Americans now mere spectators instead of participants in their own government
11/13/2019
C-Span has blocked viewers from chatting on its YouTube livestream of the public impeachment hearings, a move which crystallizes the age-old complaint that Americans don’t have much voice in their government:
While the move was ostensibly intended to stop trolls, that’s what moderators are for, and frankly speaking something as big as the attempted removal of a US president who was duly-elected by millions of Americans should be in public discourse.
By being blocked from chatting about the ongoing impeachment process, Americans are now mere spectators of their government instead of active participants, something that would probably make Edward Bernays proud, but not the Founding Fathers who drafted the impeachment process.
Case in point, Facebook has been banning people for stating the name of the alleged “whistleblower” even though, per federal law, only the intel inspector general is required to not reveal who he is.
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society,” Bernays believed. “Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”
“…We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”
Matt Bracken breaks down the whistleblower Eric Ciaramella as the key to understanding the coup against Trump.
The Black Friday sales have arrived early! Get up to 70% off our hottest products as well as free-shipping and double Patriot Points while the sale lasts!
Republicans House Members in the room for Wednesday’s Intelligence Committee public impeachment inquiry hearing laughed when committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) claimed he does not know the name of the whistleblower whose anonymous second-hand claim of misconduct by President Trump with regard to Ukraine instigated the partisan impeachment process by Democrats.
The reaction by Republicans was reported by Alex Miller of Newsy, “Schiff says he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower, entire front row of republicans laugh.”
Axios reporter Alayna Treene reported Republicans laughed and sneered, “Republican members of Congress in the audience laughed & sneered to each other when Schiff said this”
Schiff’s dubious claim (falsely reported as a “fact check”) was also challenged online by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), “In response to @Jim_Jordan, Adam Schiff claims he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower. If he doesn’t know their identity, how will he prevent them from being named?”
Daily Mail reporter David Martosko, “Adam Schiff claims he doesn’t know the identity of the Ukraine whistle-blower. How is this possible? His staff met with the person.”
Trump War Room co-host Raheem Kassam noted problems with Schiff’s denial, “Schiff says he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower, despite his staff being in contact with the whistleblower. Ok, but if he doesn’t know the identity, how can he as the Intel Chairman stop the whistleblower being named? And how is the name being redacted in docs?”
Presumably Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) was one of those laughing at Schiff from his front row seat.
Unfortunately, Gohmert and his fellow Congressmen were placed by Schiff in “Bob Uecker” front row seats in the back of the room behind the media.
Intel Committee Republicans set up a sign on their side of the dais that said, “93 days since Adam Schiff learned the identity of the whistleblower.
“I’ve seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this!”
— Rep. Jim Jordan.
BOOM! Jim Jordan just destroyed Schiff’s star witness Ambassador Taylor.
OMG! SOOOOOO GOOD!
Jim Jordan got Ambassador Taylor to admit that everything he has said in his testimony is based on second-hand, third-hand and fourth-hand information!
Step 2: Now they are comfortable playing with genitals tell them how great it is to masturbate. How can they make it sound wholesome for kids? No one thinks love is unhealthy… pic.twitter.com/7nDvXUVAiP
— Questioning LGBT/CSE Education (@QuestionLGBTedu) November 9, 2019
This video from Canada shows how kids are being institutionally abused by the LGBT agenda.
By Shane Trejo
A troubling video of sexual education in Canada has shown exactly how depraved and abusive the LGBT agenda has become toward children.
A pro-children advocacy group, Questioning LGBT/CSE Education, posted the video on social media in several parts showing how children are being sexualized and indoctrinated before thae age of adolescence.
The first lesson starts innocuous enough, featuring a basic anatomy lesson with two dolls. This is meant to normalize talk about genitals as the lesson gets more explicit:
Sexualising children with sex education.
Step 1: Remove their natural modesty/shyness around things relating to sex and genitals. Also just happens to be the first stage in the criminal groomers handbook. pic.twitter.com/smcI5pf2FB
— Questioning LGBT/CSE Education (@QuestionLGBTedu) November 8, 2019
Another lesson shows the instructors telling children “there’s no right or wrong age to fall in love,” which is straight out of the NAMBLA playbook before dovetailing into masturbation tips for the confused children:
Sexualising children with sex education.
Step 2: Now they are comfortable playing with genitals tell them how great it is to masturbate. How can they make it sound wholesome for kids? No one thinks love is unhealthy… pic.twitter.com/7nDvXUVAiP
— Questioning LGBT/CSE Education (@QuestionLGBTedu) November 9, 2019
Next, the instructors tell the children to simulate different types of kissing with the dolls:
Sexualising children with sex education.
Step 3: Now they are used to playing with genitals and have discovered orgasms through "self love", it's time to show the children how to initiate their first sexual contact with other people. pic.twitter.com/Y2Kdd1mqk6
— Questioning LGBT/CSE Education (@QuestionLGBTedu) November 10, 2019
The instructors move on to talking about gender, introducing concepts like “fluidity” and “non-binary” that the children are clearly unable to comprehend. A lecherous creep is then brought in as an “expert” to address children about the gender spectrum:
Sexualising children with sex education.
