David Seaman is a journalist who was fired from Huffington Post in August 2016 after he truthfully wrote that Hillary Clinton had serious medical issues. By writing about Clinton’s ill health when he did, Seaman managed to beat each and every mainstream media outlet on this true story.
Very recently, YouTube took down Seaman’s videos. This is not the first time that YouTube has done that. His channel is at https://www.youtube.com/user/davidseamanonline/videos
Also, in the past, Seaman’s PalPal account was locked, rendering Seaman unable to access his own money.
Seaman has recently made a huge number of YouTube videos about “Pizzagate.” I don’t know if “Pizzagate” is real or not. But the fact that people with a lot of power are using their power to harass Seaman, instead of suing him for defamation, makes me think that there is probably truth to Seaman’s claims. If “Pizzagate” is real, the last thing its criminal participants would want is a legal court trial involving actual evidence.
Also, I just found out that earlier this year, one of Seaman’s friends was murdered.
Seaman recently made this video. Please note that this is not Seaman’s YouTube channel, which, as I said, has had all of its videos removed by YouTube:
After Rudy Giuliani said 93% of black murder victims were murdered by other blacks, the Washington Post said his statement was accurate, but then they gave it two Pinocchios anyway!
After Rudy Giuliani said that 93% of black murder victims were murdered by other blacks, the Washington Post said his statement was accurate, but then they gave it two Pinocchios anyway!
You can read the Washington Post’s lengthy and ridiculous attempt to justify their two Pinocchio rating for a statement that they admit is accurate here.
Mainstream media falsely refers to Somalian rapist Mohamed Harir Ayanle as a “Minneapolis man,” then later refuses to report whether or not he showed up for his court hearing
In September 2016, President Obama allowed a guy from Somali named Mohamed Harir Ayanle to enter the U.S.
Three months later, Ayanle raped a woman on a bus in Polk County, Minnesota.
However, the mainstream media falsely referred to him as a “Minneapolis man.”
This December 12, 2016 article from the St. Paul Pioneer Press is titled
“Minneapolis man charged with raping female passenger on intercity bus”
The first sentence of the article is
“A Minneapolis man could spend 30 years behind bars after being charged with raping a woman on Jefferson Lines bus on Friday afternoon.”
In the entire article, there is nothing to indicate that Ayanle is from anywhere other than Minnesota.
The article has no use of any word such as “Somalia,” “Somali,” “Somalian,” “immigrant,” “migrant,” or any other such word, to indicate that Ayanle is from anywhere other than Minneapolis.
Likewise, this December 13, 2016 article from KSTP, the ABC News affiliate in St. Paul, Minnesota, is titled
“Minneapolis Man Accused of Raping Woman on Bus Heading to North Dakota”
Also, the first sentence of the article is
“A Minneapolis man has been charged after a woman said he raped her in the back of a bus.”
And again, the article has no use of any word such as “Somalia,” “Somali,” “Somalian,” “immigrant,” “migrant,” or any other such word, to indicate that Ayanle is from anywhere other than Minneapolis.
The news is supposed to report facts. It is a fact that Ayanle is Somalian. He is not a “Minneapolis man.” The mainstream media gave false information in its “news” reports.
Another thing about the media’s treatment of this incident raises huge red flags. The December 12, 2016 St. Paul Pioneer Press article ends with the following:
“Ayanle was released from custody Monday on a $5,000 bond on the condition that he does not leave Minnesota. His next court appearance is scheduled for Jan. 3.”
Why in the world did the judge in question think that Ayanle would stay in Minnesota, or show up for the January 3, 2017 court appearance?
The very bus that Ayanle was on when he committed the rape was headed to Grand Forks, North Dakota.
At the very time that Ayanle committed the rape, he was already headed out of Minnesota.
No rational person would expect Ayanle to return for the January 3, 2017 court appearance.
As I sit here writing this, it is now February 10, 2017. So it’s been more than five weeks since the January 3, 2017 court appearance was supposed to take place.
And yet this google search doesn’t show any new information about Ayanle. Instead, all we get are the articles about his initial arrest from December 2017.
So where is Ayanle on this day of February 10, 2017?
Did he show up for the January 3, 2017 court appearance?
Did he flee Minnesota?
I can’t find any news articles to answer any of these questions.
