Associate of Joseph Mifsud Was Described By EU Parliament As A ‘Reliable Ally” To George Soros

Over the past few months, many questions have been asked regarding the “mysterious Maltese Professor”, Joseph Mifsud and his involvement in the “Trump – Russia” conspiracy. Disobedient Media’s Elizabeth Vos first reported on both professor Mifsud and Russiagate’s many connections to British Intelligence, as well as the findings of Chris Blackburn, who recounted evidence of Mifsud’s close relationship with Italian Senator Gianni Pittella.

In July of 2016, during the heat of the 2016 Presidential election, Pittella attended the Democratic National Convention where he was interviewed by TIME Magazine. In the interview, Pittella formally endorsed then candidate Hillary Clinton, stating: “I have taken the unprecedented step of endorsing and campaigning for Hillary Clinton because the risk of Donald Trump is too high,” Pittella told TIME. “I believe it is in the interest of the European Union and Italy to have Hillary Clinton in office. A Trump victory could be a disaster for the relationship between the U.S.A. and Italy.”

Pittella continued, stating: “This campaign is special…This campaign is not between Democrat or Republican. It’s between democracy and no democracy in the U.S. It’s between having a relationship between the U.S. and the E.U. and the U.S. and other countries, or not. And Italian citizens, together with the world, have the duty not only to intervene, but to act, to support Hillary’s campaign.”

Pittella also spoke at the DNC in Philadelphia, decrying the “virus of populism”, stating that the U.S. “[has] the same virus in your society. And this virus is represented by Donald Trump.”

However, according to internal documents from George Soros Open Society Foundation leaked in 2016, Pittella is considered to be a close ally of Soros. The 127-page document by the Open Society European Policy Institute, titled “Reliable allies in the European Parliament (2014 – 2019), lists the names of 226 EU MEPs that are likely to support the Open Society Foundation and its many initiatives. Included among the names of 226 MEPs is that of Gianni Pittella.


According to the document, Pittella is one of six members of the EU’s Conference of Presidents, the highest political decision-making body of the European Parliament, whom are deemed to be among the Open Society Foundation’s reliable allies in the EU.

Using his influence as a highly regarded member of European Parliament, Pittella inserted himself into American politics during the 2016 Presidential race.

Lee Smith of Real Clear Politics, later reported on Chris Blackburn’s exceptional research, including Mifsud’s relationship with Pittella.

Disobedient Media will continue to follow this story as it develops.

CIA Undermines North Korea Summit By Leaking Report To Media Asset

Just as it was reported that the summit between the United States and North Korea was back on and that Kim Young Chol, the Vice Chairman of North Korea was on his way to New York to meet with officials in preparation for the June 12 summit, the CIA leaked an intelligence assessment concluding that “North Korea does not intend to give up its nuclear weapons any time soon.” The timing of this leak is striking, as it seems to be an effort to undermine negotiations between the two nations and comes just days after ranking members of the Democratic Party and Republican hardliners attacked President Donald Trump over his efforts to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

The identity of the reporter who helped break the story also raises serious questions about whether or not a faction within the CIA deliberately attempted to undermine diplomatic efforts to ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula. According to NBC News, the report was leaked to none other than NBC national security reporter Ken Dilanian, known as “The CIA’s Mop-Up Man.”

In 2014, The Intercept reported on Ken Dilanian’s correspondence and relationship with the CIA while Dilanian was a reporter for the Los Angeles Times.

According to The Intercept, “Email exchanges between CIA public affairs officers and Ken Dilanian, now an Associated Press intelligence reporter who previously covered the CIA for the Times, show that Dilanian enjoyed a close collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication. In at least one instance, the CIA’s reaction appears to have led to significant changes in the story that was eventually published in the Times.”

According to the Huffington Post, while writing for the Los Angeles Times, Dilanian also reported a CIA claim as fact by stating that “there was no collateral murder in a 2012 drone strike on Al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi.” Dilanian’s article was directly disputed in an Amnesty International report.

In the aftermath of the revelations about Dilanian’s ties to the CIA, he was disavowed by the Los Angeles Times. The disclosure of Dilanian’s collaboration with the CIA also led his former employer, David Lauter of the Tribune Washington to believe Dilanian could have violated Tribune news policy. Lauter acknowledged that Tribune policy dictates that reporters “not share copies of stories outside the newsroom.” Lauter further stated that he was “disappointed that the emails indicate that Ken may have violated that rule.”

Dilanian has not shied away from pushing articles written by former CIA officials who continue to perpetuate the “Trump-Russia” collusion narrative without any regard to facts, such as Steven Hall’s Washington Post article titled: “I was in the CIA. We wouldn’t trust a country whose leader did what Trump did.”

Ken Dilanian on Twitter

Perspective | I was in the CIA. We wouldn’t trust a country whose leader did what Trump did. https://t.co/4XG8TmhwKq

Wikileaks has also pointed out Dilanian’s agency connection and his pushing of the “Trump-Russia” collusion narrative, tweeting: “CIA’s ‘mop up man’ Ken Dilanian is the NBC ‘reporter’ used to channel claim about president Putin + US election.”

WikiLeaks on Twitter

CIA’s “mop up man” Ken Dilanian is the NBC ‘reporter’ used to channel claim about president Putin + US election https://t.co/GOci4EWwdv

In the aftermath of recent revelations concerning the CIA’s collaboration with foreign intelligence agencies to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 US Presidential Election the fresh leaks continue to show a pattern of rebellion that has long run rampant in the US intelligence community. While the CIA’s apparent violations of ethical considerations concerning surveillance of candidates running for public office was serious enough, their interference drags the reputation of the agency to a new (and in the case of Korean peace negotiations, more dangerous) low amid their conflictwith the sitting President of the United States.

However, despite these attacks, preparations between the two countries have continued for the upcoming June 12 summit. President Trump announced earlier today via Twitter that: “We have put a great team together for our talks with North Korea. Meetings are currently taking place concerning Summit, and more. Kim Young Chol, the Vice Chairman of North Korea, heading now to New York. Solid response to my letter, thank you!”

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

We have put a great team together for our talks with North Korea. Meetings are currently taking place concerning Summit, and more. Kim Young Chol, the Vice Chairman of North Korea, heading now to New York. Solid response to my letter, thank you!

Glory Days for Missouri Republicans

I had a friend  was a big baseball player
back in high school.

He could throw that speedball by you
Make you look like a fool boy.

Saw him the other night at this roadside bar
I was walking in, he was walking out.

We went back inside sat down had a few drinks
but all he kept talking about was Glory Days.

—Bruce Springsteen, Glory Days

My father-in-law said it.

The man did a few tours in Vietnam as a Marine. He’s as right-wing as they get. Trump all the way. Honorable. Honest. Very good man. You’d be lucky to know one as good.

“I’d never trust a Republican,” he said.

He votes Republican. But he doesn’t trust them.

“The Democrats stick together. You could glue Republicans together and they’d still break apart.”

He was talking about the Greitens case, and he was 100% right. Never trust a Republican.

For the record, I am not a Republican. I vote Republican over 95% of the time. (Libertarian the rest of the time.) I support many Republican candidates, like Donald Trump and Eric Greitens and, of course, Dottie Bailey. But I stopped identifying as a Republican when Bob Dole bought the GOP nomination for President in 1996.

Many Republican politicians follow dull scripts that try to relive the past. Their anthem is Bruce Springsteen’s “Glory Days.” They often lack imagination and integrity. They tell others how to live but apply no standards to themselves. They don’t take cold showers, and they don’t do deadlifts.

In other words, many Republican politicians are almost indistinguishable from Democrats.

Almost.

Unlike Republicans, Democrats fight tooth and nail for their own. Democrats are tribal and social, while Republicans look out for themselves. Republicans confuse rugged individualism with every-man-for-himselfism.

The Missouri Republican legislators who voted in favor of a special session to consider impeaching their governor Eric Greitens sort of proved my father-in-law’s point. They acted on impulse to protect themselves. They didn’t even consider the good of the party or the good of the state. They apparently considered only themselves and their precious invitations to Jefferson City’s weird and depraved nightlife. Glory Days.

In a couple of weeks, those Republican will slither back to their districts to face their constituents. Constituents who voted overwhelmingly for Governor Eric Greitens. Constituents who don’t get invited to Scott Faughn’s weird party pad in JC.

Those Republicans will wish they had some spine. And some friends. They’ll be talking about their Glory Days.

When those Republican legislators return to places like Dent County, they’ll probably hear things that will shock them. Shock them like a live wire. Quick and painful. They’ll long for their Glory Days.

And they earned it.

