All public forums should be open and uncensored

A US District Court judge has ruled that President Trump may not block even rude or obnoxious criticism from his Twitter account, because it is a public forum that is protected by the First Amendment. The Justice Department says it might appeal, but I argue that the DOJ, White House and Trump Administration should instead embrace the decision, expand on it, and apply these legal principles and free speech guidelines to other arenas.

After all, with the multitude of race, sexual orientation and other civil rights now protected by force of law, shouldn’t arguably the most vital and fundamental civil right also be protected? The right of free speech and free assembly, especially regarding one’s beliefs, interests and political viewpoints, and one’s ability to participate in discourse over important political and public policy matters?!?

Thank you for posting my provocative article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.

Best regards,


All public forums should be open and uncensored

Trump should embrace (and expand) court ruling that his Twitter account is free speech forum

President Trump may not block even rude or obnoxious criticism from his Twitter account, because it is a public forum that is protected by the First Amendment, US District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald has ruled. The President’s use of his Twitter account to comment on important policy, personnel and personal announcements made it a public forum, akin to a park or town square, she concluded.

Blocking unwanted tweets is thus viewpoint discrimination, which public officials are not permitted to engage in. Indeed, his Twitter account is not just a public forum. It is also “government space,” and thus may not be closed off, Judge Buchwald continued – rejecting a Justice Department argument that, since Twitter is a public company, it is beyond the reach of First Amendment public forum rules.

Free speech proponents hailed the ruling as a groundbreaking decision, saying it expands constitutional protections deep within the realms of social media. The executive director of Georgetown Law School’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection called it “a critical victory in preserving free speech in the digital age.” Blocking people from responding critically to presidential tweets is unconstitutional, because it prevents them from participating personally and directly in that forum, others said.

The Justice Department said it disagreed with the decision and was considering its next steps. Here’s another option: Embrace and expand on the decision. Assess how these District Court principles and free speech guidelines can be applied in other vital free speech arenas. Take it as far as you can.

Some will then predictably want to construe the decision narrowly, saying it applies only to government officials, perhaps especially conservatives who support this president. Conservatives, the White House and the Trump Administration should not feel bound by such partisan, self-serving assertions.

As Supreme Court and numerous lower court decisions have interpreted the Civil Rights Act and other laws, no person may employ race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, disability status or other categories, to discriminate in admissions, hiring or anything else under any program or activity receiving any form of federal financial assistance, including loans or scholarships. Those that do discriminate will lose their Internal Revenue Service non-profit status and their government funding.

Should that list of categories not include one of the most vital and fundamental civil rights of all – the one addressed and protected by the very first amendment to the United States Constitution? The right of free speech and free assembly, especially regarding one’s beliefs, interests and political viewpoints, and one’s ability to participate in discourse and debate over important political and public policy matters?

Our colleges and universities were once society’s crucible for developing and thrashing out ideas. Sadly, as anyone with a milligram of brain matter realizes, they have become bastions of one-sided ideological propaganda and intolerance. Every conceivable element of “diversity” is permitted and encouraged – nay, demanded – except for our most fundamental civil right of personal views, free speech and robust debate.

That right now applies only to liberal-progressive-leftist views and ideologies. Anything that challenges or questions those teachings is vilified, denounced and silenced, often violently – as being hurtful, hateful, objectionable or intolerable to liberals. Faculty members are hired, protected, promoted or fired based on their social, scientific or political beliefs. Viewpoint discrimination, bullying and mobbing are rampant.

It’s time for pushback. Judicial and Executive Branch decisions and guidelines hold that even private universities that receive federal money for faculty research, student loans and scholarships, or campus facilities, are subject to Civil Rights Act rules. Presidents, administrators and faculty members of public universities are arguably public officials. Campuses and classrooms are clearly public forums.

If they tolerate or encourage viewpoint bullying, mobbing or violence, they are violating the civil rights of students, professors and speakers whose views have been deemed inappropriate, discomforting, hurtful or intolerable to the fragile sensitivities of climate alarmist, pro-abortion, atheist and other liberal factions.

Judge Buchwald’s ruling and the reactions of free speech advocates provide useful guidelines to buttress this approach. The Trump Administration, state attorneys general and free-speech/individual rights advocates should apply them to help restore intellectual rigor and open discourse to our campuses.

The ruling and reactions could also help expand constitutional protections even more deeply in the realms of digital age social media. As they suggest, today’s most popular social media sites have become our most vibrant and essential public forums: today’s parks, town squares and town halls. People, especially millennials, rely on them for news, information and opinions, often as substitutes for print, radio and television (and classrooms). But they now seem far better at censorship than at education or discussion.

Google algorithms increasingly and systematically send climate realism articles to intellectual Siberia. Unless you enter very specific search terms (author’s name, article title and unique wording), those sly algorithms make it difficult or impossible to find articles expressing non-alarmist viewpoints.

Google thus allies with the manmade climate cataclysm establishment – which has received billions of taxpayer dollars from multiple government agencies, but has blocked Climate Armageddon skeptics from getting articles published in scientific journals that often publish papers that involve hidden data, computer codes and other work. Even worse, it facilitates repeated threats that skeptics should be jailed (Bill Nye the Science Guy and RFK Jr.), prosecuted under RICO racketeering laws (Senators Warren and Whitehouse), or even executed (University of Graz, Austria Professor Richard Parncutt).

Google is a private entity, there are other search engines, and those seeking complete, honest research results should see if those alternatives are any better. But there is something repugnant about mankind’s vast storehouses of information being controlled by hyper-partisan techies, in league with equally partisan university, deep state, deep media, hard green and other über-liberal, intolerant elements of our society.

Meanwhile, Google YouTube continues to use its power and position to block posting of and access to equally important information, including over 40 well-crafted, informative, carefully researched Prager University videos – because they contain what YouTube reviewers (censors) decreed is “objectionable content” on current events, history, constitutional principles, environmental topics and public policies.

Scholar-educator Dennis Prager sued YouTube for closing down yet another vital public forum to views that question, contest or simply fail to pay homage to liberal ideologies and agendas.

District Court Judge Lucy Koh concluded that YouTube did indeed apply vague standards and the arbitrary judgments of a few employees, and did indeed discriminate against Prager U by denying it access to this popular social media platform and digital public forum. However, she ruled that Google YouTube is a private company, and thus is under no obligation to be fair, to apply its services equally, or to refrain from imposing penalties on viewpoints with which its partisan officers and employees disagree.

