Tag: BARACK OBAMA

NSA kills phone spying program exposed by Snowden… to replace it with something better?

Screen Shot 2019-03-06 at 10.24.59 AM

The National Security Agency has reportedly ended the intrusive spying program that combs through Americans’ calls and texts and won’t be seeking to renew it, begging the question – what are they doing now that’s more effective?

The secretive agency hasn’t used the controversial system – the descendant of the ‘Stellar Wind’ metadata collection program exposed by NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 – in months, according to Luke Murry, national security adviser to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who told the Lawfare podcast that the administration wouldn’t even bother renewing its congressional authority for the program when it expires at the end of the year.

The NSA program – which reportedly had never thwarted a single terrorist attack – was essentially mothballed last June, according to Murry. Which, many believe, would only indicate the agency has been busy with something else for the last eight months.

Screen Shot 2019-03-06 at 10.28.34 AM

The Orwellian-sounding ‘USA Freedom Act’ replaced Stellar Wind in 2015, partially because of the fallout from Snowden’s exposure of that program, which was rammed through in the aftermath of 9/11 under the Patriot Act. It ended automatic bulk collection of metadata, leaving that treasure trove with the phone companies, but still permitted the NSA to access records of “surveillance targets” and anyone those targets had contacted, rubber-stamped by a judge to certify the target was “linked to terrorism.” Last year’s mass record deletion allegedlyoccurred because the NSA – which has billions of terabytes of data storage capacity secreted in a bunker in Utah to hold Americans’ metadata – received too much data from the phone companies and opted to delete it all rather than break the law.

Since the NSA has never before acknowledged –or cared about– breaking the law – indeed, the point of the outrage over Snowden’s leaks was that the intrusive practice flagrantly violated the Fourth Amendment, and NSA director James Clapper lied under oath to Congress about the existence of the program – their explanation rang false to many. The agency, unsurprisingly, had no comment in response to Murry’s statements.

Screen Shot 2019-03-06 at 10.31.18 AM

Screen Shot 2019-03-06 at 10.32.09 AM

Snowden himself cheered the news, as did Glenn Greenwald, who was the first to publish Snowden’s revelations. Others were more suspicious, given the NSA’s track record.

Screen Shot 2019-03-06 at 10.33.04 AM

No intelligence agency has ever stopped invading citizens’ privacy just because its practices were exposed. There might be a Church Committee or two, and an agency director might even resign. But controversial practices like COINTELPRO, in which FBI agents infiltrated activist groups to sow discord and amplify internal tensions, and Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA planted and coopted journalists in prominent media outlets, are alive and well.

0

American Civil War 2: US media will have only itself to blame if all hell breaks loose

By Robert Bridge

Screen Shot 2019-03-05 at 10.59.00 AM

For the first time in years, the drumbeat of civil war has become audible across the United States. The nation looks destined to repeat history thanks to a media that is no longer able to objectively perform its job.

The predominantly left-leaning US media has just entered its third consecutive year of open warfare against President Donald Trump. This non-stop assault risks aggravating political passions to the point where ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ snowballs into something completely beyond our ability to control. Like full-blown Civil War.

Over the weekend, the Washington Post, one of most prominent serial producers of partisan agitation, publishedan article entitled, ‘In America, talk turns to something unspoken for 150 years: Civil War’. The piece, which deftly places Democrats above the fray, opens with the following whiff of grapeshot:

“With the report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III reportedly nearly complete, impeachment talk in the air and the 2020 presidential election ramping up … there’s talk of violence, mayhem and, increasingly, civil war,” the Bezos-owned paper forewarned.

Screen Shot 2019-03-05 at 11.01.18 AM

With a level of audacity and self-righteousness that has become a trademark of the Left, not once did the article float the possibility that just maybe the mainstream media is complicit in the ongoing deterioration of political discourse, or that the Democrats are just as much to blame as the Republicans for the political fallout that now presents a grave risk to the Republic.

