBI’s lead, which was true.
However, perhaps it should logically have followed that maybe, just maybe, the FBI is full of untrustworthy and incompetent, dishonest, and vindictive employees that have not earned the trust that journalists had given them. Perhaps, just perhaps, government is not full of brilliant and deducting G-Men that are worthy of the heroic treatment the media often gives them. (One excellent exception is James Bovard, who has been an independent warrior exposing government malfeasance — and has been the bane of politicians from both parties.)
But at least the media listened to reason in the Jewell case and ultimately turned in their coverage.
A decade later in the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case, most of the U.S. media was craven from the start. By then, the infamous “narratives” that now drive political thinking were in full force.
The media latched onto the dual themes of racism and sexual assault and even when the earliest evidence cast serious doubt on the truth of the story, American journalists continued to run in one direction until they fell over the cliff and earned a well-deserved rebuke from American Journalism Review.
(In noting the deterioration in thinking with the elite factions of the media, the Columbia Journalism Review never did an assessment of the Duke case, despite the obvious media failures and breakdowns. And while CJR did provide an assessment for Rolling Stone in the wake its disastrous story, “A Rape on Campus,” which turned out to be wholly fiction, the publication stuck to the original sexual assault narratives which drove the whole thing in the first place.)
The Covington Boys story, which dominated the media for several days in January 2019, is an account of how “Wokeness” has so infected the major media that even when the truth was right in front of them, American journalists ran with the left-wing narratives instead. Besides making life a living hell for the Covington students and their families, the elite U.S. media from the New York Times to the Washington Post to CNN proved themselves nearly incapable of being able to separate facts from narratives and created their own fiction of white racist teenage boys in MAGA caps terrorizing and disrespecting minorities. While even a cursory glance at the original video of the so-called incident was enough to make an honest person question the popular story, elite American journalists were unwilling to do even that small task.
What makes things even worse is that the NYT’s editorial page now is being used as a conduit to promote questionable historical narratives, promote huge confiscatory taxation schemes, and a very dark history of American capitalism that claims that capitalism here entirely owes its existence to the worst aspects of black chattel slavery. Yes, these are opinion pieces that ostensibly represent independent thought from intellectuals, political figures, and academic leaders, but when these writers are dishonest or terribly misleading, a newspaper as influential as the NYT should not be promoting them.
Because so many American journalists today are squarely joined to the radical left, one wonders what is going to happen to journalism here in the next decade. The so-called watchdogs of state power today are advocating for government to grab authority that would end many aspects of historical American liberty. The next step seems to be the media becoming the TASS of a future Democratic Party administration, and if we reach that stage, it is doubtful we ever can roll back those levels of state power, and we will see Woke journalism not being a barrier to state-sponsored oppression, but rather its enabler.
Tyler Durden Mon, 12/09/2019 - 23:40 Tags Entertainment Culture PoliticsIn Bizarre Twist Of Events, Vern Unsworth's Lawyer Capitulates To Elon Musk And Retires From Jury Trials
Just when you thought the "pedo guy" story couldn't get any stranger than a high priced lawyer striking out on what many believed to be a layup of a case against a billionaire, we get tonight's stunning Tweet and letter to the editor of Law.com from L. Lin Wood, Vern Unsworth's (former) lawyer.
After losing at trial to Elon Musk, lawyer L. Lin Wood took to Twitter to explain - not why his client was wronged by the verdict - but rather, why the verdict against him was correct. It's an admission that, even if he believed it, would be a stunning slap in the face to his client and would have many questioning why Wood would take the case to begin with. Late on Monday night, Wood tweeted:
Some reflections from lake. The verdict in Unsworth v. Musk spoke the truth. While written as possible libel, Elon Musk only intended an insult. Thus, no factual statements were intended. Truth removes any question marks as to Vern’s reputation. Truth wins. So do both parties.
— Lin Wood (@LLinWood) December 10, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsTo add insult to injury, Wood also published a letter to the editor at Law.com, congratulating Elon Musk and the lawyers on his team for winning the case.