In other words, YouTube may operate as a public forum but it is a private business and thus may discriminate as it wishes – since it does not bake cakes or provide food or overnight accommodations … or deal with any civil rights that Judge Koh would include among protected constitutional rights.

These actions are the hallmarks of communist, fascist and other totalitarian regimes that seek to control all thought, speech, economic activity and other aspects of our lives. They drive policies that further limit our freedoms, kill countless jobs, and cost us billions or trillions of dollars in lost productivity.

The Left is clearly afraid of conservative ideas and principles. It refuses to participate in discussions or debates that it might lose, and instead resorts to mobbing, bullying and violence to silence our voices.

Up to now, lower courts have not always been supportive of the analysis and prescriptions presented in this article. But appellate courts and the Supreme Court have yet to weigh in on the Trump Twitter, Prager YouTube, Google search bias and similar cases. So we are still in uncharted territory.

Conservatives, climate chaos skeptics and true free speech advocates should build their own social media forums – while helping to create the legal precedents that will protect our hard-won rights and freedoms, and exposing, ridiculing, embarrassing and challenging the dominance of the Intolerant Left.

Paul Driessen, JD is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of books and articles on energy and environmental science and policy.

I Am America


By John R. Stoeffler

I lost my first child on the day I was born on April 19, 1775…I am America. He fell on the green at Lexington, his heart pierced by a British musket ball. Many more of my sons and daughters would fall on that day and in the years to come until the guns grew still and peace came to me on that glorious day at Yorktown.

Eighty-six years later my heart was nearly broken as my sons and daughters donned the blue and grey and took up arms against each other. At Manassas, Missionary Ridge and elsewhere my children fell. And I grieved. During this devastating time, my son Abraham Lincoln eloquently expressed my feelings at a place called Gettysburg when he pledged that those who had fallen “shall not have died in vain; and that Government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

Fifty-two years had passed when I was called upon to aid my cousins in Europe. This time my children crossed the sea and “over there” at places like the Somme and the Meuse-Argonne many gave their last great measure of personal sacrifice to stem tyranny’s tide.

In the 1940s my children became embroiled in the biggest war the world has ever known. From a harbor called Pearl to Iwo Jima, Anzio, Bataan, and Bastogne they fought and died that the peal of freedom’s bell would not be stilled. And only then, when it was done, did Johnny come marching home again.

In 1950, my loved ones were again off to stay tyranny’s iron hand in a faraway place called Korea. At places with names like Pork Chop Hill and Heartbreak Ridge did my children again fight and die for freedom, and again I wept for those who fell.

In the 60s and 70s my children took up arms in freedom’s name. From the Mekong to the DMZ to a valley called the Ia Drang many gave some and some gave all. The pride I have in them for the courage and the sacrifice each made has never faded.

Since Vietnam, more of my sons and daughters have given their all on freedom’s behalf in places with equally strange sounding names like Mosul, Fallujah, the Korengal Valley and Helmand Province.

Memorial Day
On Memorial Day, Remembering the Values American Soldiers Died For 

There are those who hate me and what I stand for. Given the chance they would snuff out the inseparable essentials of my existence, liberty and freedom. They have different names and faces, but their nefarious goal remains the same – to destroy my children and me. Nothing made this so clear as the attack on September 11, 2001 when those dark forces ended the lives of nearly 3,000 of my children for the sole reason that they are Americans.

For some, time passes and memories fade, but through all this I tell you that I remember each of these my children. The faces of those who fell at Bunker Hill are as fresh in my mind today as those who perished at Gettysburg, Chateau-Thierry, Normandy, Pusan, Baghdad, and, yes, on United Flight 93. I know of the dreams each had for their family, and those their family had for them. And where they now lie, be it in my bosom or in some distant land makes no difference as every name and face is forever etched in my mind and heart.

No, I can never forget these my children for I AM AMERICA, and I shall always remember.

Stubborn Syria

Stubborn Syria

Antithesis title because it isn’t Syria who is stubborn it’s Bashar Al Assad.

Understand the Geneva Protocols are an absolute. We do not play with chemical WMDs, they are always a serious matter.

Agent Orange is one of America’s worst incidents. Official story is a herbicidal that had fallout. Some claim it was intentional. Veterans affected by Agent Orange are bitter and angry about it, but most of all never want to see anything like it again. You’ll note that we haven’t had another incident like it, in accident or intention. I am not saying there haven’t been some stupid incidents. I am saying incidents where intention (including negligence) can be shown likely even possible, in hurting our soldiers for sake of someone’s need to know, these haven’t taken place.

Why is this so important? Because it shows our learning from our mistakes, be they witting stupidities of placing our soldiers in harms way or the innocent unwitting mistake as officially explained, we’ve learned and do not do things like this anymore.

Today Bashar Al Assad claims he’s President of Syria. Yet every time there’s a chemical attack he and his cohorts say “it wasn’t Assad.” Is that taking responsibility, especially after Russia guaranteed all the chemical weapons were destroyed and Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry accepted that as true?

Think of it this way: If I come to your home and while there shoot and kill your neighbor’s entire family the police will want to know how much you knew of what I was going to do, how well you knew me, etc., to see if you were a part of it and if there was any way you could foresee what I had done and prevented it since I was from your house, your premises.

While the police clear you of any criminal wrongdoing or negligence, you’re still subject to a wrongful death suit brought by any relative of that family. Why? Because it was your house, your premises, and the responsibility falls on you to control who comes in and to assure their actions aren’t harmful to others like your neighbors.

Bashar Al Assad has this same responsibility for Syria, and so too President Trump for the United States of America.

President Trump put troops on the border on word of a group trying to push right through our border to promote their agenda over America’s and American’s Rights and the will of the American People to have and control their own nation. There could have been a chemical attack there, and our deployed troops would deal with it. We would then receive a briefing explaining the intel we had or didn’t have, what went wrong, what went right, and all in the pro-active step of taking responsibility to control our premises, our borders.

