You won’t believe the 50 websites Harvard has labeled “Fake News”

By: Doug Ross @ Journal

Your betters at the Harvard University Library have published a guide to “Fake News Sites” that includes a bevy of real news sites that happen to lean right. Among them: the Heritage Foundation, Conservative Review, and Wikileaks, the latter of which has revealed (whether you agree with its approach or not) some very real news indeed.

This, my friends, is a dangerous game. Just as Snopes and Politifact are reliable Democrat public relations outlets (remember when the latter played both sides on ‘If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep It’?), anyone claiming to be an arbiter of truth is inherently suspect.

Because progressives always get it wrong, I’ll repeat. The market is the only arbiter for media. The marketplace of ideas dictates who wins and loses.

Based upon a simple comparison of ratings, MSNBC and CNN are considered very, very fake news when it lines up against Fox News. And which means National Public Radio is also faux news.

Some here’s my list of the top 50 sites labeled by Harvard as ‘False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical “News” Sources’:

Site Harvard Labels Real Description
americanthinker.com bias Political news and opinion liberals hate
AmmoLand.com bias Firearm news liberals hate
barenakedislam.com hate News about Isamic terror that liberals hate
breitbart.com political unreliable bias Political news and opinion liberals hate
canadafreepress.com conspiracy bias Political news and opinion liberals hate
centerforsecuritypolicy.org bias conspiracy News about Isamic terror that liberals hate
citizensunited.org bias Pro-free speech group that liberals hate
city-journal.org political Urban news that liberals hate
CNSNews.com unreliable bias Political news and opinion liberals hate
commentarymagazine.com political Political opinions that liberals hate
conservativereview.com political Pro-Constitution articles that liberals hate
counterjihad.com bias News about Isamic terror that liberals hate
dailycaller.com political clickbait unreliable Political news and opinion liberals hate
dailysignal.com bias Pro-Constitution articles that liberals hate
drudgereport.com political bias Political news and opinion liberals hate
familysecuritymatters.org conspiracy bias News about Isamic terror that liberals hate
FreeBeacon.com bias Political news and opinion liberals hate
freedomworks.org political Pro-Constitution articles that liberals hate
frontpagemag.com bias hate News about Isamic terror that liberals hate
gatesofvienna.net hate conspiracy News about Isamic terror that liberals hate
heartland.org bias Pro-business group that liberals hate
heritage.org unknown Pro-Constitution articles that liberals hate
jihadwatch.org unknown News about Isamic terror that liberals hate
judicialwatch.org unknown Pro-Constitution articles that liberals hate
lifenews.com bias clickbait Pro-Life articles that liberals hate
lifezette.com clickbait Pro-Life articles that liberals hate
nationalreview.com unknown Political news and opinion liberals hate
pamelageller.com conspiracy fake bias News about Isamic terror that liberals hate
PeakProsperity.com unknown Economic facts that liberals despise
pjmedia.com unknown Political news and opinion liberals hate
powerlineblog.com unknown Political news and opinion liberals hate
rightwingnews.com bias unreliable Political news and opinion liberals hate
ShadowStats.com unknown Economic facts that liberals despise
SteveQuayle.com unknown Political news and opinion liberals hate
theamericanmirror.com unknown Political news and opinion liberals hate
TheBurningPlatform.com unknown Economic facts that liberals despise
theconservativetreehouse.com unknown Political news and opinion liberals hate
theduran.com unreliable Political news and opinion liberals hate
thegatewaypundit.com bias conspiracy unreliable Political news and opinion liberals hate
theintercept.com unknown Political news and opinion liberals hate
therightscoop.com fake clickbait Videos of news shows that liberals hate
truepundit.com bias clickbait Political news and opinion liberals hate
twitchy.com clickbait rumor Tweets that liberals hate
unz.com unknown Politically incorrect articles that liberals hate
weaselzippers.us unreliable bias Political news and opinion liberals hate
weeklystandard.com political bias Political news and opinion liberals hate
westernjournalism.com bias clickbait Political news and opinion liberals hate
wikileaks.org unknown Government documents that liberals hate
wnd.com bias clickbait unreliable Political news and opinion liberals hate
zerohedge.com conspiracy Political news and opinion liberals hate

So my counsel is to visit all of these sites frequently.

