Posts

Another Pedophile Ring Involving Top Political Leader Alleged

/4 Comments/in , /by

Yet another allegation of a pedophile ring involving a top political leader was made, this time in England. Allegedly, one of the top conservatives in the Tory Party, closely linked to Thatcher, was involved in the violent rapes of young boys over a number of years. This allegation follows the recent reports about the current Dutch Minister of Justice — defended by the US State Department — who ostensibly was involved in an international child sex ring, as well as similar allegations made about top political officials in the United States in the 1990’s. Additionally, the new head of the New York Times allegedly covered for another child rapist who worked for the BBC years before.

Regarding the Tory politician, the Daily Mail reports:

BBC’s Newsnight has sensationally claimed that a ‘leading politician from the Thatcher years’ was embroiled in a widespread paedophile ring – and repeatedly raped boys from a children’s home.

Alleged victim Steven Messham told reporters he was raped ‘more than a dozen times’ by the man, described on the programme as a ‘shadowy figure of high public standing’.

But despite a string of damning allegations, Newsnight reporters said it didn’t have ‘enough evidence’ to name the politician, sparking angry claims on Twitter that the Beeb ‘bottled it’.

The revelation came just hours after MPs suggested the Corporation aired the controversial programme to act as a ‘smokescreen’ after it failed to broadcast allegations that Jimmy Savile was a paedophile last year.

Mr Messham, now 49, was one of hundreds of children horrifically abused in children’s homes in North Wales during the 1970s and 1980s

Read more from this story HERE.

New Head of NY Times Protected Child Molesting Colleague from Investigative Documentary While Head of BBC? (+video)

/0 Comments/in , , /by

In another case of apparent media malpractice, the New York Times recently hired the former Director of the BBC, Mark Thompson, to take over as CEO starting next month. Shortly after the announcement of his hire, a story broke in the UK concerning Mr. Thompson’s long-time BBC colleague, Sir Jimmy Savile, alleging that he had been suspected of the sexual abuse of children for decades, including the 15 years that he worked at the BBC with Mr. Thompson.

For thirty years, ending in the mid-90’s, Savile was a wildly popular host of a number of children’s and teen shows in Britain. He had been knighted by Queen Elizabeth.

The current controversy erupted just a little over two weeks ago when BBC’s competitor, Britain’s commercial broadcast channel ITV, aired a documentary on numerous allegations against of sexual molestation of minors by Savile. Some of the horrendous sexual assaults allegedly occurred while Savile was employed by BBC, on BBC property.

The problem with Thompson is that, while Thompson was in charge of BBC, BBC’s program Newsnight conducted its own investigation into Savile’s sexual abuse of children, but never broadcast the report. Thompson claims that he never directed that the investigative report not be broadcast and, in fact, asserts that he didn’t even know that the sordid allegations against Savile had been made.

A major BBC actor said two days ago that Thompson’s denials that he didn’t know about the sex abuse allegations against Savile are false: ‘You worked at the BBC and you don’t know anything about it? Don’t be ridiculous. That is absolute nonsense.”

Creating more pressure on Thompson, the UK Daily Mail reported yesterday that on a Sunday program, “the BBC ‘censored’ a series of emails that indicated senior executives were involved in the decision to axe a Newsnight investigation into Savile.”

The director of BBC’s Newsnight asserts that Thompson had nothing to do with the decision not to air the investigative report but that, instead, Savile’s death in December 2011 convinced the BBC not to air anything as Savile was no longer alive to defend himself.

The Sydney Morning Herald Reported that there are now a “staggering number of victims in Savile inquiry.” The alleged victims were not only involved with the BBC but also came from children’s homes and hospitals. The fact that institutions were allegedly involved in Savile’s child rapes lead some to believe that his actions could not have possibly occurred without the knowledge and/or cooperation of various British authorities.

Here’s the ITV documentary on the alleged abuse by Savile:

New York Times is a Sinking Ship, Cannot Aid Obama

/2 Comments/in , /by

Photo credit: Joe Shlabotnik

In a recent Pew poll, the legendary paper of record was voted less “believable” than ABC News, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, NBC news, and CBS News. What a comedown for the Grey Lady.