Assad never does that. His response, “it’s not me,” and he just goes about his protracted war effort. He doesn’t have an inkling of the responsibility he has as President of Syria to assure chemical weapon, production, use, sale, purchase will not be tolerated as a duty to his people let alone the Geneva Protocols. Instead Assad just wants to make sure he isn’t blamed and leaves a vacuum of irresponsibility to police the chemical weapons in his country. Assad isn’t taking on that his and the enemy’s production are an escalation in Assad’s irresponsibility, that they’ve both taken to buying and selling these weapons as commodities, as normal modern war strategies to carry out barbarism on a mass scale just because Assad won’t step down.

This is why America, Britain and France had to take action. Assad’s claims of “no WMDs” or “they’ve all been destroyed” must be absolute and for every possibility within Syria. Should a tragedy occur it is Assad’s duty in claiming to be the President of Syria that he show a full willingness to be responsible for the incident, with a sober, humble, and accurate briefing. This is an authority that has been abused by 7 years of war and irresponsibly claimed the lives of 500,000 civilians, and displaced millions abroad.

And to those who think Bashar Al Assad wouldn’t have done this when the rebels were about to surrender… In reality: Rebels didn’t surrender yet. In reality: Turkey is in Syria attacking the Kurds and trying to take some land too. In reality: The Middle East nations want each others land, for more food, more oil, more people to be supported. In reality: Every Middle East leader has to have a “tough guy” reputation, with an escalating ruthlessness to assure they can maintain control of their nation and discourage other leader’s aggression. So ask yourself what is more ruthless than gassing the surviving and supposed soon to surrender rebels in your nation as a means of demoralizing and hoping to make Turkey’s military retreat?

There can be peace in the Middle East. But peace is unlikely anywhere that stubborn dictators won’t step down in acquiesce to the passionate desires of the people of their nation, and any peace forced by a ruler is at the cost of the lives of those who dissent, from Mao, to Stalin, to Lenin, to Fidel, to, today, Maduro, Kim Jung Un, and South Africa over 100 million people have been murdered for the stubbornness of Dictators.

America’s goal and hope as this was our own hopes for our own future in the Founding of our nation, is a Syria based on the Will of the People of Syria and not the stubbornness of a Dictator and their arms, nor their opposition. But that can’t happen with both sides willing to use and proliferate chemical WMDs against the People of Syria and finger pointing is their answer to any inquiry, especially when Assad is meant to represent both sides as the President of Syria.

God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman

Judicial Watch Files 4th FOIA Lawsuit Relating to Government Funding of the Soros Political Machine

Legal Ethics and ReformJudicial Watch now has four FOIA lawsuits relating to the Obama administration’s funding for Soros’ Open Society Foundations operations 


(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for records relating to their funding of the political activities of the Soros Open Society Foundations of Romania (Judicial Watch v. U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (No. 1:18-cv-00667)) and the Soros Open Society Foundations of Colombia (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:18-cv-00668)).

The Soros Open Society Foundations of Romania lawsuit was filed after State and USAID failed to substantively respond to an October 16, 2017, FOIA request seeking among other records:

• All records relating to any contracts, grants or other allocations/disbursements of funds by the State Department to the Open Society Foundation – Romania and/or its personnel and/or any OSFR subsidiary or affiliate.

• All assessments, evaluations, reports or similar records relating to the work of Open Society Foundation – Romania and/or its subsidiaries or affiliated organizations.

The Soros Open Society Foundations of Colombia lawsuit was filed after State failed to respond to an October 23, 2017, FOIA request seeking among other records:

• All records regarding any contracts, grants or other allocations/disbursements of funds by the State Department to the Open Society Foundation – Colombia and/or any OSF subsidiaries/affiliates, and/or OSF personnel operating in Colombia, as well as the following entities: Fundacion Ideas para la Paz; La Silla Vacia; DeJusticia; Corporacion Nuevo Arco Iris; Paz y Reconciliacion; Global Drug Policy Program; and news portal Las Dos Orillas.

• All records of communication, whether by e-mails, text messages, or instant chats, between any officials, employees or representatives of the State Department in Colombia, including Ambassador Kevin Whitaker and any officials, employees or representatives of the Open Society Foundation, its subsidiaries/affiliates, and/or those entities identified in the first bullet.

See also: Shilling for Soros: Washington Posts’ Omission of Facts in Defense of a Narrative

As in other parts of the world, a number of Soros-funded entities and projects in Romania are also funded by the United States Government. The Romanian Center for Independent Journalism, which is supported by the Open Society Institute in New York, recently received $17,000 from the State Department.

In February 2017, Laura Silber of Open Society Foundations reportedly condemned “illiberal governments” in the Balkans, such as Macedonia, Albania and Romania, for working against the Soros NGOs. In Romania, in March 2017, the leader of the governing party reportedly charged that the Soros foundations “that he has funded since 1990 have financed evil.”

Soros’ NGOs in Colombia are reportedly receiving millions from USAID:

Verdad Abierta, a web-based portal created by Teresa Ronderos, director of the Open Society Program on Independent Journalism, boasts on its website that it receives support from USAID. Abierta has helped rewrite Colombia’s history, elevating terrorists to the same level as the legitimate police and military forces, and rebranding decades of massacres, kidnappings, child soldiering, and drug trafficking by a criminal syndicate as simply “50 years of armed conflict.”

Fundacion Ideas para la Paz, once led by peace negotiator Sergio Jaramillo, now a member of the oversight “junta,” is funded by the Open Society Foundations and has received more than $200,000 in U.S. tax dollars.

The left-wing news portal La Silla Vacia, another Open Society initiative, also boasts of being a USAID grantee. Its columnist, Rodrigo Uprimny, whose NGO DeJusticia also partners with USAID and Open Society, is considered one of the architects of the peace deal.

Former National Liberation Army terrorist Leon Valencia—Open Society collaborator and grantee—has received at least $1,000,000 in USAID funding through his NGOs Corporacion Nuevo Arco Iris and Paz y Reconciliacion, and left-wing news portal Las Dos Orillas, which he co-founded.

In 2016, Soros’ Open Society Foundations gave more than $3.3 million to organizations operating in Colombia. Several of those organizations have also been financially supported by the United States government, having received more than $5 million from the Department of State, USAID, and the Inter-American Foundation (a federal agency) in recent years. One of the Soros-funded entities, an LGBT advocacy organization, was also selected by the Inter-American Foundation as a partner organization in its Colombia peace project initiative.

“It is time for Americans to be allowed to see State Department documentation regarding the public funding of Soros’ Open Society Foundations,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The billionaire George Soros needs zero assistance from taxpayers to promote his far-left agenda abroad.”