Because Harvard’s full of sh**. But you already knew that.


ANALYSIS: TRUE. Is Google News Suppressing Center-Right News Sites?

By: Doug Ross | Doug Ross @ Journal

The big story this evening is the fact that President Trump has fired the acting Attorney General, a far Left Obama holdover.

Her dismissal was well-deserved, given the fact that she ordered the Justice Department to ignore the Commander-In-Chief’s entirely legal order, one similar to bans enacted by Presidents Obama and Carter.

But I was fascinated to see the Google News coverage of the event.

Check out the top story this evening:

So we see which sites Google has chosen to promote.

Are these selections fair and reasonable?

I’m sure you’re shocked, but it would appear not. Let’s look at global Alexa traffic rankings (and, yes, I know they’re not spot-on, but they’re definitely useful proxies for actual traffic).

Suffice it to say that Google appears to be suppressing center-right news sources and feeding the echo chamber More Of The Same™.

Say, how’d that work out for them this election cycle?

Protip: I suggest bypassing the censors at Google and using BadBlue Real-Time News. You’ll get independent, unbiased and honest coverage from around the planet, updated every 15 minutes, 24 hours a day, every day.


IMAP: Four letters that spell potential doom for Hillary and Huma

Doug Ross @ Journal

I’ll bet you’re growing tired of the ongoing cancer that is the Hillary Clinton campaign of corruption, cover-ups and criminality.

Fear not. I’ve got something you may not have heard before. I hadn’t heard of it until an hour or so ago. It’s a technical acronym, related to Internet email, that most lay people wouldn’t quite grok.

The inimitable Karl Denninger offers us the single, critical tidbit of data that makes all the difference. It relates to a statement that tech billionaire Mark Cuban made on CNBC:

This “newly discovered” laptop is very likely to be literal nuclear waste for Hillary and everyone around her, including the Clinton Foundation and all of Hillary’s “advisers” such as Podesta.

Mark Cuban said that Huma used Outlook and IMAP (for Yahoo and similar). True.

But then he said this was unlikely to lead to “new” evidence in the form of the emails.

That’s a lie.

It’s a lie because Cuban knows he’s full of crap; he knows enough about the technologies involved to be fully aware that he was peddling nonsense.

The term IMAP is key. It represents an Internet email protocol — a messaging language — that copies data from a server to a client. In English, IMAP would copy messages from Hillary Clinton’s illegal, bathroom email server to a single PC running Outlook. Like the PC Huma shared with Carlos Danger Anthony Weinis Weiner.

And that means all messages on Hillary’s server that were addressed to Huma Abedin may have been replicated to the Weiner machine.

Well, Doug, what does all of this mean? Consider the following:

  1. It’s likely that Huma Abedin committed perjury: Under oath, Hillary’s key aide asserted that she had turned all over all emails related to her work with the Clinton State Department. Problem is, who else but Abedin would have bothered to configure Outlook to read Clinton’s emails?
  2. Those ‘deleted’ 33,000 emails? Maybe not so much: Any email addressed to Abedin, whether “To:”, “From:”, “CC:”, or “BCC:”, would have been copied to Abedin’s Weiner PC. Those 33,000 emails that Clinton attempted to delete with BleachBit, hammers, and magnets? They are very likely to have survived Hillary’s purge.
  3. The Clinton Foundation’s secrets exposed: The reason that Clinton nuked the infamous 33,000 emails almost certainly relate to the intersection of the Clinton Foundation, the State Department, and Teneo Corporation (that’s the super, happy, fun “company” that ties all of the Clinton syndicates togather, RICO-style). Weiner Foundation, anyone?
  4. FBI Director James Comey’s hand was forced: When faced with these revelations — the replication of emails from the Clinton bathroom server to the Weiner-puter — Comey realized he was in a major jam. Which led to the latest Hillary debacle.

The implications of IMAP on the Abedin-Hillary-Weiner-puter scandal cannot be overstated. It means, simply, that the hammer of Thor is about to come down on the Clinton RICO syndicate, whether before the election or after.

Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News.


10 Pictures of Hillary Clinton Wobbling and Then Collapsing Today That Legacy Media Will Never Show You

My piece on Hillary today is up at RWN: BREAKING: Hillary Clinton Has Medical Emergency At 9/11 Memorial… Whisked Away [VIDEO]

By: Doug Ross

They now claim it’s “pneumonia“, but Hillary has had a longstanding and persistent cough that has defied treatment and couldn’t possibly be a months-long case of walking pneumonia.

In short, Hillary is very ill. She can’t stand up without supporting herself using railings, stools, tables, chairs, her mysterious Epipen-equipped handler, and — of course — Huma Abedin.

Her latest health scare involved collapsing into her wheelchair lift-equipped van, nearly knocking herself out.

Of course, the media are doing their level best to cover it up.

Via Mike Cernovich, I’ve come across two separate videos that show Hillary wobbling twice, unable to support herself and finally collapsing. The snapshots are quite telling:

Here’s another angle:

As Bill Clinton has admitted, Hillary’s health problems are “very serious.”

His wife appears to have little to no muscular strength, exceedingly poor balance and coordination, and — worst of all — a pathological disease called “Liar-itis“.

Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News.


EXCLUSIVE: Secret Agenda for the 2016 Democratic National Convention Revealed!

Doug Ross @ Journal


Cub Reporter Biff Spackle scoops the world with this exclusive, tippity-top secret agenda for the DNC.

2016 Democrat National Convention
Schedule of Events

 7:20 pm Actor Portraying Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST TO Hillary Clinton
 7:25 pm OPENING ISLAMIC PRAYER – Rep. Keith Ellison
 7:45 pm CEREMONIAL TREE HUGGING – Leonardo DiCaprio
 7:55 pm Actor Portraying Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST TO Joe Biden
 8:00 pm MUSICAL INTERLUDE ON GLOBAL WARMING: John Kerry and James Taylor
 8:55 pm Actor Portraying Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST TO Hillary Clinton
 9:30 pm MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR SADDAM HUSSEIN – Cindy Sheehan and Sean Penn
10:00 pm Actor Portraying Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST TO the late VP Joe Biden
11:00 pm OVAL OFFICE AFFAIRS – A POEM BY William Jefferson Clinton
11:45 pm Actor Portraying Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST TO Nancy Pelosi’s Rack
12:25 am Actor Portraying Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST TO Beyonce
12:30 am SATELLITE ADDRESS – Vladimir Putin
12:45 am NOMINATION OF HILLARY CLINTON – Senator Chuck Schumer
1:00 am Actor Portraying Ted Kennedy SINGS NATIONAL ANTHEM
1:30 am Actor Portraying Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST TO Mary Jo Kopechne
1:35 am Bill Clinton asks actor Portraying Ted Kennedy to drive Hillary home.

Visit BadBlue Real-Time News for more great stories.


TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHIEF/LOBBYIST MANAFORT: Yeah, We’re Secretly Working with Mitch McConnell

Doug Ross @ Journal

Paul Manafort is the new head of Donald Trump’s campaign. A longtime Washington insider and heavy duty lobbyist for third world dictators, Manafort appeared this morning on Fox News Sunday and inadvertently let slip some revealing truths.

MANAFORT: …What we’re trying to do right now is work with the Mitch McConnells who we didn’t depose in Kentucky even though he won the election and we worked with him to put a unity slate together. We’re trying to bring the party together. That’s what —

WALLACE: Wait, because I think this is interesting. You’re saying that you’re working with the Senate majority leader, who to a lot of the grassroots is a symbol of the problem?

MANAFORT: We’re working with party officials and that was an example on Saturday where we could have — we won the state. We could have gone in there and tried to be disruptive as Cruz does in these states.

Manafort’s lobbying firm has been termed “the torturer’s lobby”, having represented Filipino dictator Marcos, Angolan guerrilla leader Jonas Savimbi, ousted Ukrainian president and Putin ally Victor Yanukovych, to name but a few.

Yes, Donald Trump would be vastly superior to Hillary Clinton, because a malfunctioning pencil sharpener would be vastly superior to Hillary Clinton.