When ABC News re-aired a live interview with a refugee, they edited out the part where the refugee said he liked Trump
During a live interview which was originally aired on CNN, a refugee said he liked Trump.
But when ABC News later re-aired the interview, they edited out the part where the refugee said he liked Trump.
Media bias at its finest.
Apparently, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman has never heard of the Boston Marathon bombing, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the D.C. snipers, etc.
New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman recently tweeted the following question:
“Other than San Bernardino shootings, has there been a terrorist attack involving a non-US-born attacker since 9/11?”
I usually say that asking questions is a good thing, because I am very much in favor of curiosity and learning.
However, for a New York Times reporter to ask such a question in the year 2017 is actually a bad thing, not a good thing. For this person with this job to ask this question in this year proves that this New York Times reporter is completely clueless as to what has been happening in this country for the past decade and a half, and thus, is not qualified to hold the job of a New York Times reporter.
For the record, here are some terrorist attacks that happened in the U.S. after the 9-11 attacks, and involved at least one perpetrator who was an immigrant:
Video shows the U.S. president groping a woman. But the President is Clinton, not Trump, so the political left is perfectly OK with it.
Here’s a video of the U.S. President groping a woman, when he mistakenly thought the camera was turned off.
If this was President Trump, the political left would, justifiably so, be very upset.
But it’s not President Trump. It’s President Clinton. And to those on the political left, that makes it perfectly acceptable.
Also, note the ABC News logo on the bottom right corner. The video’s description at YouTube refers to the video as “uncovered ABC footage,” which suggests that it was never aired at all, on any local or national news broadcast. If this had been Trump, the national mainstream media would be playing this clip all across the country, day and night, for a very long time. But since it’s Clinton, that kind of media exposure didn’t happen, so almost no one knows about it. Media bias at its finest.
Huffington Post says it’s “Islamophobic” to say women’s march organizer Linda Sarsour supports Sharia law, but doesn’t mention her tweets that support Sharia law
The Gateway Pundit recently published this article about Linda Sarsour, who organized the recent women’s march against Donald Trump. The article states that Sarsour supports Sharia law, and as evidence, includes these two tweets:
The Huffington Post responded by publishing this article, which says that the Gateway Pundit and other websites had
“… deployed classic Islamophobic tactics in trying to discredit Sarsour, claiming… that she supports the spread of Sharia in the U.S….”
Nowhere in that article does the Huffington Post actually say anything about Sarsour’s two tweets.
Saturday Night Live writer Katie Rich says of Donald Trump’s 10-year-old son: “Barron will be this country’s first homeschool shooter”
Katie Rich, SNL writer, smears Barron Trump as ‘country’s first homeschool shooter’ on Twitter
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Saturday Night Live writer Katie Rich is taking heat after targeting President Donald Trump’s preteen son in an Inauguration Day tweet.
“Barron will be this country’s first homeschool shooter,” Ms. Rich, 33, wrote from her Twitter account Friday amid festivities surrounding Mr. Trump’s swearing-in.
The jab was visible on the writer’s Twitter page for around three hours Friday before Ms. Rich deleted the tweet and set her account to private.
Screenshots of the comment continued to circulate online through Saturday morning, however, spurring condemnation and calls for Ms. Rich’s termination.
“Sick jokes about a 10 year old are classless and go way too far,” opined Twitter user Parker Waters, a self-described photojournalist from New Orleans.
“If you look way, way, up, you can almost see the low road,” Toronto Star columnist Lorrie Goldstein said in a tweet of his own directed toward Ms. Rich.
Barron Trump is not homeschooled, in fact, but attends Columbia Grammar and Preparatory School in New York City. He and his mother, Melania Trump, are expected to stay in Manhattan until his semester ends in the spring.
A petition on Change.org calling for NBC to fire the writer from Saturday Night Live had garnered more than 500 signatures by Saturday morning. Ms. Rich’s Wikipedia page, meanwhile, was briefly vandalized to describe her as a “talentless hack that bullies 10 year olds.”
Efforts to reach NBC for comment Saturday were not immediately successful. The network is slated to air a new episode of SNL late Saturday night.
Mr. Trump has frequently critiqued both NBC and SNL in recent months amid being regularly parodied on the long-running comedy program by actor Alec Baldwin.
“Saturday Night Live is the worst of NBC. Not funny, cast is terrible, always a complete hit job. Really bad television,” Mr. Trump tweeted after last week’s episode.