Judicial Watch now has four FOIA lawsuits relating to the Obama administration’s funding for Soros’ operations. Judicial Watch is pursuing information about Soros’ activities in Macedonia and Albania, as well. The former Prime Minister of Macedonia Nikola Gruevski reportedly called for a “de-Sorosization” of society. In February 2017, Judicial Watch reported that the U.S. government has quietly spent millions of taxpayer dollars to destabilize the democratically elected, center-right government in Macedonia in collusion with George Soros.

In a March 2017, letter to Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, six U.S. Senators (Sens. Lee (R-UT), Inhofe (R-OK), Tillis (R-NC), Cruz (R-TX), Perdue (R-GA) and Cassidy (R-LA)) called on the secretary to investigate the relations between USAID and the Soros Foundations and how U.S. tax dollars are being used by the State Department and the USAID to support left-of-center political groups who seek to impose left-leaning policies in countries such as Macedonia and Albania.

Institutional Political Blindness of Mainstream Media is Creating Glitches in the Matrix


I think the reason that this is a tumultous time is that it is a time for discussion of first principles — and first principles are virtually at the level of theology — because they are the things that you assume and then move forward, so what should we assume?” — Jordan Peterson, The Rubin Report

“A Glitch in the Matrix” — Jordan Peterson, the Intellectual Dark Web & the Mainstream Media

broadcast media to assimilate — too many organisations are operating with a set of ideological filters that are increasingly out of step with the world as it is — and this is an existential threat to the broadcast media itself as the digital shift continues and the opinion formers of the future vote with their eyes and desert them.

The new documentary is influenced by the thought of the psychologist Carl Jung, as is Jordan Peterson, and particularly his concept of the shadow — those things about ourselves we repress or deny. In fact I believe that what we are seeing right now in culture and politics is the eruption of, and the necessity to integrate, that shadow on a vast cultural level — and if we can’t own our own tendencies to anger, reactivity, judgmentalism and so on — particularly ‘liberals’ who cloak their shadow in an ideology of ‘inclusivity and tolerance’ — then we won’t survive.

Intellectual Dark Web

The documentary also looks at the emergence of a new group of thinkers, their prominence made possible by the internet, that have been dubbed the “intellectual dark web” by internet discussion show host Dave Rubin.

The clash between Cathy Newman and Jordan Peterson was not only a clash between two worldviews, it was a conflict between new and old media, and in particular a clash between the assumptions of the mainstream media and the new emerging and evolving perspective of the intellectual dark web and their growing band of followers.

“The mainstream media is based on an old dying model that is being replaced by new media and new technology so quickly that its faults are becoming glaringly obvious. Fortunately thanks to YouTube, podcasting … the mainstream media’s stranglehold on information which really is a stranglehold on your ability to think clearly about the issues of the day is crumbling at an incredible rate. Now the question is who and what will replace it. A few months ago Eric Weinstein came up with the phrase intellectual dark web to describe this eclectic mix of people from Sam Harris to Ben Shapiro to his brother Bret Weinstein, Jordan Peterson — all of whom are figuring out ways to have the important and often dangerous conversations that are completely ignored by the mainstream.” Dave Rubin: What is the intellectual dark web?

One theme that nearly all these thinkers have in common is a conviction that the chaos of the times is because the structures that have run western society for decades are breaking down — and this is a reflection of a deeper ideological — even spiritual crisis.

 Excerpts from David Fuller Medium article:

David is a Journalist and documentary maker, for Channel 4, BBC, The Economist and others — see


Giving Lifetime Work Authorization to 750,000 DACAs: Still a Bad Idea

Lifetime Work Authorization


During his Florida speech, President Trump pulled out all his fiery talking points related to job creation, a strong military, national security, sovereignty and slowing immigration that resonate with American voters.

President Trump is criticized for using this campaign-style rhetoric to inspire his base. But what the president’s detractors forget is that the issues he touted in Pensacola – a stronger economy, job growth and secure borders – resonate with blue-collar Democrats, the voting bloc that put him in the White House and could determine the 2018 mid-term elections, and his 2020 fate.

The response to the trip to the Sunshine State highlighted Washington, D.C.’s continuing ugly partisanship. The endless harangue about deferred action on childhood arrivals included a tedious threat to shut down the federal government unless amnesty is granted to the estimated 750,000 illegal alien DACAs. In a last-minute congressional agreement, the government funding deadline was kicked down the road two weeks to December 22.

The Internet is awash with misinformation about what DACA is, and what it would mean if included in the spending bill as a clean amnesty. For the beneficiaries, they’d be handsomely rewarded: lifetime work authorization, Social Security numbers, and legal status that would allow them to petition family members which, because of the chain migration multiplier, would add millions more to the foreign-born population in the U.S. The family members would also become work authorized.

DACAs aren’t the only group that would profit from the proposed amnesty. Without including E-Verify in a DACA deal, a demand congressional Republicans insist on, corporations score big time, too. Business can continue to employ and exploit illegal immigrants as they have consistently done at least since, if not before, President Ronald Reagan’s 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. IRCA made hiring illegal aliens a crime. Employers ignored the law, and the federal government slowed internal enforcement to a crawl. Congress prefers to talk tough about securing the border while it ignores employers’ lawbreaking.

Starting with President Reagan, and for four successive administrations after him, illegal immigrants have had little trouble crossing the border or getting jobs – 30 years of broken enforcement promises to Americans that enable rogue businesses to hire cheap labor.

Today, Congress has the gall to push for an unpopular DACA amnesty that rewards illegal immigrants with work permission. But according to a Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health poll, just 17 percent of Americans think a DACA amnesty is important, and among Democrats, only 20 percent. Overall, a DACA amnesty ranks 12th among the 15 domestic issues Harvard polled.

Readers can confirm Harvard’s findings for themselves. At the next Christmas party, be Grinch and ask this question: “In an economy that has more than 10 million Americans looking for a full-time job, but unable to find one, a labor market that has more than 10 million American men and women unemployed, and 1.6 million long-term unemployed, should 750,000 DACAs get lifetime work authorization to compete with those struggling citizens?”

The answer will be a resounding no.

Joe Guzzardi is a Californians for Population Stabilization Senior Writing Fellow. Contact him at [email protected]. Find him on Twitter @joeguzzardi19.