Step 4: Gender Queering. "Remember that penis we taught you to play with? You probably think that's a sign you're a boy…"
— Questioning LGBT/CSE Education (@QuestionLGBTedu) November 10, 2019
The second part of the following video shows the children perplexed after the lecture by the so-called “Drag King,” as the trans male explains to the kids how he took drugs for the purposes of his gender transition before they play a gender-driven game of musical chairs:
Sexualising children with sex education.
Step 4: Gender Queering continued. Taking a room full of confident grounded kids and whacking them so hard in the head with a mental stick they can barely speak. Education 2019.
— Questioning LGBT/CSE Education (@QuestionLGBTedu) November 10, 2019
The next lesson is about sexuality, in which one of the instructors comes out as bisexual and the kids are encouraged to explore their boundaries. Then, drag queens are brought in to help the kids “learn more about orientation and attraction.” These are the same drag queens who regularly host story hour events in libraries that have become a magnet for pedophiles:
Sexualising children with sex education.
Step 5: You're all on a queer spectrum! (If you disagree it's only because you haven't realised it yet)
Sit at the feet of your new role models and embrace the limitless potential of being queer! Everyone is a potential partner now… pic.twitter.com/FYmERBdqwy
— Questioning LGBT/CSE Education (@QuestionLGBTedu) November 11, 2019
While this lesson plan is from Canada, the LGBT children curriculum in the U.S. and the rest of the West is following suit.
One educational whistleblower from California explained how children as young as 10 are being taught how to perform oral and anal sex as well as put condoms on prosthetic genitalia.
Big League Politicsreported on this shocking story of LGBT child abuse:
A whistle-blowing former public school teacher is sounding the alarm about new middle school sexual education standards in California that sexualize children and teach them dangerous sexual behaviors before the age of adolescence.
“It’s shocking,” Rebecca Friedrichs, the founder of For Kids & Country, said in an interview with The Christian Post. She spoke of relay races where 10- and 11-year-old girls are trained to put condoms on a prosthetic male erection as the boys watch on.
Kids as young as 11 years old are trained in how to engage in oral and anal sex and taught to experiment with bisexuality by public school teachers.
“It is medically risky on multiple levels. And when you read the curriculum … it’s written almost like a college fraternity wrote this curriculum in a very crass and a juvenile way,” she said of the ongoing sexualization of children.
“I always tell people that the scary thing is, I’ll give radio interviews and I can’t even say on the radio things that are being taught in our elementary and middle school classrooms in mixed company. There’s something very wrong there,” said Friedrichs, a conservative activist who taught in public schools for 28 years.
“No one believes it until they see it,” she said. “Now that we’ve been able to help parents to understand what’s actually in the curriculums and they’re viewing it for themselves, they see the urgent need to rescue the kids. Now there’s a groundswell of parents that’s growing fast and fighting back.”
The LGBT movement has advanced from marriage equality to robbing kids of their innocence in less than a decade. If their perverted agenda is not stopped, there is no telling how many childrens’ souls they will destroy.
“CBS Evening News” anchor Norah O’Donnell interviews Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and Trump administration Ambassador to the United Nations, who talks about the president’s rhetoric and tweets and being asked by fellow Cabinet members to take sides against the president.
Haley condemned [former WH chief of staff] John Kelly and [former Secretary of State] Rex Tillerson for having a “sidebar plan” against the president, saying their behavior went “beyond the Constitution” and was “offensive.”
“Instead of saying that to me, they should have been saying that to the president, not asking me to join them on their sidebar plan. It should have been, go tell the president what your differences are and quit if you don’t like what he’s doing,” Haley said. “But to undermine the president is really a very dangerous thing.”
“Kelly and Tillerson confided in me that when they resisted the president, they weren’t being insubordinate, they were trying to save the country,” Haley writes in a new book. “Tillerson went on to tell me the reason he resisted the president’s decisions was because, if he didn’t, people would die.”
O’Donnell asked Haley: “You memorialized that conversation? It definitely happened?”
“It absolutely happened,” said Haley. “And instead of saying that to me, they should’ve been saying that to the president, not asking me to join them on their sidebar plan. It should’ve been, ‘Go tell the president what your differences are, and quit if you don’t like what he’s doing.’ But to undermine a president is really a very dangerous thing. And it goes against the Constitution, and it goes against what the American people want. And it was offensive.”
John Kelly responded, telling “CBS Sunday Morning”: “If by resistance and stalling she means putting a staff process in place … to ensure the (president) knew all the pros and cons of what policy decision he might be contemplating so he could make an informed decision, then guilty as charged.”
O’Donnell asked: “Do you think ultimately the president will be impeached and removed from office?”
Haley replied: “No. On what? You’re gonna impeach a president for asking for a favor that didn’t happen and giving money and it wasn’t withheld? I don’t know what you would impeach him on. And look, Norah, impeachment is, like, the death penalty for a public official. When you look at the transcript, there’s nothing in that transcript that warrants the death penalty for the president.”