Well there’s a girl that lives up the block
back in school she could turn all the boy’s heads
Sometimes on a Friday I’ll stop by
and have a few drinks after she put her kids to bed
Her and her husband Bobby well they split up
I guess it’s two years gone by now
We just sit around talking about the old times,
she says when she feels like crying
she starts laughing thinking about

Glory Days

—Bruce Springsteen, Glory Days

A BOTTOM IN GOLD AND A TOP IN CRUDE!

Hi everyone,

Hope you guy’s had a great day

UPCOMING RISK EVENTS:

USD: PPI m/m, Core PPI m/m.EUR: N/A.GBP: N/A.JPY: N/A.

GOLD

 

My Bias: Long to a new all time high above 1827.Wave Structure: Impulse structure to a new high.Long term wave count: wave [iii] above 1666.

GOLD has been very quiet of late,Even todays announcement by the U.S administration to scrap the Iran deal,has had little impact on GOLD traders!The evidence all points to a contracting triangle,Where the range contracts and pressure builds for the final move down in wave ‘5’ of  an abc correction wave.

Tomorrow;Wave ‘4’ cannot last forever!I expect wave ‘5’ will come tomorrow with the likely target remaining at 1295.

Once this larger correction completes in wave [ii], GOLD will then begin possibly the largest run up in prices in its history!

This one is worth waiting for.

U.S CRUDE OIL

 

My Bias: topping in a large correction wave [4].Wave Structure: Double combination higher in wave [4] red.Long term wave count: wave [4] target $70

Has crude topped out for the long term?It sure looks like it might have according to this elliott wave pattern.

The decline off the high could be interpreted as a possible wave (i) grey.The rally of todays low is in a clear three waves so far.So, that qualifies a wave (ii) grey.

Todays low reached 67.63 cash.A further decline below that level,which carries on below 66.37 at key support will be the decider for crude.

Mondays high at 70.74 must hold to stay within the elliott wave rules,but the early signs are good.

Tomorrow;watch for that three wave pattern in wave (ii) to hold at 70.40.And a further decline to kick off a possible wave (iii) grey.

If this market has now turned,Then we are in for a serious decline phase ahead.

Are Term Limits the Answer? That Depends.

Well, here we go again. Yep, the silly season is once again upon us. I’m talking about the upcoming election cycle. And the hot-button issue the politicians are talking about is term limits. It is a political buzz term that, according to polls, not only gets the electorate’s attention but finds the electorate in full accord with the idea that too many politicians stay in office far too long.
While I find merit in “term limits” I feel those who promote this idea fail to see the whole picture and the long-term consequences.
 Consider, when you seek help with a medical problem you undoubtedly look for a physician with the best credentials. If you were to require open-heart surgery I am confident you would choose a cardiologist with experience as opposed to one fresh out of medical school. Experience in any field counts for much, including politics.
Walt Mueller was a good friend who served for many years in the Missouri State Legislature, both House and Senate. He was a rarity in politics as he avoided the political limelight choosing instead to do his best in the interest of his constituents. He viewed term limits with skepticism and with good reason.
Senator Mueller pointed out that when you first attain elective office you, as a novice, are at the mercy of the bureaucracy – the executive branch. Through years of experience bureaucrats know how the political game is played. They are experts at bureaucratic slight-of-hand and can run rings around the political novice. Lack of experience, he pointed out, empowers the executive branch made up of unelected bureaucrats.
As I noted earlier, I believe there is merit to limiting the time politicians hold office, but in the interest of good government term limits needs to be more narrowly defined.  
Those who understand how the legislative process works know that in the legislature power lies with those who chair committees. It is they who can kill a Bill by assigning it to an unfriendly sub-committee or not allowing a Bill out of their committee. It is for this reason I believe consideration of limiting time in office should be more broadly considered.
  1. If the electorate wishes to limit the terms of office it should be for not more than twelve years.
  2. As real power lies in those who chair committees, the time in which a legislator can consecutively serve as Chair or Vice Chair of a committee on which he/she currently sits should be limited to no more that 4 years.
It is my contention that this approach will rein in the power of politicians who because of their seniority wield nearly unfettered power for years out of sight of the electorate.
Politicians who declare their support for term limits point to the Founders who believed the office to which they were elected was to be a “part time” job and not the lifetime career it has become for too many. Today, many running for office are critical of those who have served for years if not decades.
But after being elected too many of these same politicians ignore their campaign slogans and promises as they have become a member of the legislative club and to get along are reluctant to rock the boat by pushing term limits. Sure, there are those who will sponsor term limit legislation knowing it will make them look good to their constituents, but they are also confident that it will be as dead as road kill and they will blame others for its defeat.

Eric Greitens Might Actually Fix St. Louis

By K.C. the Hairdresser who’s husband “Is not after anything, I am not a part of politics, I am not a part of anything, I just want to move on with my life.” – but don’t confuse me with anyone you’ve heard in the news.

Where to begin with this? So many different angles and information that has yet to come to light. Possessing the information by doing the research that nobody does is a very gratifying experience when you actually do it. 99% of people let the narrative and news create their reality, even their beliefs as a person and their behavior so long as it’s socially rewarded. Just ask europe 70 years ago how powerful the narrative can be to their behavior and morals. The extermination of a whole class of people because everyone knew they were the problem. Why would anyone raise question to something that everyone agrees is true? It must be true.

Okay so… Post Dispatch never gets a story right. The post dispatch is the worst paper in america as far as I’m concerned. Their sports reporting is decent, but they didn’t keep the rams. Kronke played the city and the media like fiddle on that deal which they’re still paying for (sans stadium)

Now… How in hell could Eric Greitens actually help liberals? Trick question… they can never be helped by a Republican. Their brain doesn’t detect the benefits that they gain and it only allow them to hate them. It’s more a personal issue than anything. They don’t really want to see anyone except their side succeed because everything is broken up into a pie with groups and sides all fighting to get the most of that pie. Teamwork doesn’t register with liberals when it comes agreeing with a republican. That’s like Dogma or Cardinal Sin or something. It’s been so long since I was liberal its hard to remember all the justifications I gave myself at the time. They all generally involved distrust and some form of hate that I overcame.

Well I’m open to the possibility that Eric might have taken the bullets in order to bring about change that was never going to be possible before given the stronghold democrats have on the city of st. louis. It’s comparable to chicago in the fact that people get murdered every single day and the crime only continues to rise and all the constituents are a lock for democrat votes because they’ve got the post dispatch to tell them how horribly bad anyone other than a democrat would be fore their life. In fact if you’re a republican, you can’t really be anything more than a threat and menace to society thinking only about yourself and totally corrupt. Just looking to gain power so that you can then use that power for yourself and never to help anyone else. This is easily believed by those who have very little and can’t understand having nice things. They simply can’t afford to be that naive given their circumstances. Survival is dependant on shrewd thinking and defending for yourself and you’re group. There’s very little opportunity for those who grow up in the city of st. louis. The fake news will tell you its silicon valley, but it’s closer to Fallujah 2004 than “silicon valley”.

I’m short staffed here so the research / information is still at early stage, but here’s how I see this playing out going forward.