Wood opened the letter by saying:
I congratulate Elon Musk and the lawyers on his team at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan for their efforts to achieve a verdict for their client that spoke the truth. Alex Spiro and Bill Price are exceptional lawyers. Their efforts contributed greatly to the verdict that spoke the truth: Musk’s July 15, 2018, comments about Vernon Unsworth were nothing more and nothing less than an insult. Insults by definition do not convey fact. And truth, even in the hands of skilled lawyers, does not change.
He then called Musk's lawyers "skilled legal adversaries":
And after a textbook trial between skilled legal adversaries, the verdict was rendered and the truth was revealed, Musk won. So did Unsworth. Musk only had to use his checkbook to pay his lawyers their well-earned fee.
Before then announcing his retirement from being a trial lawyer.
As for me, I promised my family on Thanksgiving Day that the trial for Unsworth would be my last jury trial. I will fade away with my silver hair wisdom ready to help only if needed. I have had the privilege of training a group of skilled young lawyers in this trial to take over the reins and be in the next generation of trial lawyers who purse truth with the best interests of the client at the forefront of their efforts. Lawyers who will never let our profession degenerate to being about money, but who will practice law knowing that it is about the pursuit of truth.
Twitter immediately blew up with outrage at Wood, with some speculating he was paid off by Musk, blackmailed or is simply just an incompetent lawyer looking to make excuses for his poor performance.
Regardless, the acknowledgment that the verdict against him "spoke the truth" is a bizarre statement for any attorney to make after losing at trial in such a public forum.
Many on Twitter asked Wood to consider the feelings of his client:
Imagine how Vern feels right now? You’ve embarrassed yourselves in more ways than one. What a disgrace to the legal profession.
— mdubs (@mdubs17) December 10, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsOthers speculated that he was simply making excuses:
Omg - way to rationalize losing - I bet Vern would have appreciated this great insight before he went thru this whole ordeal if u knew (and u should have known) this was a loser given whatever defense u planned - shameful.
— Scott J, CFA (@RyeNotBerben) December 10, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsSome asked about the obvious potential impact this could have on Unsworth's pending litigation, should he decide to appeal in the U.S. or pursue a case in the U.K.:
Am confused. Doesn’t your statement hurt your client’s prospects in litigation that is outstanding in other jurisdictions on the same underlying facts? Do you have (need?) your client’s approval for this statement? .@LLinWood
— Pets and Politics (@amarlevine) December 10, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsOthers suggested ethics violations and malpractice:
Am confused. Doesn’t your statement hurt your client’s prospects in litigation that is outstanding in other jurisdictions on the same underlying facts? Do you have (need?) your client’s approval for this statement? .@LLinWood
— Pets and Politics (@amarlevine) December 10, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsWhile some speculated that there were perhaps more nefarious forces at work:
This is what money changing hands looks like. https://t.co/FTbH43sdzz
— PlainSite (@PlainSite) December 10, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsRegardless, L. Lin Wood now joins the long line of those who have elected to - for one reason or another - continue to enable Elon Musk's behavior, behind his entire board of directors, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the NHTSA.
And with the Federal Reserve doing everything it can to prevent a market pullback or recession, the normal market forces that would sever the head off such an obvious money losing disaster no longer exist to correct these types of malinvestment.
Has the Tesla boondoggle finally reached escape velocity?
Tyler Durden Mon, 12/09/2019 - 23:27Trump Beats Border-Crisis: Illegal Crossings Crash To Lowest Since 2013
There is a reason that you have not seen more clips of AOC et al. sobbing uncontrollably at a fenced car park, or Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer exclaiming "what about the children" in recent months.
The Left's favorite talking point of the first half of 2019 - Trump is caging kids at the border because of his worse-than-Hitler, racist and inhumane immigration policies - has somehow evaporated in recent months...
As The Wall Street Journal reports, arrests of people crossing the southwestern border have plummeted by 75% since May, marking one of the most dramatic drops in recent history.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection said Monday that 33,510 people were arrested after illegally crossing the border in November, marking the sixth straight monthly decline since May, when 132,000 such apprehensions marked a 13-year high.