As many knowledgeable Americans will openly admit, battle lines have been drawn across the political and cultural frontier. This division is perhaps most conspicuous on social media, where friends and family who disagree with our political worldview get the ‘nuke option’ and are effortlessly vanquished (‘unfriended’) with the push of a button. This is a worrying development. The real danger will come when Americans from both sides of the political divide stop talking and start erecting electronic barriers around their political belief systems. Not even family members are spared from the tumult; just because people share the same bloodline does not automatically mean they share the same political views. America, though still green behind the ears, may understand that fact better than many other countries.

The United States has taken part in its fair share of military conflicts over the years, but its deadliest war to date has been the one that pitted Americans against each other. The so-called Civil War (1861-1865), waged between the North and South over the question of Southern secession from the Union, resulted in the death of some 620,000 soldiers from the Union and Confederate armies (and possibly as high as 850,000, according to other estimates).

Read more

Trump or Clinton, Brexit or Remain, Maduro or Guaido? They are both worse! (by Slavoj Zizek)Trump or Clinton, Brexit or Remain, Maduro or Guaido? They are both worse! (by Slavoj Zizek)

Put another way, more Americans died in the Civil War than in all of the country’s other conflicts combined. For a country that has been at war for much of its existence that is a sobering fact.

With that historical footnote in mind, the mainstream media should better appreciate its responsibility for presenting an objective and balanced depiction of modern events. Yet nothing today would suggest that is the case. One need only look at the way it has blotched recent politically charged events – like the Covington High School and Jussie Smollett scandals, not to mention the ‘Russia collusion’ hoax – to say that something is seriously out of whack inside of the Fourth Estate. The muzzled mainstream media has simply lost its mind over Donald Trump and can no longer perform its duties with any discernible amount of objectivity.

Indeed, the US leader continues to serve as a piñata for the agenda-driven media, which takes daily swings at him and his administration – and despite the fact that his popularity remains very high among voters. Only on the fringes of the media world, in the far away land of Fox News and Breitbart, will the reader find level-headed reports on the American president. This is not to suggest, of course, that Trump is beyond criticism. Not at all. There is a lot not to like about the 45th president. At the same time, however, to assume that Trump and his administration is the root of all evil, as the media would lead us to believe, is not only ridiculous, it is outright dangerous.

With no loss of irony, a good example of the media bias against Trump can be found in the very Post article that frets over the outbreak of another Civil War. While everyone knows that it takes two to tango, you would never guess that by reading this piece. In the sheltered world of the Liberal-dominated media, ‘tango’ is a solo event where the political right is portrayed as engaged in a dance with itself, while the political left watches – innocuously, of course – from the sidelines.

Michael Cohen, for example, Trump’s turncoat personal lawyer who committed perjury by lying to Congress, was quoted high in the article as saying, “Given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020 that there will never be a peaceful transition of power.”

Now that is certainly rich. Ever since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election, Washington has been consumed by the Mueller investigation, and amid mindless chatter that Trump is an illegitimate president slated for impeachment. In other words, the last thing that can be said about the Democrats is that they facilitated a “peaceful transition of power.” In fact, they have hobbled Trump and his administration ever since he entered the Oval Office.

Read more

Hate in the heartland: America is stumbling towards disaster one virulent tweet at a timeHate in the heartland: America is stumbling towards disaster one virulent tweet at a time

Another pro-Liberal voice dragged into the Civil War story was Robert Reich, who served on Barack Obama‘s economic transition advisory board. The Post linked to an article Reich wrote last year where he posited the fictional scenario where an impeachment resolution against the president is enacted, thus kicking off mass civil strife on the direct command of dear leader.

“Trump claims it’s the work of the ‘deep state’”, according to Reich’s febrile imagination. “Sean Hannity of Fox News demands that every honest patriot take to the streets. Right-wing social media call for war. As insurrection spreads, Mr. Trump commands the armed forces to side with the ‘patriots.’”

“The way Mr. Trump and his defenders are behaving, it’s not absurd to imagine serious social unrest,” Reich continued. “That’s how low he’s taken us.”