  • A special prosecutor will be appointed to handle subsequent legal proceedings with Eric Greitens. A real one… One that gives Eric a fair chance for his story to be heard. The special prosecutor that was working this case before was a harvard law professor (going out on a limb but ties to Attorney Dierker ammater. Dierker was a judge in the city of st. louis before stepping down for this case to end out his career from what I gather) the harvard law professor listed a small legal practice from Orlando, FL as his firm. Just so happens to be the same firm that represented Casey Anthony and Aaron Hernandez. REAL WINNERS there -Meanwhile Josh Hawley the Attorney General for Missouri has said he can only help the DA office by handing over information and adding yet another voice to the witch hunt against Eric. He could only sit on the sidelines and urge the governor to step down. He decided to do that instead of ensure civil liberties were not being violated. Yes, the same Josh Hawley who is tied up in a campaign for senate of missouri against Claire McCaskill. He’s actually a very pathetic individual for what he’s doing (and not doing) for the state of missouri.
  • Grietens has the best attorneys in the world working for him and they just happen to be here in the city of St. Louis. Some of which are democrats and have donated to the party. This isn’t about politics with them. It’s about serving their client and giving eric the best defense which we are entitled to. Eric has done nothing Illegal and has been found guilty of nothing illegal. In America… that means you’re innocent regardless of what one person says about you. The legal proceedings are there to protect us against false positives where someone who is innocent is found guilty of crime they did not commit.
  • Greitens attorney’s are calling for the City of St. Louis Police Department to Investigate Gardner the DA who is running the politically motivated witch hunt while dropping murder charges due to lack of evidence or resources available which is doing nothing to deter the crime and homicide rate in the city. It’s actually going up more than than the year before. This is typically the biggest focus for the attorney’s office.
  • The Police Department must always rely on the prosecutors to present the case and lock up the criminals they bring in that have been arrested. In high crime areas such as the city of st. louis, it is very difficult to get a witness to agree to testify because they fear for their life. This leaves the city at an essential stalemate of catch and release with the police officers who’s loved ones worry about their safety every second they are at work. Quite frankly, it’s a very very hard, if not impossible job keeping safe residents when they are the same people who don’t want any interaction or involvement with the police because they view them as the problem.
  • The city of St. Louis Police Department now sits in a position where it may not need Gardner and they can investigate the courts and politicians to see what’s really going on behind the front lines where they’ve been forced to do a near impossible job because the narrative is so negative and the situation is so bad due to such horrible leadership within the government. I think if you are to peel back the curtains and take a look at the system that operates in Missouri, you’d find only corruption and ignorance from the elected representatives. They’ve certainly responded like their gravy train is being threatened by someone or something.
  • That someone or something could just as very well be Eric Greitens himself. As far as the evidence goes, the public has seen none and frankly, his private life before he entered office is of no real concern to myself and certainly deserves the same rights and protections as anyone else. We can’t keep blaming people like the government, the police and politicians for our problems or lack of success and then totally destroy the lives, careers and families of those that get elected while we sit on the sideline crying wolf over and over. Just as soon as you get one person to start crying, they’ll get beamed onto every screen and audio waves 24/7 everyone is ready to join up the with the lynch mob and attack people and communities in an effort to have someone actually do something about their situation which they themselves either won’t or can’t do. Who in their right minds would want to do that if they are successful, likeable people with families and people who count on them daily to be there for them? You know how many mothers and wives and pushing their son or husband to join the policy academy in the city of st. louis right now? I’d say none. No sane ones at least. Most people would say no thanks and hightail it away from anything like that. Most people don’t have the courage to say what they believe for fear of peer pressure telling them to fall in line with a more agreeable or universally accepted idea or narrative. Most people are cowards. Eric seems to be the least cowardly person in the state of missouri. He seems to someone who would rather prove himself than talk or try. That’s what effective people. It’s in their nature to only prove themselves and they generally have a big ego because it takes one to be tough enough mentally. A weak ego will provide for a weak leader.
  • Eric, the st. louis police department and our best problem solvers should now come together and get to the bottom of whatever it is that is causing all the crime and violence in the city. Red Lines should be drawn and those that do not want to be here or who cannot try to be contributing solution should be sent off jail. Conversely, this may present an opportunity for the police and local governments are not sending victimless crime offenders to jail simply because they didn’t have their life together to oblige with society or B.S. laws meant only to draw up revenue or trap otherwise harmless people into a violation. If this piece can get resolved then we have a fighting chance in St. Louis. Otherwise we’ll continue to get more and more publically funded events and venues that nobody feels safe using or conducting business. If we can get the crime removed we can then start provide nicer things to the area that will attract more investment, talent and resources to provide more those who have so little as it is.

As Trump Says “WHAT THE HELL DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE”?

If MAGA hats and trump rallies stir up so much hate in you that you must physically attack a person for wearing a MAGA hat… then you might be the problem. You might be on the Wrong Side. Maybe… just a little bit. Red MAGA hats are okay to hate against and now turns a black person into a maga hat wearing person so the the difference there is truly something that is amazing to me. The irony is so thick and rich almost like a slice of cheesecake if you’re able to eat it peacefully that is. MAGA hats piss people off so don’t you go around wearing that hat interrupting people’s safe spaces. That kind of stuff deserve deserve a beating. (((((BIGOT)))) That was trump’s first big accusation that he got. He’s a BIGOT. It’s quite funny really. How we’ve gotten this far with th liberal derangement. You’d have thought they’d grow up at some point.

Cheesecake Factory suspends workers in MAGA hat incident

The Cheesecake Factory says it has suspended workers involved in an incident in which a black customer reportedly was subjected to verbal abuse by restaurant staff over his “Make America Great Again” cap.

Now let’s get back to making Missouri and America Great Again. Fake News is consumer problem… not a publishing problem. The narrative is the disease and the disease is the narrative. Either you’re a part of the problem or a part of the solution. The true victims are everywhere and they don’t want a diagnosis or help even if they don’t deserve it, they still don’t want it.

Dedicating this blog post to Wildwood’s finest… Tony Messenger because he’s simply the messenger putting his hands up in innocence when his agenda shatters into a million pieces can’t wait for the next story so he doesn’t have to come to terms with how much of Nazi he really is.

Begon fake news… History has proven that lies, if they get big enough, can lead to atrocities. Who controls the narrative and what will the record show at the end of the day. That maybe there were victims of their bias reporting and agenda driven narrative blinding mobs of people into burning cities and destroying peoples lives only to sit back and find the next story to write about while perched at the desk in wildwood, MO.

Hypocrites and cowards are a dime a dozen… The effective citizens actually crazy enough to throw their hat in the mix and try to get elected to take on the corrupted and ineffective system of government that can’t even protect the lives of their citizens are becoming more and more extinct. Soon you’ll just get candidates that say all the right things and people literally love them regardless of their lives getting actually worse. Its the narrative or character that matters regardless of how incompetent or bad they are at leading! (spoiler alert…we’re past that stage) Now, a deeply flawed candidate but can be effective and bold enough to make a dent in this never changing always losing government,  carries more weight now-a-days and that’s due to our fake news consumption problem. Don’t shoot the messenger just realize he’s a crazy liberal who doesn’t know better and he needs to be shown how to be a part of the solution rather than the problem.

We must #FreeKekistan which is really just a glass half-full thing.

Shadilay! Onward with liberty for and justice for all.

I won’t be shy about my support for candidates because they need our support more than ever to help fix the liberals and cure us from this marxist brainwashing. Liberals who still have have half a brain… try talking reason to the radical left. We can have a country without laws or borders and expect it to work. It’ll turn into complete anarchy just what they want to have happen. They hate success and everything america stands for. That’s not okay. Liberty is responsibility in which rights are given and respected but it is predicated on responsibility. The less we take on, the less free we are.

Some people are incurable and choose to miserable and worthless and that’s fine but it doesn’t mean we have listen or agree. Maybe they need to realize they are being worthless and miserable. Maybe not telling them is actually hurting them. Maybe not facing the facts and reality is really the issue. If you don’t want to be brought to the table to listen, then nobody else will do it for you.

My Declaration of Concern by John Stoeffler

Our Declaration of Independence cites numerous offenses as justification for the colonies’ intent to seek independence from England. Were Thomas Jefferson alive today I am convinced he would be questioning the legitimacy of many Federal government actions, actions which many have come to believe have more in common with the oppressive hand of King George III and his Parliament than the vision of a free and democratic Republic?

With that in mind, I have taken the liberty of listing what might well be grievances he would include in what I call “My Declaration of Concern.”  What follows is but a partial list of grievances that belong to our generation. There are four parts – beginning with the Supreme Court.

Part I – The Supreme Court

“If in fact the (U.S. Supreme) Court is acting without the consent of the governed, the people, then the rights it purports to secure in their name are counterfeit, their benevolence a fraud.” Missouri Chief Justice Robert T. Donnelly addressing the Missouri General Assembly 1982

The Court amended the Constitution by decree when it declared that part of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment which guarantees that property may be taken only for “public use” null and void. In its decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) the Court stated that under Eminent Domain privately held that property may now be taken and turned over to another private party for what the Court deemed a “public purpose.” In its ruling, the Court fraudulently excised by judicial fiat this part of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment without the consent of the people.

In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the Court rightly held that Linda Brown, a Negro, was the victim of de jure segregation in that she was not permitted, by law, to attend the school closest to her home. However, the Court’s decision ultimately resulted in lower federal courts uprooting hundreds of thousands of our Nation’s children and transporting them beyond their neighborhood schools under the guise of racial discrimination when in fact it was a racial balancing of the classroom the inferior courts of the United States sought to achieve. Our Nation’s children thus became pawns in achieving a social objective for which there is no constitutional basis, nor grant for the exercise of such authority.

In the 1990 case of Missouri v. Jenkins, the Court declared the federal judiciary has a constitutionally based authority to order taxes levied or increased without the consent of the People. This assertion clearly contravenes Article I, Sec. 8   of the Constitution which grants this authority to the Legislative Branch of government alone.

The First Amendment to the Constitution as it pertains to religion states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (Emphasis mine) On numerous occasions, the Court has shown its hostility toward religion. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) The Supreme Court found that a New York school district was violating the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment that prohibits Congress from establishing a religion. But it was not Congress that authorized a prayer in school but the school district. So how is the so-called “Establishment Clause” based on the words “Separation of Church and State”, words found nowhere in the Constitution, constitutional? It is not.  