But anyone expecting Trump to fight the McConnells and Ryans and the Chamber of Commerce is going to sorely disappointed. Trump has surrounded himself with Beltway cronies, lobbyists and insiders. He is a longtime Democrat and liberal.

That is what he is and will always be. Caveat emptor.

Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News.



Doug Ross @ Journal

Hillary Clinton’s oversized motorcade gridlocked Manhattan traffic this week so she could, eh, get a coiffe.

Looks like the cut and color cost a mere $1,200. But she’s for the little people!

Hillary Clinton’s entourage — four big black cars plus her top aide Huma Abedin — was spotted outside Bergdorf Goodman on Wednesday morning waiting as the presidential hopeful got her $600 haircut.

According to one witness, “Hillary’s entourage was blocking traffic early this morning, and waiting as Hillary got her hair done before heading up to do an event at the Apollo Theater in Harlem.”

Clinton gets her hair done at the John Barrett Salon by John Barrett personally, who we previously reported charges $600 for a haircut, plus an extra $600 for color.

Reader Silby emailed us this, eh, unique reaction:

Not only is she a liar and a cheat, she’s a f***ing idiot!

Hillary has a $600 haircut yesterday at Bergdorfs in NYC and her limo and entourage blocked traffic for 4 blocks!! Put that f***ing ‘I’m working for the people’ bulls*** on your blog!!

Such a f***ing hypocrite. I despise her.

My haircut alone is $35. Roots and cut, $80. Roots and highlights and cut and blow-dry comes to $110.

My look kills hers.

If I spend $1,200, I better have hair that glows and has its own zip code.

F***ing $1,200 for a haircut and a color.

I guess $$$ is no object when you are in a quest for power!!

Why the hell doesn’t she spend $1,200 on Jenny Craig or Nutrisystems? How about a f***ing Zumba class? She can’t walk up the stairs without assistance, for f***’s sake!!

Or how about spending $1,200 on food for the homeless shelter in Harlem, where she can speak jive to pretend she cares about anyone other than herself?

She better not f***ing be my president. I’m going to have to go into a four-year hyper-sleep or something.

Which reminds me of what the late, great Dr. Bob once told me, presciently predicting the rise of Hillary Clinton, I guess.

He said, “Beauty is only skin-deep, but ugly goes down to the bone.”

Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News.


DEEP THOUGHTS WITH DOUG: This Episode — Trump and the SuperPACs

Doug Ross @ Journal

Another submission by our summer intern, @BiffSpackle.

If I were a Democrat consultant, I would be licking my chops at the attack ads I could create against Trump. War on women, on Mexicans, against private landowners, against the little guys he’s screwed in business repeatedly.

And, for the 10,000th time, I will support Trump in the general against any Democrat. Because I would support a used K-cup in the general against any Democrat.

Related reading: “Mega-donors shy away from fight with Trump.”


PREDICTION VALIDATED: Trump Poll Numbers May Be Vastly Inflated Due to Reality Show Name Recognition

By: Malcolm X. Cromwell | Doug Ross @ Journal

Two-and-one-half months before last week’s Iowa Caucus, columnist S.A. Miller of The Washington Times noted what could be called “The Trump Effect” on poll numbers with an article entitled “Donald Trump seen unlikely to win in Iowa despite poll numbers“:

Laura Kamienski, a Republican Party caucus precinct representative for Hiawatha District in Cedar Rapids … said she expects a surprise in the caucus this cycle similar to former Sen. Rick Santorum’s unexpected win in 2012. Mr. Santorum is back in the 2016 Republican race but is polling near the bottom of the crowded field in Iowa and nationally.

…Pollsters defended their survey methods and stood by their numbers. But some credited Mr. Trump’s dominance in polls to his near-universal name recognition as star of the hit TV shows “The Apprentice” and “Celebrity Apprentice.”

Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski dismissed any doubt about the poll numbers. He said it was coming from the same “political pundits who have been wrong every step of the way” about Mr. Trump’s candidacy, including predicting he would fade after the summer… He also noted that they had hired the Iowa organizer from Mr. Santrorum’s 2012 campaign, Chuck Laudner, who is considered one of the most formidable grass-roots organizers and get-out-the-vote strategists in the state.