Now that is some world-class chutzpah. In fact, it is the same self-righteous, ingratiating tone that weaves itself throughout the Post article. In keeping with the mainstream media’s non-stop narrative, Trump and the Republicans are blamed for everything that has gone wrong in the country, while the Democrats come off as little angels trying to piece the fractured country back together.

As already mentioned, Donald Trump is certainly not above criticism. Far from it. But for the mainstream media to place all of the blame for the current political malaise at the Republican’s door is about as responsible as lighting up a cigarette inside of a Chinese fireworks factory. The US media has an unmistakable agenda, and that is to make damn sure Trump is not reelected to another term in 2020. To that end, it has shown a devious willingness to betray all journalistic ethics and standards, which has the effect of increasing the political temperature to boiling point. It then points the finger of blame at the political right for the accumulated pile of pent-up tensions, which are ready to ignite at the first spark.

If the mainstream media continues to slavishly serve just one political master over another, it will only have itself to blame for what comes next. Its prejudiced and agenda-based reporting is a disgrace and really nothing short of a bona fide national security threat.

@Robert_Bridge

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

0

In America, talk turns to something unspoken for 150 years: Civil war…

By  Greg Jaffe and Jenna Johnson

Screen Shot 2019-03-01 at 3.45.41 PM

At a moment when the country has never seemed angrier, two political commentators from opposite sides of the divide concurred last week on one point, nearly unthinkable until recently: The country is on the verge of “civil war.”

First came former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova, a Fox News regular and ally of President Trump. “We are in a civil war,” he said. “The suggestion that there’s ever going to be civil discourse in this country for the foreseeable future is over. . . . It’s going to be total war.”

The next day, Nicolle Wallace, a former Republican operative turned MSNBC commentator and Trump critic, played a clip of diGenova’s commentary on her show and agreed with him – although she placed the blame squarely on the president.

Trump, she said, “greenlit a war in this country around race. And if you think about the most dangerous thing he’s done, that might be it.”

With the report by special counsel Robert Mueller reportedly nearly complete, impeachment talk in the air and the 2020 presidential election ramping up, fears that once existed only in fiction or the fevered dreams of conspiracy theorists have become a regular part of the political debate. These days, there’s talk of violence, mayhem and, increasingly, civil war.

A tumultuous couple of weeks in American politics seem to have raised the rhetorical flourishes to a new level and also brought a troubling question to the surface: At what point does all the alarmist talk of civil war actually increase the prospect of violence, riots or domestic terrorism?

Screen Shot 2019-03-01 at 3.47.53 PM

Speaking to conservative pundit Laura Ingraham, diGenova summed up his best advice to friends: “I vote, and I buy guns. And that’s what you should do.”

He was a bit more measured a few days later in an interview with The Washington Post, saying that the United States is in a “civil war of discourse . . . a civil war of conduct,” triggered mostly by liberals and the media’s coverage of the Trump presidency. The former U.S. attorney said he owns guns mostly to make a statement, and not because he fears political insurrection at the hands of his fellow Americans.

The rampant talk of civil war may be hyperbolic, but it does have origins in a real crumbling confidence in the country’s democratic institutions and its paralyzed federal government. With Congress largely deadlocked, governance on the most controversial issues has been left to the Supreme Court or has come through executive or emergency actions, such as Trump’s border wall effort.

Then there’s the persistent worry about the 202o elections. “Given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020 that there will never be a peaceful transition of power,” Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer and personal lawyer, told a congressional committee Wednesday.

On that score, Cohen’s not the only one who is concerned. As far back as 2016, Trump declined to say whether he would concede if he lost to Hillary Clinton, prompting former president Barack Obama to warn that Trump was undermining American democracy. “That is dangerous,” Obama said.

The moment was top of mind for Joshua Geltzer, a former senior Obama administration Justice Department official, when he wrote a recent editorial for CNN urging the country to prepare for the possibility that Trump might not “leave the Oval Office peacefully” if he loses in 2020.

“If he even hints at contesting the election result in 2020 . . . he’d be doing so not as an outsider but as a leader with the vast resources of the U.S. government potentially at his disposal,” Geltzer, now a professor at Georgetown Law School, wrote in his piece in late February.