VIDEO: Big Trouble in Little Jerusalem with John Fitzgerald

Right Side News with John Fitzgerald  – Big Trouble in Little Jerusalem

JERUSALEM: On December 6th, 2017 President Donald Trump unveiled a new policy regarding Israel’s capital city.

WATCH NOW: Right Side News’ John Fitzgerald walks you through the newly recognized capital of Israel.



In a statement President Trump said:

My announcement today marks the beginning of a new approach to conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

In 1995, Congress adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act, urging the federal government to relocate the American embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize that that city — and so importantly — is Israel’s capital. This act passed Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was reaffirmed by a unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago.

Yet, for over 20 years, every previous American president has exercised the law’s waiver, refusing to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem or to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city.

Presidents issued these waivers under the belief that delaying the recognition of Jerusalem would advance the cause of peace. Some say they lacked courage, but they made their best judgments based on facts as they understood them at the time. Nevertheless, the record is in. After more than two decades of waivers, we are no closer to a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It would be folly to assume that repeating the exact same formula would now produce a different or better result.

Therefore, I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Predictably Hamas have declared another one of their adorable days of rage which are by this point a weekly event. We can expect other Islamic nations like Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom to follow suit shortly. Of course, the liberal media and most of the world look the other way, too keen to call the President a racist to pay attention when he said:

So today, let us rededicate ourselves to a path of mutual understanding and respect. Let us rethink old assumptions and open our hearts and minds to possible and possibilities. And finally, I ask the leaders of the region — political and religious; Israeli and Palestinian; Jewish and Christian and Muslim — to join us in the noble quest for lasting peace.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless Israel. God bless the Palestinians. And God bless the United States. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Of course on CNN and MSBNC the violence you see on the streets of Israel tonight is the fault of the man who wishes to bring peace to the region. This is the definition of #FakeNews.

SEE ALSO: Last week Right Side News’ John Fitzgerald, analyzed the disruption that took place at the “It’s Okay To Be White” speech given by Lucian Wintrich at the University of Connecticut.

*Please like, subscribe and leave us your thoughts in the comments section.

Administration Scores Two Big Wins on Refugee Resettlement

Syrian refugee camp on theTurkish border

By Joe Guzzardi

On refugee issues, two recent successes are encouraging, and may lead to a sensible approach to how America should resettle migrants. This week the United States, at President Donald Trump’s insistence and with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s support, withdrew from the United Nations’ Global Compact on Migration (GCM). In his statement, Tillerson said that because the GCM might accelerate migration, it could undermine U.S. sovereignty, and thwart America’s effort to enforce immigration laws, an opinion Attorney General Jeff Sessions and U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley seconded.


Then, in an unrelated event, the Supreme Court upheld the president’s refugee travel ban which will allow the restrictions against the identified nations to take full effect even as two lower federal courts consider challenges based on the president’s alleged anti-Muslim bias.


Getting out of the dubious GCM and scoring a Supreme Court 7-2 victory with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting represent two big, much-needed wins, not only for the Trump administration, but also for Americans who have grown increasingly skeptical about unwieldly and dangerous U.S. refugee policy.


The GCM is not some long-ago etched-in-stone compact to which the U.S. is indefinitely committed. Rather, the GCM was President Obama’s parting grand refugee-expansion gesture to the UN General Assembly, made just a month before the 2016 election. President Obama endorsed admitting 110,000 refugees, well above the 70,000 historic average. Without question, had the U.S. remained in the GCM, the UN would have proposed more migration, inconsistent with President Trump’s wish to slow resettlement to 50,000 annually, a cap he proposed in September.


Little is understood about how ineffective resettlement abroad is, and how little it contributes to a lasting, global solution. Last year, The New York Times analyzed resettlement policies, and determined that less than one percent of about 20 million refugees are relocated. More than half of the one percent comes to the U.S. Even were the U.S. to increase its refugee intake ten-fold, it would not make a dent in the worldwide crisis. But in the process of increasing the refugee intake, the U.S. population would dramatically increase, today and in future years as the refugees petition their family members to join them.


Many aid groups and some governments recognize that the most meaningful solution is to help refugees close to where they live so they can safely return home at the earliest moment. The most cost-effective, humanitarian method to address refugee crises is for the U.S. to donate funds and medical assistance to refugee camps located near the displaced migrants’ home countries.


A Center for Immigration Studies analysis found that, on average, each Middle Eastern refugee the U.S. resettles costs an estimated $64,370 in the first five years, or $257,481 per household. But based on the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) request for $1,057 annually to care for each Syrian refugee in countries neighboring Syria, 61 refugees could be helped in one year.


The UNHCR acknowledges that the U.S. is the world’s top resettlement country. Since 1975 every state has accepted refugees – more than 3 million in total. Continuing to be accepting is important. But so is helping millions of needy Americans and providing for homeland safety and security. Help refugees help themselves and their embattled nations. Get them home as quickly as possible to expedite the rebuilding process.


Related: On Amnesty, Trump Holds the Hammer


Joe Guzzardi is a Californians for Population Stabilization. Contact him at [email protected]. Find him on Twitter @joeguzzardi19.

Did Don Jr. (and not Twitter) Disclose DMs Referring to Wikileaks Lawyer?

Upon further review of the Twitter Direct Messages that Donald Trump Jr. disclosed between himself and Wikileaks on Nov. 13, it is evident that Wikileaks requested that Donald Trump Jr. contact Wikileaks lawyer Margaret Kuntsler and disclose to her the emails that were mentioned in a New York Times article. Wikileaks sent that message to Don Jr. on July 11th, 2017.

However, on that same day Don Jr. disclosed his emails between himself and campaign individuals regarding a meeting with a Russian attorney flying in from Moscow. That email chain is most likely the one Wikileaks was offering to publish in its aforementioned July 11th request to Don Jr. Did Don Jr. also share privately with Congress the DMs between himself and Wikileaks, where Wikileaks requests that Trump Jr. disclose his information to Wikileaks’ lawyer Margaret Kuntsler?

Is this why Senator Dianne Feinstein requested access to Kuntsler’s private DMs in her letter on October 27? Or was she tipped off about this “go-to point” with Wikileaks by others who have also been in touch with Wikileaks? Or, did Trump Jr. disclose the aforementioned DM with Wikileaks during his 5-hour meeting with Senate investigators on September 7, 2017?

