You didn’t hear this from the Fake News Media

Not a peep from them. Doesn’t fit the narrative of Trump’s anti-Muslim agenda rant they have on the front burner. However Trump doesn’t have anything of this nature being suggested or mentioned ever.

Migrants are being sold at

open slave markets in Libya

Vulnerable refugees from West Africa often arrive in the country with no money and no papers.

Migrants from West Africa are being openly traded in “public slave markets” across Libya.
As a departure point for refugees trying to get to Europe, migrants arriving in Libya from sub-Saharan are particularly vulnerable due to a lack of money and little in the way of documentation.

Survivors have told the International Organization for Migration (IOM) how there are slave markets and private prisons all over Libya.

Mohammed Abdiker, IOM’s head of operation and emergencies, said: “The situation is dire. The more IOM engages inside Libya, the more we learn that it is a vale of tears for all too many migrants.”

One survivor from Senegal spoke of how he was brought by smugglers across Niger in a bus to the southern Libyan city of Sabha, where he was due to risk a boat trip to Europe. When the middleman did not get his fee, the survivor was put up for sale along with other passengers.

He was taken to a prison where he worked without pay while the captors demanded 300,000 West African francs (about £380) before selling him on to a larger jail. Livia Manante, an IOM officer based in Niger, said migrants would be brought to a square where they were put up for sale.

Manante said: “IOM Italy has confirmed that this story is similar to many stories reported by migrants and collected at landing points in southern Italy, including the slave market reports.”

Those who did not get their ransom paid were often taken away and killed while others would die of hunger and disease in unsanitary conditions.

“If the number of migrants goes down, because of death or someone is ransomed, the kidnappers just go to the market and buy one,” Manente said.

The going rate for a migrant was between $200 (£160) and $500 (£400) each, with many forced into captivity for months before they are freed or sold on. So far this year more than 170 bodies have washed up on the shores of the Mediterranean while the Libyan Coast Guard has also rescued thousands more.

IOM has helped repatriate 1,500 people back to West Africa so far this year where it is trying to inform people not to risk the journey to Libya where they face exploitation.

“Migrants who go to Libya while trying to get to Europe, have no idea of the torture archipelago that awaits them just over the border,” said Leonard Doyle, chief IOM spokesman in Geneva. “There they become commodities to be bought, sold and discarded when they have no more value.”

This article was first published on April 11, 2017

Toon in

Toon in

The Millennials

very-flat

huh

Hope n’ Change

Shaken Reporters

shaken-reporters-1

Okay, Trump isn’t really going to be pee-boarding anyone (darn it), but just because a story isn’t true is no reason not to report it.  At least, in 2017 that seems to be the prevailing journalistic philosophy after a number of news outlets, with varying degrees of enthusiasm and hyperbole, published reports that the Russians were ready to blackmail Donald Trump with secret videos of the billionaire in a Moscow hotel room, paying prostitutes to perform a “golden showers” scenario (peeing) on a bed once used by Barack and Michelle Obama.

The only problem is that there’s no evidence whatsoever that this ever happened. None. It’s complete and utter claptrap, and less believable than the rumor that the Russians have video of the night the Obamas used that hotel room and someone ended up getting a “dirty Sanchez.” (If you don’t know the term, for the love of all that’s holy don’t look it up.  Let’s just say it’s a sexual act invented by liberals who really, really deserve to be turned into pillars of salt.)

At a press conference on Wednesday, Trump quickly dismissed the preposterous tale – and subsequently refused to take questions from a CNN reporter because that organization was one of the purveyors of this “fake news.” Score one for The Donald!

The so-called “Trump Blackmail” dossier has apparently been kicking around for months, with many people in government and media aware of its existence, but unable to do anything with it since none of the accusations held up to scrutiny. Which is frequently the case when a story is complete and utter bullcrap.

Still, the fictitious scandal developed a life of its own behind closed doors. If we’re getting the story right (which seems quaint, doesn’t it?), the dossier found its way into the hands of John McCain who was so stunned by the scatological accusations that he spat out the acorns he’d been storing in his cheeks for winter.