Not only is the paper considered less trustworthy than most others news organizations, the decline has been sharp. The average believability of the 13 news organizations reviewed was 56%; the Times came in at 49%. (The Wall Street Journal comes in at 58%, by comparison.) Whereas trust in all those outfits has dropped in recent years, the Times has fared worse than most. Since 2010, their rating has sunk from 58 to 49.

For a paper that boasts a proud heritage and certainly a devoted following among liberals, this should be worrisome. Indeed, in his “farewell column” published this past weekend, Public Editor Arthur Brisbane, essentially the paper’s ombudsman, took the Times to task, saying that its “political and cultural progressivism…virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.” He describes the paper as a “hive on Eighth Avenue…shaped by a culture of like minds” – a uni-view that he suggests is more visible from the outside than the inside. That may or may not be correct, but for sure, Americans have taken note.

For the Obama White House, this disaffection with our leading newspaper should be something of a heads-up. If the Times acts as a virtual mouthpiece for the administration, and people do not find it credible, what does that say about the president?

It is not only 63% of Republicans that judge the Times lacking in credibility, it is also 56% of independents. Among those same independents, only 45% consider the Wall Street Journal unreliable.

Read more from this story HERE.

New York Times: Doctor shortage to get worse under Obamacare

/3 Comments/in , /by

In the Inland Empire, an economically depressed region in Southern California, President Obama’s health care law is expected to extend insurance coverage to more than 300,000 people by 2014. But coverage will not necessarily translate into care: Local health experts doubt there will be enough doctors to meet the area’s needs. There are not enough now.

Other places around the country, including the Mississippi Delta, Detroit and suburban Phoenix, face similar problems. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that in 2015 the country will have 62,900 fewer doctors than needed. And that number will more than double by 2025, as the expansion of insurance coverage and the aging of baby boomers drive up demand for care. Even without the health care law, the shortfall of doctors in 2025 would still exceed 100,000.

Health experts, including many who support the law, say there is little that the government or the medical profession will be able to do to close the gap by 2014, when the law begins extending coverage to about 30 million Americans. It typically takes a decade to train a doctor.

“We have a shortage of every kind of doctor, except for plastic surgeons and dermatologists,” said Dr. G. Richard Olds, the dean of the new medical school at the University of California, Riverside, founded in part to address the region’s doctor shortage. “We’ll have a 5,000-physician shortage in 10 years, no matter what anybody does.”

Experts describe a doctor shortage as an “invisible problem.” Patients still get care, but the process is often slow and difficult. In Riverside, it has left residents driving long distances to doctors, languishing on waiting lists, overusing emergency rooms and even forgoing care.

Read more from this story HERE.

Proof: Establishment Media Controlled by Government

/14 Comments/in , /by

There was a rather low-key confession made in the New York Times last week that deserves to be blared throughout this country so that every American understands what they are reading in the establishment’s ultra-controlled, government-managed “press” – and I use that last word loosely indeed.

The admission came in the form of a story by Jeremy Peters on the politics page of the Times July 16. I’ve been waiting for others to point it out, discuss it, debate it, express shock and exasperation over it. But I’ve waited for naught.

What this shocking story reveals is that even I – one of the kingpins of the new media and a refugee from the state-controlled spin machine – underestimated the utter and total corruption of the euphemistically called “mainstream press.”

It shows that most – not some – members of the print media establishment with access to the White House submit their copy to government officials for review, “correction” and approval before it reaches the American people!

Here are some key excerpts from the piece, if you think I’m exaggerating:

  • “The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.”
  • “They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.”
  • “Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review. The verdict from the campaign – an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script – is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.”
  • “Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.”
  • “Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all mid-level aides in Chicago and at the White House – almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.”
  • “Many journalists spoke about the editing only if granted anonymity, an irony that did not escape them.”
  • “From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position. Those officials who dare to speak out of school, but fearful of making the slightest off-message remark, shroud even the most innocuous and anodyne quotations in anonymity by insisting they be referred to as a ‘top Democrat’ or a ‘Republican strategist.’”
  • “Those [reporters] who did speak on the record said the restrictions seem only to be growing. ‘It’s not something I’m particularly proud of because there’s a part of me that says, Don’t do it, don’t agree to their terms,’ said Major Garrett, a correspondent for The National Journal.”
  • “It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly. Organizations like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times have all consented to interviews under such terms.”

Read more from this story HERE.