Consider, a government paid chaplain can offer a prayer before each session of Congress which is published in the Daily Journal of the Congressional Record at taxpayer expense, yet the Court has ruled it is unconstitutional for students to read those same words in school. Displays of the Ten Commandments have likewise been subjected to the same hostile treatment. In ruling against displays of the Ten Commandments the Court ignores the fact that the Supreme Court Building itself contains depictions of the Commandments. Furthermore, similar depictions of the Commandments appear on numerous government buildings and monuments throughout our Nation’s Capital.

The Court declared in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) the republican form of government the states enjoyed for nearly 200 years “unconstitutional.” The Framers provided for two branches of government, one, the House of Representatives, reflecting one-man-one-vote and the other, the Senate, guaranteeing an equality among all the states.”

The rationale for this was to prevent large states from unduly amassing power at the expense of smaller states. But when the states incorporated this principle in their constitution to protect the more sparsely populated rural areas from heavily populated urban areas the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964 declared this to be unconstitutional and ordered states to draw senate districts based on population. The result, that which is constitutional for the federal government is “unconstitutional” for state governments.

The Justices of the Supreme Court have declared their decisions to be the “Law of the Land.” However, in 1982 Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert T. Donnelly asked: “Where, then, do we find a delegation of power by the people to the United States Supreme Court to declare ‘the supreme Law of the Land’ under Article VI of the United States Constitution?” The answer is nowhere.

The foregoing is but a small sample of numerous rulings by the Court, rulings so sweeping as to clearly resemble an ongoing constitutional convention.

In view of the foregoing one might ask, “What then is the limited role our Founders envisioned the Court was to play in the new republic?” The answer may be found in the Federalist Papers Number 78 written by Alexander Hamilton where he stated in part, “It may be truly said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment.” As used here the word FORCE is a noun for the Executive Branch. As the Court has neither a police force not an army it must depend on the Executive Branch to “enforce” its decisions. The Court could not exercise its WILL, again used as a noun for the Legislative, law making Branch of government. Parsing these words, “It may be truly said (without question) that it (the Court) may exercise “merely judgment”. In other words, the limited role the Court was to play was to lay a law next to the Constitution and pronounce it constitutional “yes”, or constitutional “no” – that is all.

As I see it, too many Supreme Court opinions are not tethered to the Constitution’s text. Today the Justices have gone far beyond the role envisioned by the Founders and thus present a direct challenge to our republican form of government.

Part II, Congress

Our Declaration of Independence cites numerous offenses as justification for the colonies’ intent to seek independence from England. Were Thomas Jefferson alive today, I am convinced he would be questioning the legitimacy of many acts by Congress acts which many have come to believe have more in common with the oppressive hand of King George III and his Parliament than the vision the Founders had for a free and democratic republic?

Consider, Social Security taxes not immediately paid out are alleged to be placed into a “trust fund” the purpose of which is to hold surplus Social Security contributions. But the record shows any surplus is “borrowed” by Congress to pay for other programs our senators and representatives deem worthy. And who is paying the interest on this borrowed money? The American taxpayer.

You will recall that Congress asked the American people to put their trust in them as they sought to completely overhaul this Nation’s health care system. But what they proposed for us they will not accept for themselves and their family. And when responding to a crescendo of voices that arise in protest, the politically powerful in Washington sought to intimidate and silence these loyal Americans by charging they are “trying to sabotage the democratic process,” and comparing them to “Nazis,” “Evil-mongers,” and “mobs.”

The Constitution’s Twenty-Seventh Amendment clearly states: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.” In spite of this, Congress receives an automatic increase in its compensation virtually every year – unless it votes NOT to accept it. Congress’ failure to follow the clear letter and intent of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment shows an unbelievably callous disregard for the will of the People by circumventing the amendment’s unambiguous language. And when challenged their response is that the increase they receive is not a pay raise but rather a “Cost of Living Allowance,” a COLA. (A distinction without a difference as I see it) In this, Congress is making a fraudulent claim that is patently self-serving.Our Founders created an honorable institution to protect and defend the people. However, by their own words and deeds too many of our senators and representatives have shown that congress has become a den of thieves.

In his Commentaries on the Constitution Joseph Story wrote: “War, in its best estate, never fails to impose upon the people the most burdensome taxes and personal sufferings.” Knowing this, the Founders left the sole power to commit the armed forces to the people’s branch – Congress. (U.S. Constitution – Article I, section 8, clause 11)

Since the end of World War II Congress has authorized the United States armed forces to become engaged in no-win armed struggles with both irregular forces and the armed forces of other nations. These include Korea, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Clearly, Congress appears bound and determined to defend virtually everyone, but in doing so ignores the sound admonition of Frederick the Great who declared: “He who wants to defend everything defends nothing, and he who wants to be everyone’s friend has no friends in the end.”

And while Congress is busy spending billions to defend foreign nations whose friendship is most often temporary at best our country is under assault from illegal aliens whose presence here has placed an ever-growing financial burden on taxpaying citizens and state governments. To add insult to injury, in 2010 Congress counted every illegal alien in the census and included those numbers to reapportion the U.S. House of Representatives. This could only result in states with an abundance of illegal aliens being awarded with additional seats in numerous government bodies, local, state and national, and by fiat an increased political clout at the expense of every American.

While often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, it was David Thoreau in his essay Civil Disobedience who wrote: “That government is best that governs least.”  Our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were crafted by the Framers to protect the States and the personal liberties of citizens from a strong central government. That said, there is irrefutable evidence that legislation being passed and unfunded mandates forced on the states by Congress are considerably at odds with and present a direct challenge to the republican form of limited government envisioned by the Framers.

Part III, the Presidency

As our nation’s Chief Executive, the President is charged with executing the laws passed by the peoples’ representatives and senators in Congress. He is also charged with enforcing the laws of the Nation which are predicated upon a clear and unambiguous understanding of the Constitution’s words and the intent of those who wrote those words. However, when the President enforces constitutionally baseless Court opinions/decisions he aids and promotes rulings by what is euphemistically referred to as an “activist Court.

It should be disconcerting to every citizen to see a president place his hand upon a Bible and swear to Almighty God that he will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and then turn around and enforce a decision by the Court that forbids the mention of God or the Bible in public schools, such decisions being based on an assertion that the U.S. Constitution demands a “separation of church and state.” But these words are found nowhere in the Constitution. That history of chief executives of both political parties have enforced these and other constitutionally baseless rulings is beyond the pale.

It is appalling to watch as Presidents have ordered the Nation’s armed forces into harm’s way when no threat to the Nation or its citizens exists. In some cases, the armed forces of the United States were employed, not in the name of the United States but on behalf of the United Nations or treaties that are of a questionable nature given the blood and sacrifice made by thousands who are no longer among us and the loved ones they leave behind.

Since 1945, there have been numerous deployments of our nation’s armed forces by presidents acting in the capacity of Commander-in-Chief. Many of these deployments have ended up as either a stalemate (Korea), defeat (Vietnam), humiliation (Somalia), an unrealized stated objective, to wit: stemming the flow of drugs into the U.S.(Panama); unfinished business; and leaving a tyrant characterized as “Worse than Hitler” in place for years. (Iraq – 1991). In the case of the latter, the result for not seeking total victory finds the United States military currently tied down in Middle East conflicts that have lasted longer than World War II.

It is irresponsible and constitutionally questionable to continue to give or loan hard-earned monies of our citizens to foreign governments under the guise of aid, especially so when those corrupt leaders continually squander these proceeds while their people live in squalor and the constant fear of being murdered, raped, having what meager possessions they may possess stolen, or being sold into slavery.

It is unacceptable that presidents whose constitutional responsibility to spend the monies Congress appropriates permits the ongoing raid on the Social Security “Trust Fund.” It is equally unacceptable to watch as the president fails to use the power of his office to rein in spending of taxpayer dollars, millions of which are squandered annually by congress on politically motivated and highly questionable “pork barrel” projects.

It is a travesty of yet-to-be-seen proportions when a president seeks to expand the scope of government programs and in doing so incurs monumental debt which will mortgage the future of our children and our children’s children for decades to come.

It is unconscionable that our borders remain un-secured. And it is an outrage when ordinary citizens who take it upon themselves to do what the Federal Government cannot or refuses to do to adequately protect and secure this Nation’s borders are denigrated as “vigilantes.”

In these and numerous other ways presidents of both political parties, past and present have failed to execute the authority of and uphold the duties of president which the Constitution clearly commands.

The conduct evidenced by those who have ascended to the nation’s highest office clearly shows a record replete with abuses and neglect of the Constitution’s grant of authority and restrictions therein to which they have sworn a sacred oath to “protect and defend.” This is especially telling seeing as how that oath ends with the words: “so help me God.”

Part IV, to preserve our Republic

I have listed what I see are serious breaches and blatant challenges to restrictions the Constitution places on those who hold positions of power in the Federal Government.