At the time, Trump and Carson were dominating the polls in Iowa. As it turned out, Kamienski — who pointed out that she had seen no real evidence of large-scale Trump support — astutely predicted a surprise in February. That turned out to be case as Ted Cruz walked away the victor by a significant margin.

The critical question that Miller and others have raised is the possibility that some poll respondents choose Trump based not upon policy positions but because they recognize his name.

In my non-scientific discussions with various registered voters, I have discovered a rather significant percentage who are unfamiliar with the name of any GOP candidate, except for that of Donald Trump.

Mention Trump’s name, however, and you see faces light up. The recognition and the reality show association is immediate. Quite a few are able to parrot Trump’s (in)famous quote from The Apprentice — “You’re fired!” — but know little else of the candidate’s background or political preferences.

Of course, many Trump advocates are quite familiar with the candidate and are certainly energized to vote. A Trump advocate observed after a November speech by the GOP frontrunner that many of the attendees “are not simply gawkers or fans of his TV shows.”

I suspect that many of these people are frustrated with the additional burdens and strife that Obama and the federal government have inflicted upon them; they are turning out as a result of Trump’s fame and the role he portrayed on his reality television show.

The term “low-information voter” may be too harsh, but I suspect that many Trump supporters feel the increased problems weighing them down but they can’t exactly identify the cause nor the origin of their problems.

They are not aware of imminent crises here and abroad, but they have then taken Trump’s reality show role and are applying it to the real world. They then conclude in their own minds that whatever the reason for the problems, Donald has always been successful dealing with it on TV and they extend that notion to Donald being the answer in present world circumstances.

These folks have stayed glued to the television for so long that they are convinced that the Donald is the solution to their problems. They have, however, come to the realization that they cannot change the channel.

With that said, it is also likely that many poll respondents who offer Trump as their preferred candidate do so only because they recognize his name.

This could provide insight into Trump’s inability to meet the pollsters’ predictions in Iowa and it could portend further disappointment for the billionaire real estate investor.

It may also explain Trump’s lowering of expectations in New Hampshire over the past several days.

Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News.


Your handy, dandy Trump vs. Cruz comparison chart! [UPDATED]

Doug Ross @ Journal
Hat Tip: BB

Newly updated and presented without comment for your consideration.

Simply click each policy or issue to read the back-story.

Policy or Issue Trump Cruz
In 2013, supported Amnesty for all 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. Yes No
In 2000, supported an Assault Weapons Ban Yes No
In 2015, supported “touchback” Amnesty for every illegal alien in the U.S. Yes No
In 2000, supported Partial-Birth Abortion Yes No
In 2015, lied to gun media about his past support for an Assault Weapons Ban Yes No
Supports seizure of private property by the government using Eminent Domain (Kelo) Yes No
Supports Mitch McConnell’s habitual lies to constituents and fellow GOP Senators Yes No
Currently courting and being courted by GOP establishment Yes No
Currently supports crony capitalism: billions in taxpayer ethanol subsidies Yes No
In 2000, supported Extended Waiting Periods to Acquire Firearms Yes No
Amount of debt owed to bankers Many billions $1 million
Amount donated to the bogus Clinton “Foundation” $100,000 0
Spends virtually every waking moment on social media Yes No
Has registered as a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Republican and “No Party” Yes No
Has personally insulted nearly every potential running mate Yes No
Endorsed by GOPe icon Bob Dole, who thought Ronald Reagan was “too fringe” Yes No
Number of bankruptcies declared by firms he led 4 0
Amount of debt defaulted on $4.7 billion $0.00
Number of times married 3 1
Number of “birther” conspiracy theories circulated 2 0
Praised/endorsed Communist for Mayor of New York Yes No
Appears to shift his position on important issues literally overnight ? No
A guy so stable, sober and poised that you want his finger on the button ? Yep

As I’ve said repeatedly:

I would vote for Donald Trump over the Democrat nominee in the event he is the GOP candidate. Because I would vote for a Sesame Street character over the Democrat. But remember: you will get what you pay for.