Geltzer urged both major parties to require their electoral college voters to pledge to respect the outcome of the election, and suggested that it might be necessary to ask the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to reaffirm their loyalty to the Constitution over Trump.

“These are dire thoughts,” Geltzer wrote, “but we live in uncertain and worrying times.”

His speculation drew immediate reaction from the right. Former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin tweeted a link to an article that called Geltzer’s warnings “rampant crazy.” News Punch, a far-right site that traffics in conspiracy theories, blared: “Obama Official Urges Civil War Against Trump Administration.”

Said Geltzer: “I don’t think I was being paranoid, but, boy, did I inspire paranoia on the other side.”

The concerns about a civil war, though, extend beyond the pundit class to a sizable segment of the population. An October 2017 poll from the company that makes the game Cards Against Humanity found that 31 percent of Americans believed a civil war was “likely” in the next decade.

More than 40 percent of Democrats described such a conflict as “likely,” compared with about 25 percent of Republicans. The company partnered with Survey Sampling International to conduct the nationally representative poll.

Some historians have sounded a similar alarm. “How, when, and why has the United States now arrived at the brink of a veritable civil war?” Victor Davis Hanson, a historian with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, asked last summer in an essay in National Review. Hanson prophesied that the United States “was nearing a point comparable to 1860,” about a year before the first shots were fired on Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

Around the same time Hanson was writing, Robert Reich, a former secretary of labor who is now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, imagined his own new American civil war, in which demands for Trump’s impeachment lead to calls from Fox News commentators for “every honest patriot to take to the streets.”

“The way Mr. Trump and his defenders are behaving, it’s not absurd to imagine serious social unrest,” Reich wrote in the Baltimore Sun. “That’s how low he’s taken us.”

Reich got some unlikely support last week from Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist. “I think that 2019 is going to be the most vitriolic year in American politics since the Civil War, and I include Vietnam in that,” Bannon said in an interview with CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

All the doom, gloom and divisiveness have caught the attention of experts who evaluate the strength of governments around the world. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, a measure widely cited by political scientists, demoted the United States from “full democracy” to “flawed democracy” in January 2017, citing a big drop in Americans’ trust for their political institutions.

Similarly, Freedom House, which monitors freedom and democracy around the world, warned in 2018 that the past year has “brought further, faster erosion of American’s own democratic standards than at any other time in memory.”

Those warnings about the state of America’s democratic institutions concern political scientists who study civil wars, which usually take root in countries with high levels of corruption, low trust in institutions and poor governance.

Barbara Walter, a professor of political science at the University of California at San Diego, said her first instinct was to dismiss any talk of civil war in the United States. “But the U.S. is starting to show that it is moving in that direction,” she said. “Countries with bad governance are the ones that experience these wars.”

James Fearon, who researches political violence at Stanford University, called the pundits’ warnings “basically absurd.” But he noted that political polarization and the possibility of a potentially serious constitutional crisis in the near future does “marginally increase the still very low odds” of a stalemate that might require “some kind of action by the military leadership.”

“I can’t believe I’m saying this,” he added, “but I guess it’s not entirely out of the question.”

Less clear in the near term is what kind of effect the inflammatory civil war rhetoric has on a democracy that’s already on edge. There’s some evidence that such heated words could cause people to become more moderate. A 2014 study found that when hard-line Israeli Jews were shown extreme videos promoting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as essential to Israeli pride, a strong army or national unity, they took a more dovish position.

“Extreme rhetoric can lead some people to pull back from the brink,” said Boaz Hameiri, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and co-author on the study. But that only happens when people already believe a “more moderate version of the extreme views” and find the more extreme message shocking, he said.

In such cases, people recognize the absurdity of their position, worry it reflects badly on them and reconsider it, he said.

If the extreme messages become a normal part of the political debate, the moderating effect goes away, the study found.

Violence is most likely to occur, Hameiri added, when political leaders use “dehumanizing language” to describe their opponents.