My previous article noted how it was Twitter that may have leaked Kuntsler’s emails, but now that it is obvious that Wikileaks mentioned in their DM with Don Jr. that Kuntsler is the point contact for information that is to be leaked, it may be possible or likely that Twitter never has responded to Feinstein’s request by divulging private DMs. Furthermore, no other DMs between Wikileaks and others have surfaced so far.

Privacy and freedom advocates should still be concerned with how Sen. Feinstein wants Wikileaks’ lawyer chats in violation of attorney-client privilege. Assange himself has shown his support for this issue, tweeting out an article on this subject.


Update: Assange Tweets Right Side News Article on Feinstein

Wikileaks’ Julian Assange shared with his followers the RightSideNews article published by Right Side News entitled “Feinstein Wants Wikileaks’ Lawyer Chats in Violation Attorney-Client Privilege”, regarding Feinstein and her demand of Twitter to release DMs between Assange and his U.S. lawyer. The share received more than 1000 likes and was retweeted nearly 1000 times as of press time.

Some new articles have appeared since then, including, “Dianne Feinstein Wants Twitter To Just Hand Her A Bunch Of Private Communications” here:

What does Feinstein want Twitter to turn over? See section 15, “For each Direct Message identified in response to the preceding requests, documents sufficient to identify the sender. receiver, date, and time each message was sent.”

Assange, Guccifer_2, and all accounts with whom these users communicated, are targets, as is Margaret Kunstler, a New York civil rights lawyer featured on Right Side News.

No word yet on Twitter’s reply to Feinstein’s request for the DMs, but keep reading Right Side News for all of the latest news.


Guccifer 2.0’s Chats with BBC Reporter Newly Discovered

Mike Wendling of BBC News released a chat between him and Guccifer 2.0 in January 2017 that didn’t obtain much coverage. The chat has also not been archived or analyzed on, the Guccifer 2.0 research project. Here it is:

AP News recently cited this aforementioned BBC article and the DM attached above in its recent report from November 2017. That report noted that Guccifer 2.0 in the DM was thrilled that WikiLeaks had finally followed through, quoting Guccifer 2.0 as saying that “Together with Assange we’ll make america great again.”

The AP News article also notably made the following claim: “But there were signs of dishonesty from the start. The first document Guccifer 2.0 published on June 15 came not from the DNC as advertised but from Podesta’s inbox , according to a former DNC official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press.

The official said the word “CONFIDENTIAL” was not in the original document .

Guccifer 2.0 had airbrushed it to catch reporters’ attention.” can respond to the new point about the first document and whether they believe it to be true or not. Keep reading RightSideNews for the latest updates.

FBI set sights on Uranium One weeks after starting probe into Clinton’s emails

FBI set their sights on the Uranium One scandal weeks after they began looking into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Katica aka @GOPPollAnalyst, who’d previous broke the #StoneTear story, discovered several FOIA documents with Preservation and Records requests sent by an FBI special agent to various agencies involved in the approval of the Uranium One deal on August 28th, 2015


CONFIRMED: Comey didn’t have ALL the evidence in and he had already wrote his draft letter exonerating Hillary Clinton.

May 2, 2016 – letter drafted
June 24, 2016 – receives evidence
Page 11

July 5, 2016 – Comey announced case closed.
July 26, 2016 – More evidence received.
Part 15; page 115


14 individuals from the State Department had their personnel files reviewed by the FBI in Hillary Clinton’s Email Investigation case.
Page 40

The sequence of events highlights a criminal probe starting [early August 2015], followed by notifications to the “Uranium One” CFIUS participants [late August 2015].


Also from Zero Hedge

The FBI was investigating the Uranium One deal back in 2015 – months after the Peter Schweizer book Clinton Cash exposed the scheme, along with an article in the New York Times which laid out allegations of criminal malfeasance by the Clintons, their charitable foundation, and several associates.


FBI Mole 

Let’s not forget a bombshell report from The Hill two weeks ago which revealed that as early as 2009, the FBI – led by Robert Mueller at the time, had a mole in the Russian uranium industry, and that the agency had evidence that “Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow” – a deal which would grant the Kremlin control over 20 percent of America’s uranium supply. 

The mole was forced to sign an iron-clad non-disclosure agreement (NDA) which threatened criminal penalties for revealing information, even to Congress. After a request was made by Reps Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) calling for the Justice department to invalidate the NDA, the gag order was lifted, and the FBI informant was authorized to speak with congress.


Tony Podesta and Uranium One

While one-time Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort turned himself in to the FBI a week ago on charges of money laundering, let’s not forget what a former Podesta Group executive interviewed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller told Tucker Carlson Tonightthe FBI probe is now focusing on people in Washington who have worked as de-facto operatives on behalf of Russian government and business. To that end, he had quite a bit to say about his former boss Tony and his relationship to the Uranium One deal.


  • In late 2013 or early 2014, Tony Podesta and a representative for the Clinton Foundation met to discuss how to help Uranium One – the Russian owned company that controls 20 percent of American Uranium Production – and whose board members gave over $100 million to the Clinton Foundation.
  • In 2013, John Podesta recommended that Tony hire David Adams, Hillary Clinton’s chief adviser at the State Department, giving them a “direct liaison” between the group’s Russian clients and Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
  • Tony Podesta was basically part of the Clinton Foundation.”

As far as the current state of the FBI investigation, “They are more focused on facilitators of Russian influence in this country than they are on election collusion,” Carlson’s source told Fox.


Tying it together – previous reports of Federal investigations into the Clinton Foundation: 


Katica’s FOIA discovery corroborates a New York Times report from November 1, 2016, which asserts that an FBI investigation was kicked off based on revelations of pay-for-play in the book “Clinton Cash” written by Peter Schweizer:


The investigation, based in New York, had not developed much evidence and was based mostly on information that had surfaced in news stories and the book “Clinton Cash,” according to several law enforcement officials briefed on the case.


The book asserted that foreign entities gave money to former President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, and in return received favors from the State Department when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state. Mrs. Clinton has adamantly denied those claims. -NYT


The Wall St. Journal also reported last October that five FBI field offices were investigating the Clinton Foundation; New York, Los Angeles, Washington, Little Rock and  Miami, and “were collecting information about the Clinton Foundation to see if there was evidence of financial crimes or influence-peddling, according to people familiar with the matter.”