In fact, The Journal notes that the May-November decline is the biggest in absolute numbers and second biggest by percentage of any six-month period this century.
The question is why?
Did the desperate immigrants seeking refuge in America's welfare state suddenly figure out things are not so bad at home after all?
Did Soros' (alleged) caravan-creating funds suddenly dry up?
Or did President Trump's immigration policy changes - 'building the wall', increasing spending on border security, and negotiating (tariff threats) with Mexico on immigrant flows - actually work?
The answer is simple...
“This is a direct result due to this president’s strategies to address the historic flood of Central Americans, families, illegally crossing the border,” acting CBP Comissioner Mark Morgan said at a press conference Monday.
“The network of initiatives have worked and continues to work.”
The program, often called Remain in Mexico, is one of the biggest contributors to the decline of border arrests, immigration experts say. It has deterred some people from coming into the U.S., due to knowledge that they are likely to be stranded in Mexico for months while their cases are decided.
“I think the big factor has been the Trump administration policies,” said Randy Capps, director of research of U.S. programs at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.
Just as notably, Capps points out that other factors that often alter migration flows, including crime rates and unemployment in the migrants’ home countries, haven’t dramatically changed in recent months.
In Tucson, Ariz., a migrant shelter has seen arrivals drop from more than 100 a day last year to fewer than 40 recently, according to its operator, Teresa Cavendish.
In McAllen, Texas, a recently opened shelter intended for migrants had so many empty beds last month that it began to serve other members of the community.
The López Obrador government has pledged that the security efforts will be permanent.
Mission accomplished? Too soon?
Tyler Durden Mon, 12/09/2019 - 23:20 Tags Social Issues PoliticsContrary To Conventional Wisdom, US Farmers Are Having Their Best Year Since 2013
Skimming through the mainstream media websites, one would find numerous articles decrying the plight of US farmers caught in the middle of the US-China trade war, such as these: "Farmers’ Despair Pushes States to Act", "Farm Bankruptcies Rise Again", "Amid Trump Tariffs, Farm Bankruptcies And Suicides Rise." However, there may be more here than meets the conventional eye.
As Commodore Research managing director Jeffrey Landsberg writes, US farm income in 2019 is on pace for the highest income seen in six Years. This, Landsberg continues, "is very significant as US farmers are not faring nearly as poorly as many pundits and media outlets continue to state. As a result, US farmers collectively have not been in any real uproar and are not jeopardizing Trump’s re-election chances."
The surging farm net income stands in stark contrast with the documented spike in bankruptcies, which has prompted some to whether this is a case of a handful of farmers pocketing the majority of the upside, or merely more farmers taking advantage of the political climate and filing bankruptcy for insurance or other tangential purposes.
We present Commodore's full note below:
Extremely noteworthy to us is that the United States Department of Agriculture recently announced that US net farm income this year will climb to its highest level since 2013. This is very significant as US farmers are not faring nearly as poorly as many pundits and media outlets continue to often report. As a result, US farmers collectively have not been in any real uproar and are not jeopardizing Trump’s re-election chances.
US net farm income this year is on pace to total $92.5 billion. This would mark a year-on-year increase of $8.5 billion (10%) and would mark the highest income since 2013’s record $123.7 billion.
Federal government direct farm program payments are contributing to a large amount of the income. Federal government direct farm program payments are expected to end this year at a very robust $22.4 billion, which is $8.7 billion (64%) more than was issued in 2018.
This includes the Market Facilitation Program payments, which is the official name for President’s Trump tariff payments that are going to farmers to make up for the weakness in exports. The $22.4 billion in federal government direct farm program payments marks a record for this decade (and includes $14.5 billion in Trump’s Market Facilitation Program payments).
![The [DS] Crimes Will Be Publicly Answered Soon, Sheep No More - Episode 2040b](https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/880Zr9yOMJo/hqdefault.jpg)