Recognizing the threat to liberty these actions pose, tens of thousands of voices have been raised in protest, but to no avail. In entreaties, written and oral, the President, Congress and the Supreme Court have been reminded on numerous occasions of the dangerous precedents they are setting, precedents which can only lead to further abuses of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and a continued erosion of economic and personal liberties. As repeated calls to end unconstitutional activities and actions have been answered by repeated injuries it remains clear that change must be made.

There are those who understand that the Constitution and the Amendments made thereto are a contractbetween the People of the United States and their government. It is an agreement that has been entered into voluntarily, and which requires both parties to fully comply if liberty and the freedoms we have enjoyed for over 200 years are to survive for the benefit of future generations. It is axiomatic that when any contractual agreement is continually violated by one of the parties, and the other party continues to suffer injuries and injustices, that the injured party has, as Jefferson wrote in our Declaration of Independence, a “Right” and a “Duty” to alter or abolish that relationship in order “to provide new Guards for their future security.”

There are those who, seeing the abuses being heaped upon the citizens and states of this Union, are beginning to question how much longer this relationship shall continue. That said, the relationship the People of the United States have enjoyed with their government has existed for two-hundred twenty-two years and should never be ended or changed without every effort being made to repair that relationship. Therefore, let it be known that this Declaration of Concern is a clarion call to the President, members of Congress and the Supreme Court to review the vision and aspirations the Founders had for our Republic and reexamine the restricted role the Federal Government was to play then and must return to now. Let them again embrace those principles the Founders instituted which when adhered to will most assuredly guarantee the safety and freedoms to which so many have pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

The Constitution is the cornerstone of our Republic. It has changed little throughout this nation’s history since its adoption on September 17, 1787. What has changed, however, is a misguided view that it is a “living Constitution” that must be kept in tune with the times. Yes, it is a living document but must only change with the consent of the governed – We the People, and ONLY the people.

If we are to truly be a government of, by, and for the people it must be the people who make changes and not the few and the politically powerful. It is for this very reason the Founders provided for an amendment process to safeguard the people from the hand of tyranny.

Since its adoption as this nation’s governing document the Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times. But, as has been previously noted, it has been members of the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Executive Branch who have chosen on numerous occasions to ignore the Constitution’s clear proscriptions and overstepped the authority the Constitution grants to each. In doing so it was they, and not the people, who have determined the future of America, and not always for and in the interest of the people. Unchallenged, these self-proclaimed platonic guardians of our liberties have become emboldened in their pursuit of a vision that is not in the interest of the people.

Unquestionably, the freedoms our Constitution was written to protect are ever so slowly being eroded. Nevertheless, the mischief done by our Federal Government is not beyond repair; but only – only – if the President, the justices of the Supreme Court, and our senators and representatives in Washington set aside personal feelings and ambitions and submit themselves to the authority which our Constitution embodies and for which so many have given their all to protect and sustain. Only then will the flame of liberty and freedom the Founders lit to continue to cast its light over a government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

Citizenship and ‘Anchor Babies’

Citizenship and ‘Anchor Babies’
By John R. Stoeffler

Illegal aliens apprehended by law enforcement are under the law subject to deportation. On the other hand, a baby born to illegal aliens while on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen. But the story shouldn’t, must not end there. Unlike other illegals, parents of these children are normally granted instant residency allowing them to remain anchored in the country. Thus, the genesis for the euphemism “Anchor Babies.” This descriptive term sticks in the craw of many parents of “Anchor Babies” who qualify for a smorgasbord of welfare benefits, including free medical care courtesy of the American taxpayer.

Related: Change the 14th Amendment! No More Anchor Babies! – Right Side News

Seeking to address the issue of instant citizenship, legislation was introduced in Congress thirteen years ago that sought to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by denying citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens. Typical of the many proposals that sought to address the issue of “Anchor Babies” was House Joint Resolution 698 introduced in 2005 by then Congressman, now Georgia Governor, Nathan Deal.

HJR 698 sought to forbid citizenship to any child born in the United States unless at least one of the parents is either a citizen or an alien who has been admitted for permanent residence. That same stipulation would also have been applicable to children born out of wedlock.

While many applauded Congressman Deal’s legislation others suggested that it might be unconstitutional. They pointed to what appeared to be the unambiguous language of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment to make their case. The relevant part of that amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

On the other hand, others point to the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to make the case that the framers clearly provided an exception to what appears to be a carte blanche command.

Writing in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 465 (1999) Charles Wood observes that while the meaning of the Citizenship Clause is not clear on its face, “the clause certainly provides that some persons born in the United States are not citizens, namely those who at birth are not ‘subject to’ the jurisdiction of the Unites States” such as diplomats and foreign ministers of other nations who have legal or factual immunity from local law.In proposing the definition of citizenship for the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866 U.S. Sen. Jacob M. Howard, (R-MI), stated that his definition reflected “English common law principles governing birthright citizenship.

In crafting the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, the framers noted that to be born a British subject, a person had to be born “within the allegiance,” meaning that there was a duty of allegiance, including obedience, on the part of the person born on British soil. Exceptions also included persons born on British soil to diplomats and those “born to a foreign military force occupying the British territory where the birth took place.

Most relevant to our current situation vis-à-vis illegal aliens is the point made by Mr. Wood wherein he noted that “in the common law the allegiance of the parents were imputed to the child born on the sovereign’s territory.” In other words, if there were no allegiance to the United States by the newborn’s parents, the same would be said of the child. Thus no citizenship would be recognized even if the child was born on American soil. This issue and salient questions pertaining to the illegal aliens and citizenship need to be addressed.Then-Congressman Deal’s legislation should be a model of what needs to be done as the issue of illegal aliens is being debated today. His model legislation should be introduced in the House, be debated, and a vote taken by Congress. If it should pass and later be declared unconstitutional then a constitutional amendment should be pursued until ratification by the states is achieved. The question of citizenship is an integral part of the illegal immigration dilemma facing our nation.

DOJ Appoints U.S. Attorney John Lausch to Oversee FBI Document Production

Last week, reports emerged that the Justice Department had failed to meet a deadline requiring the agency to turn over documents to the House Judiciary Committee in response to a March 22 subpoena issued by Chairman Goodlatte (R-VA).

According to the Washington Examiner, the subpoena sought “Information on a variety of matters, including the documents concerning the investigation of Clinton’s private email server in 2016, possible abuses pertaining to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility recommendation that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe be fired.”

However, the DOJ failed to turn over the subpoenaed documents on the required date, despite FBI Director Wray acknowledging that the production rate for documents was too slow, and the FBI doubling the number of staff dedicated to review of the documents from 27 to 54. According to Chairman Goodlatte (VA), to date, the committee has received, “only a few thousand of the 1.2 million documents provided to the Inspector General.”

On Saturday President Trump voiced his concerns with the slow-walking process, in a series of tweets, “Lawmakers of the House Judiciary Committee are angrily accusing the Department of Justice of missing the Thursday Deadline for turning over UNREDACTED Documents relating to FISA abuse, FBI, Comey, Lynch, McCabe, Clinton Emails and much more. Slow walking – what is going on? BAD!”

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

Lawmakers of the House Judiciary Committee are angrily accusing the Department of Justice of missing the Thursday Deadline for turning over UNREDACTED Documents relating to FISA abuse, FBI, Comey, Lynch, McCabe, Clinton Emails and much more. Slow walking – what is going on? BAD!

This was followed by President Trump asking, “What does the Department of Justice and FBI have to hide? Why aren’t they giving the strongly requested documents (unredacted) to the HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE? Stalling, but for what reason? Not looking good!”

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

What does the Department of Justice and FBI have to hide? Why aren’t they giving the strongly requested documents (unredacted) to the HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE? Stalling, but for what reason? Not looking good!

In response to the continued slow-walking by the FBI, preventing the House Judiciary Committee from exercising proper congressional oversight, the DOJ announced on Monday that it had formally appointed U.S. Attorney John Lausch to oversee the production of documents to Congress.

The Chicago Tribune relates that, “Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray asked U.S. Attorney John Lausch, whom Trump picked to lead the U.S. attorney’s office in the Northern District of Illinois, over the weekend if he would supervise the Justice Department’s handing over of materials to Congress on the surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, the investigation of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and the firing of Andrew McCabe from the FBI.”

In a statement released by DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores, the Attorney General and FBI Director, “…understand the concerns of members of Congress and the president about the pace of production and level of redactions in the documents already received by the committee. They agree with that the Department and the FBI should accommodate the committee’s request in a timely fashion and in the fullest manner consistent with the department’s law enforcement and national security responsibilities.”

Additionally, Fox News reports that on Monday, the FBI would turn over an additional 3,600 pages to the House Judiciary Committee, but that the committee would not be given access to all documents initially turned over to DOJ Inspector General Horowitz.

The DOJ claimed that those documents being withheld from the committee include, “Grand jury material and classified information which must be redacted in order to preserve the integrity of other investigations and to avoid the appearance of political influence in criminal prosecutions.”