And in November, as tweeted by Wikileaks and reported on by the Dallas Observerthe Clinton Foundation has been under investigation by the IRS since July of 2016, after 64 GOP members of Congress received letters urging them to push for an investigation. The investigation has been notably held at the Dallas IRS office – far away from Washington.


Katica GOPPolls

Obama appointed Islamic Society Official To Approve Uranium One Sale 

Sen. Feinstein Wants Wikileaks’ Lawyer Chats in Violation Attorney-Client Privilege

 In a new McCarthyite low, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the leading Democrat member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wants to have the Twitter messages between a Wikileaks lawyer from the U.S. and her client. Feinstein has been demanding more information from Facebook and Twitter about Russian users on their sites. For that reason, in Feinstein’s recent letter to Twitter, she has asked for “All content of each Direct Messages greater than 180 days old between each Requested Account” and she lists “@granmarga” as a Twitter account for which messages should be revealed. 

However, the Twitter account @granmarga belongs to Wikileaks lawyer Margaret Kunstler, who posted this message identifying herself as a Wikileaks lawyer. Her identity can be confirmed because the article that she tweeted out identifies herself as an attorney for Wikileaks who is writing in support of that organization, in an article entitled, “Wikileaks Attorneys Blast Citizen Four Maker Poitras.” It should be noted that Kunstler is a New York civil rights attorney with the law firm HRBEK Law, according to their website. The site notes that Kunstler “has spent her career providing movement support and protecting the rights of activists.”

It is unclear why Kunstler and not the other lawyers for Wikileaks are being targeted, but it seems to be yet a new low in the descent to unfair investigatory and accusatory methods that the committees “investigating” Russian involvement in the 2016 Presidential campaign have gone to. Such methods may also be found in the McCarthyism of the investigations made by Senator McCarthy himself up to 1954, and the hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in the same era.

Contact Steve Cunningham at [email protected]

Obama Appointed Islamic Society Official To Approve Uranium One Sale

OBAMA Uranium One

Originally posted on Big League Politics by Mary Fanning and Alan Jones

The Obama administration placed Aimen Nabi Mir, former two-time president of the youth wing of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), into the top advisory position to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a national security post at the Treasury Department.

Aimen Mir was the CFIUS Staff Chairperson from 2009 until 2014. During that time, Aimen Mir played a key role in the CFIUS panel’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium One to Russia’s Rosatom. Mir also played a key role in the Treasury Department’s refusal to investigate the UAE’s Gulftainer 35-year cargo container terminal lease at Port Canaveral, a critical military infrastructure facility for U.S. naval and space operations. Both decisions severely damaged United States national security.

Aimen Mir helped set the table for Vladimir Putin to seize control of over 20 percent of U.S. uranium and was part of the decision that awarded control of Port Canaveral’s cargo container terminal to Saddam Hussein’s rogue nuclear weapons scientist and designated Iraq War enemy combatant, Dr. Jafar Dhia Jafar.  Dr. Jafar’s brother and business partner, Gulftainer co-owner Hamid Jafar, was under investigation by the Treasury Department and four congressional committees for his ‘Oil For Superweapons” scheme in concert with Saddam Hussein.

For starters, Aimen Mir’s ISNA connections are troubling. ISNA is one of the largest Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the U.S. and was named by the Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial.

Further, Aimen Mir is the son of Kashmir-born physician Dr.Ghulam Nabi Mir, an ISNA Founders Committee member. Dr. Mir is also the president of the World Kashmir Awareness Forum (WKAF), an Islamic platform Dr. Mir uses to aggressively advocate for Kashmir’s secession from India in order to join Pakistan. WKAF’s Secretary General “Dr.” Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, is a convicted felon, also from Kashmir, who served as a Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) operative inside the United States.

Fai was arrested by the FBI in 2011 for covertly operating as an unregistered foreign agent while receiving $3.5 million dollars in wire transfers from the ISI. Fai used some of that money to fund an elaborate lobbying operation pushing Kashmiri “independence” on unsuspecting U.S. officials who remained seemingly unaware that Pakistan was running the operation. In 2013, Fai was granted early release from U.S. federal prison by the Justice Department.

Like his father’s ISI partner Fai, Aimen Mir appears to have been running his own operation at CFIUS.

Aimen Mir was the CFIUS Staff Chairperson from 2009 until 2014. During Mir’s five years in the staff chairperson’s seat, CFIUS approved Russia’s 2010 purchase of Uranium One, effectively handing Vladimir Putin control of 20 percent of America’s uranium.  Also during Mir’s term, the Treasury Department refused to conduct two legally-required CFIUS investigations of Port Canaveral’s 2014 container terminal lease concession to the UAE’s Gulftainer.

The Gulftainer deal effectively placed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons mastermind, Dr. Jafar Dhia Jafar, along with his longtime Russian KGB/SVR and Iranian regime associates and a UAE Emir inside the wire of a national-security sensitive U.S. port. Gulftainer misrepresented its true ownership; facts that Mir could and should have uncovered easily.

A World Bank International Finance Corporation (IFC) document (now scrubbed from the IFC website) proved that Gulftainer was owned in part by Sultan bin Muhammad Al-Qasimi, the Emir of Sharjah, UAE.  Under the Foreign Investment National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA), foreign government ownership of an acquiring entity automatically triggers a mandatory CFIUS review, regardless of whether the transaction is a purchase or a lease. Aimen Mir understood CFIUS and FINSA law and chose to ignore it, as did Treasury Secretary Jacob ‘Jack’ Lew and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker.


In 2014 the Treasury Department promoted Aimen Mir to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investment Security after the Clinton Foundation-connected Uranium One and Gulftainer Port Canaveral deals closed. Mir’s LinkedIn profile and post-Trump administration inauguration posts show he’s still at the Treasury Department, now as a career civil servant.

In Gulftainer’s case, the supposedly-rigorous CFIUS national security review process for direct foreign investment transactions was completely and stunningly bypassed. An email released by Wikileaks implicates Gulftainer and the Clintons in a pay-to-play operation involving the Port Canaveral deal.

Both Uranium One and Gulftainer have deep ties to Russian intelligence, nuclear weapons, and uranium enrichment. Gulftainer has additional ties to the Iranian regime and to the architects of Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal.

Gulftainer executive board chairman Badr Jafar visited the White House in 2014, six weeks before the secretly-negotiated Gulftainer deal was announced, signed, and closed.