Fake news from Time magazine reporter, who falsely claimed that Trump took down the bust of Martin Luther King Jr.
Fake news from the Huffington Post: “In 2 Terms, Barack Obama Had Fewer Scandals Than Donald Trump Has Had In The Last 2 Weeks”
This ridiculously titled article from the Huffington Post is called “In 2 Terms, Barack Obama Had Fewer Scandals Than Donald Trump Has Had In The Last 2 Weeks.”
For anyone who hasn’t seen it, I’d like to point out this blog entry that I wrote, which is called “Here are 1,342 well sourced examples of Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc.”
I’ve seen a huge number of examples of Obama supporters being in denial about the horrible things that he has done, and this Huffington Post article is one of the best examples.
Many of the things on my list consist of Obama continuing the very same things that liberals hated Bush for doing. They hated Bush for doing those things, but they totally ignore the fact that Obama did the exact same things.
Giving a no-bid contract to Halliburton? It was scandal when Bush did it. But liberals like to pretend that Obama never did the exact same thing.
Illegally engaging in military interventionism without approval from Congress? It was a scandal when Bush did it. But liberals like to pretend that Obama never did the exact same thing.
Creating a government faith based program? It was a scandal when Bush did it. But when Obama continued and even expanded the program, there was not a peep from liberals.
Unwarranted wiretapping? Horrible when Bush did it. But perfectly fine when Obama did it.
And on and on and on.
MSNBC fake news reporter Brian Williams falsely says Cubans prefer using donkey carts instead of cars
I agree with the plaintiff, Naked Capitalism. The Washington Post’s article accusing Naked Capitalism of being “fake news” did not cite any actual examples of “fake news” from Naked Capitalism. Also, the Washington Post did not interview anyone from Naked Capitalism when it wrote the article in question. The Washington Post’s irresponsible behavior meets all the criteria that are necessary for a defamation lawsuit. If anyone here is guilty of publishing “fake news,” it is the Washington Post:
Website Labeled ‘Fake News’ Threatens To Sue WaPo For Defamation
December 5, 2016
One of the websites The Washington Post labeled “fake news” in a November story demanded a retraction and threatened the paper with a defamation lawsuit in a demand letter Sunday.
A lawyer for Naked Capitalism accuses WaPo of running a debunked list of “fake news” sites in the “sensational” story compiled by a dubious team of researchers, without substantiating their claims or giving Naked Capitalism a chance to respond to the allegation. The Washington Post’s actions constitute defamation, the lawyer writes in the letter published Monday.
“You did not provide even a single example of ‘fake news’ allegedly distributed or promoted by Naked Capitalism or indeed any of the 200 sites on the PropOrNot blacklist,” James A. Moody writes. “You provided no discussion or assessment of the credentials or backgrounds of these so-called ‘researchers’ (Clint Watts, Andrew Weisburd, and J.M. Berger and the ‘team’ at PropOrNot), and no discussion or analysis of the methodology, protocol or algorithms such ‘researchers’ may or may not have followed.”
Naked Capitalism is a finance and economics blog started in December 2006, with a stated goal of “shedding light on the dark and seamy corners of finance.”
Moody demands a retraction of the story and a public apology from WaPo in the letter, threatening a suit if the paper does not comply. He lists a series of damages to the site itself, as well as the writers and editors associated with the site; these include “ridicule, emotional distress, loss of reputation, and risk to future career advancement” for writers and editors.
Other mainstream news outlets criticize The Washington Post for running the story.
“The organization’s anonymity, which a spokesperson maintained was due to fear of Russian hackers, added a cybersexy mystique,” Adrian Chen wrote in The New Yorker regarding the WaPo story. “But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess.”
And Patrick Maines criticized the story in The Hill, calling it “perhaps the shoddiest piece of feature writing since Rolling Stone published its blatantly false story about a campus rape at the University of Virginia.”
“You have made damaging false accusations against Naked Capitalism,” Moody concludes in the letter. “Please immediately remove these from the web and provide an equivalent opportunity to respond. Please see the attached concerning your obligation to retain documents and electronically stored information relating to Fake News. I look forward to hearing from you within three business days.”
