Caught: Financial Times – A Globalist Purveyor of Fake News
We have all witnessed what happened to Judge Kavanaugh when he was smeared and savaged.
It is not the first time the mainstream media has attacked a Trump supporter and it likely will not be the last in the effrontery called: resist, obstruct and impeach.
Look at The FT. The Japanese firm Nikkei now owns the Financial Times.
It is headquartered in London and is known for its pink color, pink economic views and ardent defense of globalism.
Founded in 1888, the paper has a circulation of just over 2 million worldwide.
It has been called the “voice of the Party of Davos” and its editor is known to be in the pocket of the European Union.
During 2016 they consistently knocked candidate Trump and decried his election. It has not stopped or abated.
They took particular umbrage at the potential nomination of Dr. Theodore Roosevelt Malloch (author of Davos, Aspen & Yale; Hired: Trump’s Victory; and, The Plot to Destroy Trump) to be his ambassador to the EU because, like Trump, he had the nerve to criticize that supranational body and extol its anti-Americanism.
Publishing three unfounded ‘hit’ pieces the FT stoked lies and falsehoods about his accomplishments, credentials, and even his good character.
Malloch rebutted them in a Breitbart article calling it an attempted “political assassination.”
The FT would not relent even when kindly approached and legally challenged.
This letter was sent to the FT’s CEO.
Mr. John Ridding
1 Southwark Bridge
London SE1 9HL
Dear Mr. Ridding,
I am writing to you in your role as the CEO of the Financial Times at the suggestion of my US-based law firm. My brother, as you may know, is the president of a large US media company, so I am well aware of the policies, tendencies and responsibilities of such firms.
Generally, I read and appreciate the FT and especially its economic and stock market coverage. It has historically been a fair and insightful publication and one that is well read, worldwide.
My concern has to do with the coverage afforded me in a number of circumstances (three articles specifically) in your paper.
Not only were the headlines deceptive and inaccurate but also at least nine of the main contentions in those articles, which we believe were aimed to destroy my political candidacy because of my support of President Donald J. Trump, false. They were wrong and they have been most damaging and defamatory. I will not list my damages here but they are considerable.
I will however list the contentions below, showing actual rebuttals and proof to counter your “fake” stories.
What I am asking of you as a decent-minded CEO at this point is to simply remove the stories online and offer me a written apology.
Failure to do so will only force me to take the next steps, which involve both legal and public relations aspects and will not bode well for your paper or company in terms of costs, time and reputation.
As a scholar, gentleman, and a diplomat, I prefer not to go down that route.
Further, you should know that one of the authors of the pieces in the FT on me has stated to another very reputable journalist, working in Westminster, that they regret writing the pieces, were urged to do so under political pressure, and did not realize my full credentials or wide contacts, and this has been duly recorded.
It has also been established that your paper went online — posing as me, to obtain genealogical information. This is not only unethical but a violation of both US and European data privacy and protection laws, aside from being duplicitous. I have full documentation I can assure you on my full family history that puts your allegations in bad light. I don’t plan to use it but could, if necessary, as it demonstrates the lengths your paper went to, to try and discredit me. In my view, attacking a person, aside from their policies is never a laudable practice.
Knowing these facts, I ask you within 14 days to do the right thing as suggested above. I am asking nothing more.
Here are the contentions, let alone the false and misleading headlines that are libelous, in themselves.
1) We have written confirmation from the UN that my appointment was at an ambassadorial level in protocol.
2) We have witnesses at the CNN Conference who in signed affidavits state that Margaret Thatcher called me as president of the events, “a global Sherpa” and a genius.
3) We have an affidavit from the external examiner of my PhD thesis stating my degree was completed in three years in 1979 and awarded at the next graduation, in spring of 1980.
4) We have the letter through the Queen awarding me the title in the Sovereign Military Order of St. John. This is not an OBE and was never suggested to be such, if you read my text. In fact, I speak very jokingly about it again, if you read the book.
5) We have the issue of the coat of arms from the Lord Lyon of Scotland. The lairdship was afforded separately and purchased in conjunction with a family property owned in Aberdeen, Scotland and is documented, as I told your paper.
6) There is no court case about “false bank statements” and the case suggested was settled in full without any such charge. Quoting a prejudiced opposing lawyer and not the other side is hardly fair or honest.
7) You did admit and we have a letter stating that one of the PBS documentaries where I was Executive Producer was nominated for an Emmy, so why discount it. It has been viewed millions of times and I believe the FT would generally approve of its thrust around the virtues of capitalism. Four leading philanthropic foundations underwrote it.
8) We have letters and signed affidavits stating my standing at Oxford colleges and also including as Professor of the Oxford Study Abroad Programme. I was never “distanced” as the Dean of the Business School explained when you tried to reach him.
9) We (my company) have registered service marks in the US on the use of the term ‘thought leadership’ as well as ‘perpetual learning,’ among others. This does not necessarily suggest first use but does constitute a legal status and service mark, establishing use, nothing more.
Thank you for your executive and prompt attention to this matter. I would like to see it resolved.
To that end, I invite you to my private club in London, when I am there, once you do so and as a gesture of good will.
I am not a UK citizen, nor do I vote there but I am a lifelong Republican, who worked in both the Reagan and first Bush administrations. I understand your papers’ animas against President Trump but does everything need to be politicized?
I note the FT regularly uses a photo of me calling me an ally of Nigel Farage.
For the correct record, I have only met him twice (once where the photo was taken at his reception in Washington, DC at the Inauguration). I am not a member or supporter of UKIP and never have been.
As an Anglophile, my preferences lie with the Conservative Party and its European Research Group but alas, other than supporting the longstanding US-UK ‘special relationship,’ I am not particularly involved in British public affairs.
The reply came in this form basically shunning responsibility but not denying their errors.
One can only conclude that the FT is an irresponsible globalist media giant with clear biases and hatred to anything and anyone in the Trump camp or sympathetic to conservative, nationalist values, patriotism or sovereignty.
This paper is the font of all globalist ideology and this should be noted, critiqued and refuted, always, and as necessary.
Ted Malloch is a particularly good man, an academic giant ( a Professor at Yale, Oxford and Henley Business School), and a General in the Trump war, according to Steve Bannon, who should know.
He was shamelessly defamed, using falsehoods and anonymous sources. They wouldn’t correct or retract their lies.
That is the cost of truthfulness at the hands of today’s mainstream media like the globalist FT.
President Trump rightfully calls it a “Con Job.”
That it is, indeed. An exhibit of “fake news” if ever there was one.