Most experts worried that the talk of conflict here, armed or otherwise, was serving to raise the prospects of unrest and diminish trust in America’s already beleaguered institutions.

Screen Shot 2019-03-01 at 3.59.52 PM

The latest warnings of civil war from diGenova drew an exasperated response from VoteVets, a liberal veterans advocacy group whose members have fought in actual civil wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Amazing we have to say this but: 1. We are NOT in civil war. 2. Do NOT buy guns (or any weapons) to use against your fellow Americans,” Jon Soltz, the group’s chairman, tweeted in response to diGenova. “Trust us, we have seen war.”

0

CNN’s Alisyn Camerota Urges Rashida Tlaib to Walk Back Apology, Declare Mark Meadows Racist

Alisyn Camerota CNN (Michael Loccisano / Getty)

By Joel B. Pollak

CNN’s New Day co-anchor Alisyn Camerota attempted Thursday morning to encourage Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MN) to undo her apology to Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) the day before, when she suggested he was a racist.

Meadows had brought Lynne Patton, a senior Trump campaign aide and now an administration official, to submit a statement into the record at the House Oversight Committee defending President Donald Trump from claims by his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, that Trump is a racist. Patton happens to be black and has defended Trump before.

Tlaib — who has faced accusations of antisemitism after making insensitive remarks about Israel — shocked the hearing by calling Patton a “prop” and suggesting it had been racist for Meadows to bring her to the hearing. She cited her own feelings as a “woman of color.” (Tlaib is a Palestinian-American.) Meadows, visibly hurt, noted he has relatives who are “people of color.” Tlaib apologized to Meadows (though not to Patton herself).

The left then tried to target Meadows, circulating a video from 2012 in which he told a Tea Party gathering that they would “send Mr. Obama home to Kenya or wherever it is.” CNN’s Anderson Cooper picked up the video and aired it Wednesday night, noting that Meadows had later regretted his remark and asserted his belief that Obama is an American citizen, but suggesting that Meadows might indeed be a racist for reasons other than Tlaib’s attack.

On Thursday morning, Camerota hosted Tlaib on New Day. Unlike Cooper, Camerota actually mentioned Patton, playing a clip from a radio show Thursday morning in which Patton had objected to being called a “prop.” Cameron described Patton as “the woman who was held up by Mark Meadows without speaking.” Tlaib did not apologize to Patton but asserted that she meant “no disrespect to her at all” to Patton, a remark Camerota did not challenge.

Camerota went on to argue to Tlaib that Meadows was, indeed, a racist, and asked her if she regretted her apology.

First, she asserted to Tlaib that “[t]here were people at home that felt that that was tone deaf and insensitive of congressman mark meadows,” i.e. bringing Patton to the meeting. “You certainly were not alone in that feeling and so why did you apologize to him?” Camerota cited no evidence of how “people at home” felt. When Tlaib offered an evasive answer, Camerota pressed her: “So do you regret apologizing to Congressman Meadows?”

Tlaib said that she “apologized if I made him feel like a racist,” saying that she saw the exchange as a “teachable moment” and did not want to label Meadows as a racist. She added that she was offended by Patton being brought to the hearing and “saying nothing,” evidently ignoring the fact that Patton had a statement entered into the record.

That did not satisfy Camerota, who then brought up the 2012 video: “I’m interested in whether or not you can separate a racist statement or a racist act from the person. And case in point, in 2012, you know, Congressman Mark Meadows engaged in the Birtherism talk where he doubted that President Obama was born here. let me just remind our viewers of what he said back then.” She played the clip, then asked: “Does seeing that change how you feel about him?”

Tlaib declined to take the bait, ignoring the 2012 video: “Congressman Meadows understood where i was coming from, he knew what my intention was at the end, and that’s why he decided to take …  his objections back.”

And still Camerota pressed Tlaib: “But just to be clear, you still today feel that he is not racist?”

Tlaib responded: “Look, I feel like the act was. and that’s up to the American people to decide whether or not he is.”