“To be clear, it was not a complete transcript. There are still things that are missing from it. And in it, he does say, ‘I would like you to do us a favor, though.'”
“The Ukrainians never did the investigation. And the president released the funds. I mean, when you look at those, there’s just nothing impeachable there. And more than that, I think the biggest thing that bothers me is the American people should decide this. Why do we have a bunch of people in Congress making that decision?”
Senate Intel Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) told reporters on Thursday that attorneys for the anti-Trump CIA leaker Eric Ciaramella have suddenly done a “reversal” after their initial contact with the committee.
Ciaramella’s lawyers sent the Senate Intel Committee a letter stating they were anxious and eager to come in and speak to congressional investigators — and now they are backing out.
Burr insisted he would protect the identity of the ‘whistleblower’ even though investigative reporter Paul Sperry published the snitch’s name — Eric Ciaramella.
Perhaps this is why the pajama boy is backing out — he can’t take the heat after the conservative media outed him, his liberal bias and orchestrated coup with Schiff and other Trump haters.
The fake news liberal media however continues to protect the CIA leaker by refusing to say his name.
“We protect whistleblowers. We protect witnesses in our committee,” Burr told reporters.
The Senate Intel Committee chaired by the worthless RINO Richard Burr and his Vice Chair Mark Warner are currently reviewing the process behind the handling of the whistleblower complaint that was filed in August.
As part of his committee’s investigation, Burr wants to talk to the ‘whistleblower’ but Eric Ciaramella’s lawyers have clammed up.
“I think they were disingenuous when they sent us a letter that they were willing to come before the committee,” Burr said.
Ciaramella’s lawyers offered congressional investigators written answers to questions under oath, however Burr said this is “not acceptable.”
Ciaramella and his fellow coup plotters can only thrive in the shadows. Sunlight is the best disinfectant which is why he is now hiding from congressional investigators.
Facebook is removing any mention of the potential whistleblower’s name and is cracking down against Facebook publishers that mention any allegation of the potential whistleblower’s name, claiming they are violating Facebook’s Community Standards and Policies.
For example, on Wednesday evening, Facebook removed Breitbart posts reporting on the fact other respected news outlets have reported the identity of the alleged whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella. Any Facebook user who attempts to click on that article on Facebook is now given a message that says, “this content isn’t available at the moment.”
To be clear, Breitbart did not “out” the alleged whistleblower but did provide additional relevant reporting about him; he is, after all, a public figure, having served on the National Security Council. Moreover, his name has been used in the Mueller report (p283) and Ambassador Bill Taylor’s testimony.
Administrators of Breitbart News’ Facebook page began receiving notifications on Wednesday evening stating that Breitbart’s page is “at risk of being unpublished” but were not given any details as to why, or even which posts were allegedly at issue.
Yesterday afternoon, however, in response to questions from Breitbart, a Facebook spokesman issued the following statement:
Any mention of the potential whistleblower’s name violates our coordinating harm policy, which prohibits content “outing of witness, informant, or activist.” We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower’s name and will revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by public figures in debate.
Multiple other publishers have named the alleged whistleblower or reported on outlets naming him, including Heavy.com, the Washington Examiner, The Federalist, and the Western Journal. Saagar Enjeti, Chief Washington Correspondent for The Hill, also tweeted the alleged whistleblower’s name.
Radio hosts Mark Levin and Glenn Beck, Students for Trump co-chair Ryan Fournier, former Deputy Assistant to the President Sebastian Gorka, bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza, One America News host Jack Posobiec, and TownHall.com senior columnist Kurt Schlichter are among the other public figures and major media personalities who have also named the alleged whistleblower.
It isn’t only conservatives reporting on Ciaramella. New York Magazine and HuffPost contributor Yashar Ali identified Ciaramella as the alleged whistleblower in a since-deleted tweet. Ali claimed to have confirmed the identity with three sources. Facebook’s requirement to revise its policy on Ciaramella appears to already have been met.
Other publishers that have named the alleged whistleblower on Facebook have reported that their posts have been taken down as well.
In an interview on Thursday night on MSNBC, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) told host Chris Hayes there is a “possibility” that the Senate will remove President Trump from office given the results of the off-year elections earlier this week.
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Do you see the process as possibly ending in the removal of the president of the United States? Is that a live possibility in your mind?
REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): I think it is a possibility. I don’t know how to estimate the possibility, but I would certainly say it’s not a zero possibility. … I think it’s possible, depending how strong the evidence is, and depending on other political considerations, that maybe the Senate will act to remove the president. But I’m not going to give an estimate, and I can’t estimate that, but I will say I don’t think it’s a zero possibility. That’s a very cynical view that it’s a zero possibility. I also, to be political about it, I think some Republican senators may take a look at the election results the other day and start thinking, maybe I should be a little more fair and not dismissive.
Tom's Blog 