McCain then gave the report to FBI Director (and unindicted Hillary co-conspirator) James Comey, who – instead of burning the report and suggesting that McCain check into a 12-step program –  apparently slipped the information to perennial lunatic Harry Reid, who demanded the allegations be made public to derail Trump’s run to the White House. This is, of course, the same Harry Reid who gleefully boasts about lying his ass off regarding Mitt Romney’s taxes as an act of political sabotage.

(And on a side note, Harry, absolutely no one believes your story of getting your face battered and bruised by an exercise rubber band gone rogue. Rather, we strongly suspect that person or persons unknown beat the living tar out of you, then disappeared into the shadows before we could offer to buy them several rounds of drinks.)

Passed around as indiscriminately as Bill Clinton’s DNA, the report eventually found it’s way to the NBC-affiliated “news” website Buzzfeed (so named because Buttfeed was apparently already taken) which printed every scurrilous word online – kicking off a massive “me too” campaign of other alleged news organization linking to the story without even pretending to fact-check.

As alleged actress Meryl Streep said only days ago, “Disrespect invites disrespect” and “when the powerful use their positions to bully, we all lose. We need the principled press to hold power to account, to call them on the carpet for every outrage.”

So far, the real outrages seem to be generated by a press which has deserted anything remotely like principle.

news-clowns-1

How do you like your bias?

Straight up or camouflaged!

If you’re looking for a straight news story, with no kinks and angles, you will have to see the news event first hand. There isn’t any reporter that will give any straight news story; all contain the reporters bias on the subject at hand.

American journalism is collapsing before our eyes

Donald Trump may or may not fix his campaign, and Hillary Clinton may or may not become the first female president. But something else happening before our eyes is almost as important: the complete collapse of American journalism as we know it.

The frenzy to bury Trump is not limited to the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House. They are working hand in hand with what was considered the cream of the nation’s news organizations.

The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America.

Bla-blaThe largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent.

Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang suffers the daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by comparison.

By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream media’s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant fashion. [snip]

Liberal bias in journalism is often baked into the cake. The traditional ethos of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable leads to demands that government solve every problem. Favoring big government, then, becomes routine among most journalists, especially young ones.

I know because I was one of them. I started at the Times while the Vietnam War and civil rights movement raged, and was full of certainty about right and wrong.

My editors were, too, though in a different way. Our boss of bosses, the legendary Abe Rosenthal, knew his reporters leaned left, so he leaned right to “keep the paper straight.”

That meant the Times, except for the opinion pages, was scrubbed free of reporters’ political views, an edict that was enforced by giving the opinion and news operations separate editors. The church-and-state structure was one reason the Times was considered the flagship of journalism.

Those days are gone. The Times now is so out of the closet as a Clinton shill that it is giving itself permission to violate any semblance of evenhandedness in its news pages as well as its opinion pages.

A recent article by its media reporter, Jim Rutenberg, whom I know and like, began this way: “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”

One covers Trump by printing only the bad news, or what one considers the bad news and hides anything that sullies Hillary’s image.
E-mails? Those were explained, weren’t you listening? The FBI cleared her, gave her the DRIVEN SNOW award which should satisfy Congress and the Public.

Whoa, Nellie. The clear assumption is that many reporters see Trump that way, and it is note­worthy that no similar question is raised about Clinton, whose scandals are deserving only of “scrutiny.” Rutenberg approvingly cites a leftist journalist who calls one candidate “normal” and the other ­“abnormal.”

Clinton is hardly “normal” to the 68 percent of Americans who find her dishonest and untrustworthy, though apparently not a single one of those people writes for the Times. Statistically, that makes the Times “abnormal.”

Also, you don’t need to be a ­detective to hear echoes in that first paragraph of Clinton speeches and ads, including those featured prominently on the Times’ website. In effect, the paper has seamlessly ­adopted Clinton’s view as its own, then tries to justify its coverage.

It’s an impossible task, and Rutenberg fails because he must. Any reporter who agrees with Clinton about Trump has no business covering either candidate. [snip]

The bias is so apparent even on the TV nets. Since Trump doesn’t use the TV for much ad work, they give him all the coverage he needs just by covering him as news. Twitter has Trump all over the place, bypassing the chatting heads, which prevents the media from misquoting him. They cannot not cover him so they make up outrageous lies which fall flat.

Toon in

MSM