It was not enough for CNN, Cooper, or Camerota that Tlaib and Meadows had reconciled amongst themselves, with the mediation of committee chair Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD). Using a 2012 video that had no relevance to the exchange Wednesday, CNN tried to attack Meadows and to insert racial division where it had been partly healed.

0

(HOOD RATS ARE HAVE TAKEN OVER CHICAGO) – Chicago Poised To Elect Its First African American Female Mayor, Send Indicted Alderman Back To Office

By EMILY ZANOTTI

Chicago will elect its first African-American female mayor, after a strange, 14-candidate race came to an end Tuesday in the city primary.

Both candidates, Cook County board president Toni Preckwinkle and former Police Oversight Board chairwoman Lori Lightfoot, are considered “outside” candidates, with few attachments to Chicago’s fabled Democratic machine, but with deep ties to the city’s far left, progressive elements.

The fourteen-way race was in a dead heat until nearly the end, with polls predicting varied outcomes, none of which played out Tuesday night. Lightfoot, a relative unknown and newcomer to Chicago elections — though not to Chicago politics — was the city’s top vote-getter, commanding around 17% of the vote. Preckwinkle, a more well-known commodity, often maligned for instituting the city’s disasterous (and now repealed) “sugary drinks tax,” came in second with 16%, according to the Chicago Tribune’s official election results.

Most surprising, though, was the result for former President Barack Obama’s chief of staff Bill Daley, whose last name is on nearly every building and public park in the city. Bill Daley is a relative of long-serving mayors Richard J. and Richard M. Daley, and was expected to do well in the mayoral race.

After last night’s votes were counted, Daley didn’t even pick up traditional Democratic (and Daley) strongholds, leaving him in third, with only 15% of the vote. Those went to Jerry Joyce, who barely finished with 7%.

Both Preckwinkle and Lightfood are progressives, even by Chicago standards, and ran far to the left of current mayor Rahm Emanuel. Both had platforms that embraced an elected school board — something most mayors hesitate to do, lest the city’s education system fall fully into union control — civilian oversight of the police department, and a tax scheme designed to correct “wealth inequality” within the city.

But they both also represent a landmark achievement in diversity for the city; come April 2nd, no matter who wins the final mayoral election, Chicago will have its first African-American female mayor. Only one woman, Jane Byrne, has served in the office previously.

0

Warren, Harris Add Reparations to 2020 Campaign Platforms

By

All Democrats have to do is not be insane. And they can’t do it.

Screen Shot 2019-02-21 at 6.10.33 PM

In an effort to pander to black voters, Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), both presidential candidates, said they will back reparations for black Americans as part of their campaign platforms.

“We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” Harris reportedly said. “I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities.”

That statement followed a radio interview in which she explicitly agreed with the host when that “government reparations for black Americans were necessary to address the legacies of slavery and discrimination.”

Warren echoed a similar sentiment.

“Ms. Warren also said she supported reparations for black Americans impacted by slavery — a policy that experts say could cost several trillion dollars, and one that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and many top Democrats have not supported,” The New York Times said.

The report said that Warren “declined to giver further details” about her reparations plan.

These are the same candidates that also support a “Green New Deal,” which will also cost trillions of dollars at the expense of the American taxpayer.

But there are more questions surrounding reparations than exactly how much they would cost.

Mainly, who would pay them?

Would reparations be paid only by white people who have slave-owning lineages, like Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia? Would I, as an Arab American whose family immigrated to the United States through Ellis Island, be required to pay for something in which my ancestors had no part?

Likewise, who exactly would receive them?

Would all blacks receive some form of reparations, regardless of whether their ancestors were slaves? What if someone is half black? Or a quarter? Is that person owed a fraction of the reparations of a fully black American?

And what about poor white people? There are millions of whites who “do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” as Harris argued. Will they be buried more deeply – will they have to become poorer –  simply to atone for the color of their skin? Is that justice?

Most importantly, would reparations help repair the cultural strife in this country, which is mostly promulgated by the mainstream press for ratings and Democrat politicians for votes? Wouldn’t the Harris/Warren plan cause more strife and racial tension?