The DOJ notes that a separate request by Chairman Nunes (R-CA) of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence had been complied with in-part, but that the DOJ had not removed the remaining redactions in the document, as they “pertain to the identity of a foreign nation.”

Related: Obama DOJ: Handmaiden Of Clinton Corruption

Background Checks for ‘We’ Not for ‘Me’

According to a new report by the Daily Caller, all 44 House Democrats who employed members of the Awan family chose to exempt the family from background checks.

The Daily Caller relates that House security policy, “…requires offices to fill out a form attesting that they’ve initiated background checks, but it also includes a loophole allowing them to simply say that another member vouched for them.”

The Daily Caller further notes that had House Democrats performed proper background checks on members of the family, numerous red flags would have been raised, thus preventing their access to sensitive information.

These red flags include: Abid Awan’s $1.1 million bankruptcy filed in 2012; six lawsuits filed against Abid and his company; and at least three misdemeanor convictions including for DUI and driving on a suspended license, according to Virginia court records.

The Daily Caller notes: “If a screening had caught those, what officials say happened next might have been averted. The House inspector general reported on Sept. 20, 2016, that shortly before the election members of the group were logging into servers of members they didn’t work for, logging in using congressmen’s personal usernames, uploading data off the House network, and behaving in ways that suggested “nefarious purposes” and that “steps are being taken to conceal their activity.”

Disobedient Media has extensively detailed how the Awan family had direct access to our nation’s most sensitive information from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, as well as Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s iPad password, meaning that the brothers also had direct access to the notorious DNC emails.

Last summer, Imran Awan was arrested while trying to flee the country and was indicted by a grand jury for attempting to wire $283,000 from the Congressional Federal Credit Union to bank accounts in Pakistan.

However, in light of the lack of background checks for Awans, it seems particularly hypocritical of House Democrats to demand everyday American citizens to be required to undergo background checks when purchasing a firearm or even ammunition.

On March 22, Debbie Wassermann Schultz (FL) introduced a bill in the House titled H.R. 5383: Ammunition Background Check Act of 2018. Wassermann Schultz announced her support for the legislation, tweeting “It requires more than just a gun to take an innocent life. It also takes bullets. We need to do all we can to make sure neither of them end up in the wrong hands.”

It is particularly ironic that Wasserman Schutlz introduced the bill, given her key role in the Awan scandal and the lack of background checks involved in the affair.

Wasserman Schultz, who employed Imran Awan, received support for her bill requiring background checks for ammunition from other House Democrats who also employed members of the Awan family. Such members include: Ted Deutch (FL); Mark Takano (CA); Katherine Clark (MA); Emanuel Cleaver (MO); and Lois Frankel (FL).

In March of 2017, House Democrats who employed members of the Awan family also supported H.R. 1612: Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2017, which would require “criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at gun shows.”

House Democrats who supported this bill included: Joe Crowley (NY); Robin Kelly (IL); Gregory Meeks (NY); Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL); Ted Deutch (FL); Lois Frankel (FL); John Sarbanes (MD); Seth Moulton (MA); and Joyce Birdson Beatty (OH).

As previously stated, none of the House Democrats listed above felt that it was necessary for members of the Awan family to undergo proper background checks before having access to information that, to a terrorist, criminal or nefarious actor, is quite literally a “loaded gun”.

Americans should ask themselves why members of Congress feel it is necessary that such burdens be pushed on the public, while exempting themselves and their employees from the very same process.

Who is Nasim Aghdam?

YouTube ShooterI haven’t searched the web or Youtube in knowing her social media was taken down almost instantly. The only thing I know is she shot up Youtube (subsidiary of Google/Alphabet) and it appears it was over demonetization (I always misspell that).

I am writing this to say that I don’t believe her actions were an act of jihad but instead the acts of a muslim woman who is angry at being silenced.

Let’s consider Youtube’s banning gun videos. Yet’s consider how many jihadis are created by Youtube’s lenient policy toward muslim men sharing the good of sharia and why jihad is Mohammed’s demand.

And you think they demonetized a muslim woman over jihadi info? Really?

I contend she was demanding change in islam, in sharia. Some info posted shows she was angry over censorship, well sharia censorship is easy to spot in the Nobel Peace Prize winning woman, Malala Yousafzai who recently returned to Pakistan, after the Taliban had shot her in the head. Their reason was that she was promoting women be educated.

Now imagine if Youtube demonetized Nasim Aghdam over this…..

Can you see why they didn’t want employees talking to reporters? Can you see why they’d erase her social media accounts everywhere? This isn’t something they do with jihadis, this is something they do in promoting islam, in being “sharia aware” and compliant.

So I’d strongly suggest everyone step back and apply reason to this, for to me if this woman is protesting censorship by a company we know hasn’t censored jihadis in the past, we have a pretty good indication their motives weren’t she was a jihadist.

https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/981383835089858561?s=21

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

Toddy Littman

The Inevitable Progressive Candidate

Please note this article is from 2012 and there is a PostScript of acknowledgments at the end of this article that tend to more than suggest the accuracy of a reasonable conclusion: Mitt Romney is a Progressive.

It has been well laid out by Glenn Beck and others that Barack Obama is a Progressive.

Notable how Hillary identified herself the same.

Of course we always have Senator John McCain who, in his actions, both as a Maverick who reaches across the isle, and as the voice of republicans wanting to give more power to the Executive Branch during the reign of Obama, is the epitome of all things Progressive.

Obama_Romney_2012_Election

But what may have been missed is the willingness of the National Black Chamber of Commerce to now use Progressivism to undo a racial smear they propagated in 2007 against Mitt Romney, in an article titled, Is Mitt Romney a Racist? Fascinating it is when the answer to their question reveals another heinous historical reality when compared to the claims of being a Conservative that have been made by the upstanding Progressive GOP candidate, Willard M. Romney (according to his tax returns) that we all know as Mitt Romney:

I posed this question in an article written back in December 2007. I left it open ended. Lately, now that there is another presidential race going oninterested people are starting to uncover this old article and make it contemporary. This is troubling to me so I guess I should put closure to the whole matter. First, let me answer the question: No, Mitt Romney is not a racist. As I researched history, over the years I have come to find that the opposite is the case. The Romney Family has a legacy of pro-civil rights,progressive activism and an understanding of how poverty and inequality can hurt people. Emphasis mine, http://www.nationalbcc.org/.

The author opens the next paragraph with Stunned as a question, knowing full well his answer was unexpected. Of course, he gives no link to his 2007 article, where, by asking the question Is Mitt Romney a Racist there is immediate exposure of the necessity of the NBCC to use race as the vehicle to assert itself with any relevance in regard to Mitt Romney, that to have any weight as the National Black Chamber of Commerce, they have a duty to disparage any candidate who isn’t black using the racism question. I do appreciate that the NBCC was direct about it.

Now that there is a Progressive GOP on the ticket, that could be the nominee against Obama, the latter having proven to be a bit too big for his britches, as black unemployment is twice the national average, the NBCC must make sure to correct the claim of racism they created in smearing Romney back in 2007:

Early life was rugged for the senior Romney but it instilled in him a strong work ethic. He passed that along to his children including Willard Mitt Romney whom we all know today. George Romney eventually started working for Alcoa Aluminum and the Aluminum Wares Association as a lobbyist and, thus,his political career was about to take off. He was also a genius business executive and would rise to the CEO position of American Motors. When Mitt was born in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan in 1941, George had gone up the ladder and would gain wealth that would be passed onto to his children and their families.

George joined the Republican Party and let it be known to all that he was a proponent of civil rights and would fight for equal opportunity especially for the Negro. He soon became Governor of the state of Michigan and he used his authority to help integrate the state. He demanded new, integrated subdivisions to be built near new auto plants like the Ford Willow Run facility so that Blacks could easily access the jobs that were provided. In 1963 he stated, It was only after I got to Detroit that I got to know Negroes and began to be able to evaluate them and I began to recognize that some Negroes are better and more capable than lots of whites. Michigan’s most urgent human rights problem is racial discrimination in housing, public accommodations, education, administration of justice, and employment. He thus created the states first civil rights commission.

See Also: Is it time for Irish Americans to say to African Americans “enough already, we’ve both had it rough”?

George not only supported Dr. Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement he actively cheered it on. When the Selma to Montgomery March went down, he organized a solidarity march in Detroit to show his belief in the values being preached. Keep in mind, he was Governor of the State. People noticed and on his last re-election as Governor he won over 30 percent of the Black vote. He stood tall for justice. When Barry Goldwater ran for President on the Republican ticket in 1964, George refused to support him as the candidate was opposed to the Civil Rights Act.