After CBS News writer David Leavitt said he felt calmed by the idea of Donald Trump dying, CBS News falsely claimed that Leavitt had never worked for them
David Leavitt is a writer for CBS News. Here is the CBS News page that shows the articles that he has written for them: https://web.archive.org/web/20150905060326/http://boston.cbslocal.com/tag/david-leavitt/
Facebook fake-news writer: ‘I think Donald Trump is in the White House because of me’
November 17, 2016
What do the Amish lobby, gay wedding vans and the ban of the national anthem have in common? For starters, they’re all make-believe — and invented by the same man.
Paul Horner, the 38-year-old impresario of a Facebook fake-news empire, has made his living off viral news hoaxes for several years. He has twice convinced the Internet that he’s British graffiti artist Banksy; he also published the very viral, very fake news of a Yelp vs. “South Park” lawsuit last year.
But in recent months, Horner has found the fake-news ecosystem growing more crowded, more political and vastly more influential: In March, Donald Trump’s son Eric and his then-campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, even tweeted links to one of Horner’s faux-articles. His stories have also appeared as news on Google.
In light of concerns that stories like Horner’s may have affected the presidential election, and in the wake of announcements that both Google and Facebook would take action against deceptive outlets, Intersect called Horner to discuss his perspective on fake news. This transcript has been edited for clarity, length and — ahem — bad language.
You’ve been writing fake news for a while now — you’re kind of like the OG Facebook news hoaxer. Well, I’d call it hoaxing or fake news. You’d call it parody or satire. How is that scene different now than it was three or five years ago? Why did something like your story about Obama invalidating the election results (almost 250,000 Facebook shares, as of this writing) go so viral?
Honestly, people are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything anymore — I mean, that’s how Trump got elected. He just said whatever he wanted, and people believed everything, and when the things he said turned out not to be true, people didn’t care because they’d already accepted it. It’s real scary. I’ve never seen anything like it.
You mentioned Trump, and you’ve probably heard the argument, or the concern, that fake news somehow helped him get elected. What do you make of that?
My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time. I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don’t fact-check anything — they’ll post everything, believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist.
Just ’cause his supporters were under the belief that people were getting paid to protest at their rallies, and that’s just insane. I’ve gone to Trump protests — trust me, no one needs to get paid to protest Trump. I just wanted to make fun of that insane belief, but it took off. They actually believed it.
I thought they’d fact-check it, and it’d make them look worse. I mean that’s how this always works: Someone posts something I write, then they find out it’s false, then they look like idiots. But Trump supporters — they just keep running with it! They never fact-check anything! Now he’s in the White House. Looking back, instead of hurting the campaign, I think I helped it. And that feels [bad].
You think you personally helped elect Trump?
I don’t know. I don’t know if I did or not. I don’t know. I don’t know.
I guess I’m curious, if you believed you might be having an unfair impact on the election — especially if that impact went against your own political beliefs — why didn’t you stop? Why keep writing?
I didn’t think it was possible for him to get elected president. I thought I was messing with the campaign, maybe I wasn’t messing them up as much as I wanted — but I never thought he’d actually get elected. I didn’t even think about it. In hindsight, everyone should’ve seen this coming — everyone assumed Hillary [Clinton] would just get in. But she didn’t, and Trump is president.
Speaking of Clinton — did you target fake news at her supporters? Or Gary Johnson’s, for that matter? (Horner’s Facebook picture shows him at a rally for Johnson.)
No. I hate Trump.
Is that it? You posted on Facebook a couple weeks ago that you had a lot of ideas for satirizing Clinton and other figures, but that “no joke . . . in doing this for six years, the people who clicked ads the most, like it’s the cure for cancer, is right-wing Republicans.” That makes it sound like you’ve found targeting conservatives is more profitable.
Yeah, it is. They don’t fact-check.
But a Trump presidency is good for you from a business perspective, right?
It’s great for anybody who does anything with satire — there’s nothing you can’t write about now that people won’t believe. I can write the craziest thing about Trump, and people will believe it. I wrote a lot of crazy anti-Muslim stuff — like about Trump wanting to put badges on Muslims, or not allowing them in the airport, or making them stand in their own line — and people went along with it!
Facebook and Google recently announced that they’d no longer let fake-news sites use their advertising platforms. I know you basically make your living from those services. How worried are you about this?
This whole Google AdSense thing is pretty scary. And all this Facebook stuff. I make most of my money from AdSense — like, you wouldn’t believe how much money I make from it. Right now I make like $10,000 a month from AdSense.