According to Aimen Mir’s LinkedIn profile, since graduating from Georgetown in 2000, he never served in any national security position before his CIFIUS chairperson appointment. Mir’s work experience was as an immigration attorney at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) representing people from the Middle East seeking asylum in the United States.

CFIUS staff members such as staff chairperson Mir wield tremendous power in the CFIUS process workflow. They conduct research and make recommendations to cabinet-level CFIUS board members or their designated representatives and, through omission, can conceal from those Cabinet members critical national security information about foreign companies looking to invest in U.S.-based operations.

If a CFIUS application is approved before advancing from the 30-day initial review to an additional 45-day investigation involving 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, dangerous deals like Uranium One and Gulftainer deals can fly under the radar of the intelligence community.

According to a 2015 Breitbart report on CFIUS review of the Uranium One deal, “surprisingly the 2009 Annual Report submitted to Congress by CFIUS inaccurately described this approved transaction by stating the company acquiring a minority interest was Canadian rather than Russian.” Breitbart contacted Aimen Mir at the time of that report to ask him if the Uranium One transaction was subjected to a secondary 45-day review but received no response.

The Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States 2015 Annual Report to Congress Public/Unclassified Version, released over a year late, reveals that between 2013 and 2015, there were no covered transactions in the transportation sector involving acquirers from the UAE. In other words, the Treasury Department determined that the Gulftainer deal was not a ‘covered transaction’ and therefore CFIUS did not conduct the required investigation of the deal. That determination was likely made by Aimen Mir and it kept Gulftainer and U.S.- designated enemy combatant Dr. Jafar off the intelligence community’s radar.



The Treasury Department determined that a CFIUS review was not required for Gulftainer’s Port Canaveral deal, according to a 2015 Orlando Sentinel report:

“Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-San Diego, had asked for a formal Treasury Department review of security issues due to a foreign-owned company operating port facilities.

Port spokeswoman Rosalind Harvey said that never happened. “After extensive filing of all required paperwork to U.S. Treasury Department officials, the panel found that no review was required because the agreement was a lease and not a purchase of Port assets,” Harvey said.”

Unfortunately, there is more.

James Rickards, author and former advisor to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) Support Group of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), stated in an October 18, 2017 tweet that Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper “disbanded” the CFIUS DNI advisory group “before Uranium One.”

It is noteworthy that Director Clapper went before Congress to testify under oath that the NSA, CIA, and other intelligence agencies were not collecting massive amounts of telephonic and Internet metadata on hundreds of millions of innocent American citizens. Revelations by Whistleblower Edward Snowden proved otherwise.

Subsequently Director Clapper was found to have been untruthful and resigned on November 17, 2016, effective the day Donald Trump was sworn in, January 20, 2017. Clapper has not been prosecuted for perjury.

CFIUS rules are clear about what constitutes a ‘covered transaction’:

Considering the post-9/11 national meltdown over the UAE’s Dubai Ports World deal, it is inconceivable that the Gulftainer deal would have received approval without a thorough intelligence review. The Congressional enactment of the Foreign Investment National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) was designed to heavily reinforce CFIUS in order to prevent a repeat of Dubai Ports world debacle.

The Gulftainer (GT USA) Port Canaveral 35-year concession is subject to CFIUS review because:

  • Gulftainer is responsible for safety and security and makes all substantial business decisions at the Canaveral cargo terminal;
  • Gulftainer oversees day-to-day operation of the Canaveral cargo terminal;
  • Port Canaveral is critical infrastructure for commercial maritime, military sealift, surface naval, submarine naval, commercial space, and military space operations;
  • Gulftainer’s cargo terminal is near four military bases: Two USAF, one USN, and one USCG;
  • Gulftainer’s cargo terminal is near NASA’s Kennedy Space Center;
  • Gulftainer’s cargo terminal is near the Eastern Range, critical for space missions and missile testing;
  • Gulftainer is partly-owned by a foreign government (Ruler of Sharjah, UAE), Iraqis involved in WMD production (Jafar family), possibly other “senior Iraqi military figures,” and in business with Russian Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs).

It is unclear how Aimen Mir was able to obtain a security clearance.


Also: The Real Russia-Gate Scandal

Florida Journalist Has More DMs with Guccifer 2.0

Aaron Nevins Chat, from the New York Times.

Aaron Nevins recently divulged DMs with Guccifer 2.0 that do not appear on the Guccifer 2.0 research page, or in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article that first outed Nevins in May 2017 as the owner of Nevins runs the gossip site HelloFLA! and participated in an interview on the Viceland show CYBERWAR.

Nevins is videotaped sharing his DM messages with the host of the program on Season 2, Episode 2 of the program, entitled Who Hacked the DNC. While this alternative link does not have the resolution to show every word of the chat, the actual program in High Definition shows the unpublished chat, and is available on cable television still. The images that appears on the broadcast has a timestamp of 2:09 AM, even though the interview takes place during the day on a beach. However, a chat with identical words was published by the New York Times on December 13, 2016, also with the time stamp of 2:09 AM. It is likely then that Nevins did not actually login to his Twitter to present the show’s host his messages, and instead showed the aforementioned images, some of which were released by the Times.

The chat that Nevins presents simply features Nevins offering a Dropbox for Guccifer 2 to drop his files into. Guccifer 2.0 took 14 minutes, between 8/22/16 at 2:25pm and 8/22/16 at 2:39, to upload an as yet unknown amount of files, which would also fit into 6 emails of unknown size. Unlike the WSJ and archive, the chat also features timestamps, that correspond to a Monday, August 22nd afternoon.

The Nevins chat was also the target of Hannibal Moot of BullTruth Magazine, which noted the supposed anomalies of the WSJ published Nevins chat, in the same way he attacked Robbin Young’s DMs. Clearly now that Nevins has gone on record to show his chats on camera, and now that those chats clearly have timestamps unlike the ones released by the WSJ, some say it is clear that the BullTruth report contained more bull than truth. There is no word on whether BullTruth will publish a retraction.

In May 2017, the Wall Street Journal released several images of Nevins’ chats, like here, here and here. These were later republished by here.

HelloFLA is a site that considers itselfthe most sensational source for political gossip, rumors and news from insiders of the nation’s most infamous state!” Nevins has been labelled by the mainstream media as a “GOP operative” yet he does not appear to label himself such. Nevins publishes the website with the pseudonym Mark Miewurd (mark my word).