During all of this advocacy, his son, Mitt, was evolving as a manHe idolized his father and emulated his legacy. Mitt Romney lived amongst Blacks in metropolitan Detroit. He went to the prestigious Cranbrook School. One of our board members, Claude McDougal, is a fellow alumnus of the school.

Perhaps the greatest thing Mitts father did as an example to his son came in 1969. He became Secretary of HUD (Nixon Administration) and he quickly implemented Section 3 of the HUD Act (Equal Opportunity and Employment Program). It gave President Nixon fits but he did it successfully and it stands today.

Let me close with a quote from Mitt that shows the fruit doesnt fall far from the tree: I do not support quotas in hiring, government contracting, school admissions or the like. I believe our nation is at its best when people are evaluated as individuals. I do support encouraging inclusiveness and diversity, and I encourage the disclosure of the numbers of women and minorities in top positions of companies and government  not to impose a quota, but to shine light on the situationWe should always strive for the broadest representation of people, from all walks of life, at all levels of our companies, schools, and government. Hmmm, sounds like a plan. — Emphasis mine, Ibid.

Now, it’s important to note that the Republicans had passed the 1957 Civil Rights act (Scroll to 1957 here)http://www.gop.com/index.php/issues/accomplishment/, so the emphasis in this article is to set forth that this idea of Civil Rights, as embraced by the NBCC, that paints republicans in a negative light, suggests that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the only one that matters, the Civil Rights act, as though there is only one. This appears to be to spin and couch this article about Romney in a positive light, to lay out Romney’s electability in light of his father’s Progressivism, and that Civil Rights activism is part of the Progressive plan for all the envisioned Utopian right reasons. Though I will not go into this in depth, I’ll just say that the net effect of destroying States’ Rights and eradicating any meaning to the 10th Amendment, is the meaning of Civil Rights as set forth by the NBCC as they entirely ignore the first Civil Rights Act since Reconstruction, the one the Republicans passed in 1957, signed into law by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, and all despite Strom Thurmond’s actions, a democrat who ran on the segregationist States Rights Democrat Ticket, known as Dixiecrat, completing the longest filibuster in American History, at least this is what’s in wikipedia on this January 28, 2012, and happens to be accurate,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957 and 

So then, George Romney, Willard M. Romney’s father, was Progressively ignoring the facts of history, the reality of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, when he, George Romney, let it be known to all that he was a proponent of civil rights and would fight for equal opportunity especially for the ‘Negro,’ after Eisenhower, in 1955, had to call in the National Guard to protect 9 school children who were attempting to integrate into a public school, George Romney was exercising the very mind of the typical Progressive: assuming the beginning of something the moment he begin to think about it, ignoring and not caring to even look at history and learn how many others took much bolder and revolutionary steps in the direction of Freedom, while upholding their servitude in government to the People.

This does explain the Progressive narrative well, that the narrative above, as expressed by the NBCC, is 100% accurate from the Progressive state of mind that Civil Rights, packaged as a form of rights of the Individual that government must be used to assert and secure, is inseparable from the Progressive movement. Progressivism ignores the fact that Civil Rights has been a government means, a government created legal fiction, solely intended to address the correction of the institution of a worldwide cultural wrong slavery. To illustrate the Progressive meaning of this term so closely with Mitt Romney, as a certain and unbroken family tie, is the whole point made by the NBCC author in establishing that Mitt Romney is a Progressive by his very upbringing. To the Progressive, the Civil Rights aspect of this is merely the Public Relations tool to accomplish the real Progressive goal of marginalizing force and effect of Our Written Constitution and its protection of States’ Rights in the interest of protecting Individual Liberty.

You read right, Mitt Romney’s father was a lobbyist… And he said he has no lobbyists in his cabinet… Pretty impossible when Romney’s memories of his father are also the memories of a lobbyist.

Now, remember also, Romneycare was the basis of Obamacare for a reason, a means of testament to a Republican Progressive Activist, George Romney, who, as the NBCC article shows, is of paramount influence upon his son Willard Mitt Romney.

It is also important to never forget, in this healthcare connection, that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are the only two people who have actually signed into law an individual mandate, compelling each American (in the State of Massachusetts, in Romney’s case) to act according to the dictates of government, and, by their signing of these bills, admitting a complete and blatant disregard for Our Written Constitution. This is a complete abandonment of the purpose of the Constitution, Our Founders’ intention to protect Individual Liberty via a charter of negative liberties, a charter creating an institution within particular limits, limitations imposed by the mere act of enumeration (Article I, Section 8), by conditional expressions (Article 6, Clause 2) that, when the conditions are met, authorize a specific, and not general, use of a particular power. (see here).

I’ll make an effort to help the NBCC author with this video:

Now, as I’ve well suggested via explaining Ron Paul is a socialist,http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.178 and that the Progressive fix is in, http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?extend.202.6, these began the explanation of what this entire article is meant to state with an even greater clarity: The Progressives are in both parties as a party separate and dominant, and thereby, we’re being forced into the Russian scenario of having only one Progressive party. Our only way out of this is to pick the candidate they claim can’t win, that they speak out against, and the one they rarely if ever speak out for, if we wish to take a bold step in 2012 to re-instate the Order Of Priority For Freedom,http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.98.

Willard Mitt Romney is the Progressive Establishment GOP candidate, even to the point the same National Black Chamber of Commerce, who would use the race card by merely asking if he’s racist in 2007, now, deciding after the effective purpose of their previous article is no longer required, to answer the racist question against Romney with a no, in order to assure Progressives that Willard  Mitt Romney is one of them, Let me close with a quote from Mitt that shows the fruit doesnt fall far from the tree

Mitt-igating America, the principles of Our Founding Fathers in establishing this nation, is what those promoting the Progressive Establishment GOP line that Romney is electable are accomplishing. Theirs is to sacrifice our nation to Progressivism and a single Progressive party, whether these people know it or not the Progressives do not care, so long as they win from either party, it’s all the same to them, literally.

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman
@ToddyLittman

P.S. Acknowledgements are in order, @EricaTwitts, a friend of mine on twitter (see http://patrioticnurse.com/) sent me a link to @ArlenWilliams article at Gulag Bound citing @DanRehl, a learned Conservative who points the rest of us to the NBCC’s and their author’s completion of a 2007 article, his article is here, http://biggovernment.com/driehl/2012/01/25/saul-alinsky-and-the-romneys-progressive-activism/ and Mr. Riehl’s blog further elucidates the Progressive truth of Mitt Romney being exposed by the NBCC article, to further cite George Harris’ book Romney’s Way (Has that Barack Obama Chicago Way thing going for it, doesn’t it?), where George Romney is cited naming Alinsky in arguments to his wife, http://www.riehlworldview.com/. You’ll note the Gulag Bound article also mentions this Sago.com article featuring photographs of Saul Alinsky meeting with George Romney,http://sago.com/.

 

 

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.

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

On Saturday, the Washington Post published an article by Griff Witte titled: “Once-fringe Soros conspiracy theory takes center stage in Hungarian election,” in which the author disingenuously writes off any and all involvement by the left-wing billionaire in politics as a far-right, tin-hat conspiracy theory despite direct evidence to the contrary.

In his article, Witte never once mentions the 2016 release of documents obtained from Soros’ Open Society Foundation (OSF) and published on DCLeaks.com.

In fact, one document titled: “Open Society Foundations – International Migration Initiative”, details how the OSF is able to directly influence the immigration policy of European governments by working in conjunction with other immigration activist groups including but not limited to the International Migration Institute (IMI), the MacArthur Foundation, the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), the International Detention Coalition (IDC).

As detailed in another document titled “Reliable allies in the European Parliament (2014 – 2019)”, the Open Society European Policy Institute has been very successful in its ongoing influence campaign within the European Parliament. This 127-page document lists a total of 226 EU MEPs that are likely to support the Open Society Foundation and its many initiatives. In other words, nearly one-third of European Parliament seats are held by so-called “reliable allies” of Mr. Soros.

Included in this list of MEPs who have chosen to instead represent the views of global elites over their fellow countrymen are Hungarian MEPs Tamás Meszerics and Péter Niedermüller.

Tamás Meszerics is a member of the Politics Can Be Different, part of the European Green Party, and since 2014, has served as an MEP as part of The Greens–European Free Alliance. Tamás also serves on the Board of Governors for the European Endowment for Democracy, which includes the Open Society Institute among its partner organizations. Tamás also works as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, at the Soros founded Central European University, where he teaches a course entitled: “Democracy between Crisis and Transformation: Normative and Institutional Perspectives”.

Since July 2014, Péter Niedermüller has served as a Member of the European Parliament, representing Hungary for the Democratic Coalition. Niedermüller also serves as the Treasurer of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament.

Niedermüller has also been an outspoken critic of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, referring to his attacks on Mr. Soros as “hate propaganda”. Lacking any substantive argument, Niedermüller has not surprisingly labeled any and all attacks against Soros as anti-Semitic.