I know ways of getting hooked up under different names and sites. So probably if they cracked down, I would try different things. I have at least 10 sites right now. If they crack down on a couple, I’ll just use others. They could shut down advertising on all my sites, and I think I’d be okay. Plus, Facebook and AdSense make a lot of money from [advertising on fake news sites] for them to just get rid of it. They’d lose a lot of money.
But if it did really go away, that would suck. I don’t know what I would do.
Thinking about this less selfishly, though — it might be good if Facebook and Google took action, right? Because the effects you’re describing are pretty scary.
Yeah, I mean — a lot of the sites people are talking about, they’re just total BS sites. There’s no creativity or purpose behind them. I’m glad they’re getting rid of them. I don’t like getting lumped in with Huzlers. I like getting lumped in with the Onion. The stuff I do — I spend more time on it. There’s purpose and meaning behind it. I don’t just write fake news just to write it.
So, yeah, I see a lot of the sites they’re listing, and I’m like — good. There are so many horrible sites out there. I’m glad they’re getting rid of those sites.
I just hope they don’t get rid of mine, too.
Final newspaper endorsement count: Clinton 57, Trump 2
November 6, 2016
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has received fewer endorsements from the editorial boards of the nation’s largest newspapers than any major-party presidential candidate in history.
Among the top 100 largest newspapers in America, just two — the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville — endorsed Trump. The Review-Journal is owned by Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate who has spent millions trying to elect Trump.
“Donald Trump, despite all of his faults, is best suited to blow up the inbred corruption of the Washington-New York elites,” the Times-Union wrote in a Sunday editorial.
Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has received endorsements from 57 newspaper editorial boards across the country, including papers such as the Dallas Morning News, the Arizona Republic and the San Diego Union-Tribune, conservative bastions that have almost always backed Republicans.
Four newspapers have taken the unusual step of explicitly advising readers to vote against Trump, even if they cannot bring themselves to recommend Clinton.
Trump’s “reckless ignorance is more informed by disturbing Internet conspiracy theories than evidence, wisdom or reason,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wrote this weekend. Clinton “suffers from an inflated sense of entitlement and a well-earned lack of trust.”
But, the paper concluded: “Job One: Reject Trump.”
USA Today, the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram and Salt Lake City’s Deseret News all advised votes against the Republican presidential nominee.
The rejection of Trump is even more lopsided than the 1972 presidential contest, when the vast majority of papers backed Richard Nixon’s reelection bid. Only 7 percent of papers that endorsed that year picked George McGovern, the Democratic nominee. This year, only 3 percent of papers are backing Trump.
Even Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson has had more success with editorial boards than Trump. This weekend, the Charleston Post & Courier became the fourth paper to back Johnson.
“No, Mr. Johnson won’t win the White House Tuesday. But if he gains a substantial vote total, that could help spark the liberation of our politics from the two-party monopoly now failing Americans,” the paper wrote.
Regarding blacks assaulting a white guy because he voted for Trump, CNN commentator Symone Sanders sarcastically says “Oh my goodness – poor white people!”
Here’s the video of blacks assaulting a white guy because he voted for Trump:
And here’s the video of CNN commentator Symone Sanders sarcastically saying “Oh my goodness – poor white people!”
Snopes says the reason that Sweden recently banned Christmas lights on street poles is because of “safety concerns”
Snopes recently published this article, which addresses claims by other sources which say that Sweden recently banned Christmas lights on street poles in order to avoid offending Muslims. Snopes says that, yes, Sweden did indeed recently ban Christmas lights on street poles, but also says that, no, it was not to avoid offending Muslims, and that, instead, it was for “safety concerns.”
I don’t know how long Sweden has been putting Christmas lights on street poles, but I’m guessing that they’ve been doing it for many decades. So the claim that such lights have all of a sudden become a “safety concern” is something that I am very skeptical of.
If anything, the recent worldwide switch from incandescent bulbs to LEDs should make the lights less of a safety concern, because the newer lights generate less heat, weigh less, and use less electricity.
On the other hand, given the many other recent changes to its traditional way of life that Sweden has made in order to avoid offending Muslims, such as its recent adoption of segregated swimming pools, it seems quite plausible that the real reason for its recent ban on Christmas lights on street poles is indeed to avoid offending Muslims.