Instead of providing any information to the reader regarding Soros’ influence over members of the European Parliament, Witte has instead chosen to provide a one-sided, fact-free assortment of political talking points, in order to attack the current Hungarian government, and by extension, influence the reader.

Throughout the article, Witte also provides statements given by various advocacy groups, in order to bolster his argument. However, again, Witte conveniently omits key, factual information regarding these various groups’ associations with Mr. Soros and his foundation.

For example, Witte cites statements given by Márta Pardavi, Co-Chair of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee without disclosing Márta’s ties to Soros or that the Hungarian Helsinki Committee receives the majority of its funding (34%) from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

In fact, between 2015 and 2016, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee received four grants totaling $1,434,732 from Soros’ Open Society Foundation. The Co-Chairs of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, András Kádár and Márta Pardavi, also have close ties to George Soros and his foundations.

In 2012, Co-Chair András Kádár taught a class at the Central European University (CEU). The CEU was originally founded by George Soros in 1991. Mr. Soros currently serves on the Board as Honorary Chairman, along with his son Alexander Soros, former Governor of New York, George E. Pataki, and husband of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Richard C. Blum.

The Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) is also listed as a Participating NGO in the Central European University’s NGO Fair program.

Last September, András was one of ten speakers who participated in a joint discussion on migration, hosted by the Open Society Foundation at the Open Society European Policy Institute.

Co-Chair Márta Pardavi also currently serves on the board of PILnet Hungary Foundation. PILnet’s Board of Directors includes Emeritus Director Aryeh Neier of Open Society Foundations – New York. In fact, the Open Society Foundations Justice Initiative even sponsors a fellowship program named after Neier, known as the “Aryeh Neier Fellowship Program”. PILnet also lists the Open Society Foundations under its list of “Private Foundations and Government Supporters”.

In October of 2017, PILnet held a two-day conference located at the Open Society Initiative Budapest Foundation in Hungary. The event was convened to allow participants to debate and “exchange experiences with current challenges of involving commercial law firms and/or individual lawyers in human rights advocacy efforts, and in the development of home-grown pro bono projects.”

PILnet states that the workshop was able to take place thanks to the financial support of the “International Visegrad Fund and to the in-kind support of the Open Society Archives.” (The International Visegrad Fund offers a scholarship for qualifying individuals at George Soros’ Central European University.) PILnet is also listed as a participating NGO in the Central European University’s NGO Fair program.

Márta has even written an article published on the Open Society Foundation website, titled: “What You Need to Know About the Refugee Crisis in Hungary”, in which she attacked the Hungarian governments’ stance on mass migration, and went as far as to claim that “There is no Migration crisis in Hungary”, and that “Migration fills the gaps left by native-born Hungarians”.

Márta can also be heard on the Open Society Foundations’ May 2017 podcast “Talking Justice”, in which she discusses the challenges faced by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee in relation to the ongoing refugee crisis.

From 2003 to 2011, Márta served on the board, and as vice-chair of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE). The current Chair of the Board of Directors for the ECRE is Morten Kjaerum. Kjaerum currently serves as the Director of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Sweden. The Institute provides a list of eleven “Funding Partners”, which includes the Open Society Initiative for Europe.

Other members of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee with ties to Soros and his foundations include: Dávid Vig who was previously a member of the Open Society Foundations Human Rights Program; Gábor Gyulai, founding member of the European Network of Statelessness (ENS), which maintains a list of four donor organizations, including the Open Society Foundations; and Dr. Gruša Matevžič, who serves on the advisory board of the International Detention Coalition, which as previously stated, is one of many groups working in conjunction with the Open Society Foundation in order to influence the immigration policy of European governments.

Witte also provides a statement from Andras Kovats, director of Menedék Hungarian Association for Migrants, in which Kovats states that as a result of the Orban governments stance of refugees, his staff “often receives verbal abuse and threatening messages. Tucked in the mail one recent day was a letter packed with excrement.”

Again, Witte fails to inform the reader that the Menedék Hungarian Association for Migrants also receives financial support from Soros’ Open Society Foundations, totaling nearly $100,000 between 2015 and 2016.

Finally, at the end of the article, Witte briefly notes: “Gergo Saling contributed to this report.” Why is this final piece of information important?

Gergő Sáling is the co-founder and editor of the Hungarian Investigative Journalism Center Direkt36. Direkt36 provides a list of six organizations which fund their “journalism”, of which the Open Society Foundation is listed.

Direkt36 also lists itself as a member of both the Global Investigative Journalism Network (GIJN) and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

The GIJN, by its own admission, states that the “GIJN receives generous core support from the Open Society Foundations, which has supported GIJN since its founding as a loose network in 2003…”, while the OCCRP provides that “OCCRP is supported by grants by the Open Society Foundation…”

By providing quotes from various Soros-affiliated figureheads and organizations without even providing the slightest details of their associations with the primary subject of the article, the author is engaging himself in purposeful deception and shoddy journalism.

Couple this with the many key omissions of fact and important details, it is hard to not conclude that this article represents the epitome of propaganda in its purest form. By publishing this piece, the Post’s motto “Democracy Dies in Darkness” absolutely rings true, except it is the Post who killed it.

Are The Social Media Giants Trying To Steal The 2018 Elections By Censoring Conservative Websites?

Nobody is disputing the fact that YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other social media giants are censoring conservative material. In fact, this is probably the largest purge of conservative voices in the history of the Internet. Obviously this is going to cause large numbers of people to stop using their platforms, so why would they do this? Well, to some conservatives the answer is obvious. These social media giants watched Donald Trump use their platforms extremely effectively in 2016, and many believe that they are absolutely determined to never let that happen again. In fact, Mike Adams of Natural News is completely convinced that there is a concerted effort by these social media giants to steal the 2018 elections…

The realization is suddenly obvious: The Google / YouTube selective “censorship rampage” that has targeted conservative websites and content creators is a brazen, illegal scheme to interfere with U.S. elections and steal the 2018 mid-terms.

The systematic silencing of conservative views is necessary, of course, for Democrats to win enough seats to gain control of the U.S. House of Representatives after the mid-term elections. Once control is established, Democrats will immediately move to impeach President Trump. Although the Senate would not likely prosecute that impeachment, the mere achievement of the U.S. House declaring “impeachment” would be enough to convince most brainwashed news consumers that Trump is somehow a guilty criminal (nobody will remember that Bill Clinton was also impeached by the House). From there, the 2020 presidential election is also stolen, and Democrats land their selected tyrant in the White House just in time for Ginsberg’s retirement from SCOTUS.

If voices on the left were being censored to the same degree as conservative voices, it would be really hard to make such an argument.

But the truth is that the numbers show that conservative voices are being hit extremely hard by the censorship while liberal publishers have been mostly “unaffected”

Facebook’s January 12 announcement that it would begin to de-prioritize news publishers and their posts in users’ News Feeds has had a surprisingly profound and partisan impact. According to The Outline’s analysis of Facebook engagement data obtained from research tool BuzzSumo, conservative and right-wing publishers (such as Breitbart, Fox News, and Gateway Pundit) were hit the hardest in the weeks following the announcement, with Facebook engagement totals for February dropping as much as 55 percent for some, while the engagement numbers of most predominantly liberal publishers remained unaffected.

And this even applies to politicians as well. For example, President Trump’s engagement on Facebook has fallen 45 percent since the algorithm change…

The algorithm change caused President Donald Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts to plummet a whopping 45%.

In contrast, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) do not appear to have suffered a comparable decline in Facebook engagement.

Top conservative Facebook pages with daily traffic in the millions have seen 75% to 95% drop in traffic.
Young Cons, Western Journalism, SarahPalin.com,Independent Journal ReviewRight Wing News, and several others have seen dramatic loss in traffic.

Needless to say, my website (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/) has been affected as well.

So what can we do?

We can fight back. One of the primary ways that we can do that is by electing pro-Trump candidates all over the nation in 2018. Right now I am engaged in an extremely close race with three guys that did not want Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination in 2016, and I need your help to win on May 15th.

It is fundamentally wrong for the social media giants to pick winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas. I will fight online censorship as hard as I can in Washington, and if you believe in what we are trying to do I hope that you will stand with us.

Whenever radical leftists have taken power anywhere in the world, they have always tried to shut down free speech.

They want to follow the same formula in the United States, but we are not going to allow them to do that.

There are millions upon millions of red-blooded Americans that still greatly love this nation, and this silent majority is rising up to take our country back.

Source: MostImportantNews

Michael Snyder is a pro-Trump candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District. If you would like to help him win on May 15th, you can donate online, by Paypal or by sending a check made out to “Michael Snyder for Congress” to P.O. Box 1136 – Bonners Ferry, ID 83805. To learn more, please visit MichaelSnyderForCongress.com.