Do these loons really believe that – in a perfect world – reparations would be paid and everyone would simply shake hands, walk away, and that the country will be more united than it has ever been?

These are practical questions that remained unanswered by politicians who are race-baiting for votes.

0

THE INDEPENDENT MEDIA JUST SAVED AMERICA FROM A BLOODY RACE WAR (THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WAS TRYING TO START)

The independent media just saved America from a bloody race war (that the mainstream media was trying to start)

America was just saved by the same independent media that the tech giants are trying to wipe out

Natural News – FEBRUARY 21, 2019

In reviewing the Jussie Smollett fiasco, it’s important to note that Smollett staged his hate crime hoax in a location where he believed it would be caught and recorded on a surveillance camera. The purpose of this was to have video footage that the media would play up nationwide, fomenting an outbreak of racially-charged violence that would ultimately lead to a full-blown race war across America (which the media, of course, would blame on Trump).

This is the goal of the left-wing media, which now functions as a cabal of enemy combatants in a civil war they started. And I have no doubt that Barack Obama and his “community organizers” are behind the whole thing. Smollett is well known to be a cohort of Obama, and this is exactly the kind of thing Obama continues to direct from his “bunker” command center near the White House. (See photo, below, of Smollett and the Obamas together.)

The independent media blow the hoax wide open (and the Chicago police did a damn fine job, too)

Yet the hoax was revealed thanks to the efforts of the independent media and old school police work by the Chicago PD, not the “mainstream” media news cartels (which pushed endless lies and propaganda to prop up the hoax for as long as possible).

It was indy media that asked the first questions about the flimsy story that Smollett pushed on the world. Too many things didn’t add up, and while the left-wing media swallowed the hoax without asking a single critical question, the independent media pointed out the many holes in Smollett’s story, such as the fact that he refused to hand over his full phone records to the police… or his claim that he was attacked by two men but somehow managed to hold on to his Subway sandwich the entire time, even walking home with it. Other facts highlighted by the independent media also blew holes in the Smollett story, such as the observation that Smollett was spotted on camera walking home with the fake noose still around his neck. Why would a victim of an attempted lynching continue to wear the noose? And why would he wait 40 minutes to call the police? Why didn’t he desperately shout to the doorman of his apartment to call the police, explaining he had just been attacked?

Get more news like this without being censored: Get the Natural News app for your mobile devices. Enjoy uncensored news, lab test results, videos, podcasts and more. Bypass all the unfair censorship by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Get your daily news and videos directly from the source! Download here.

None of it added up. But the left-wing media didn’t care. The fake hate crime hoax fit their narrative of America as a racist nation filled with homophobic Trump supporters, and the delicious ingredients in that recipe made such an enticing narrative that the media couldn’t resist. So they risked a race war breaking out across America to try to once again demonize Trump supporters and “keep the hate alive” (which is a key job of the left-wing media these days).

America was just saved by the same independent media that the tech giants are trying to wipe out

All this underscores the importance of speech diversity in a free society. Dissenting voices are sometimes the most important voices of all, since they question the official narrative of lies and deception. This is exactly why systematic censorship of the independent media by the dishonest, fascist tech giants is so dangerous to Democracy.

In this case, it was the dissenting voices — the independent media — that exposed the hoax and very likely stopped the outbreak of racial violence from taking place. In other words, while the mainstream media was actively pushing for a race war in America, the independent media threw water on the embers before it become a firestorm. In response, numerous “journalists” in the media are publicly admitting they are disappointed and saddened that the hate crime wasn’t real. They actually wish for hate crime violence in America, and they don’t even try to hide their dark desires anymore.

Yes, we’ve actually reached the point of insanity in America where “mainstream” media journalists actively wish for hate crimes and race wars. And they are willing to lie and deceive the public to try to make that happen.

If anyone should be censored and de-platformed today it’s CNN, the NYT and the Washington Post. Those are the organizations spreading dangerous lies in a deliberate effort to spark a nationwide race war. They are complicit in the plot to destroy America, and they are acting with extreme malice in trying to carry out their intended agendas to see America rip itself apart.

So why do the tech giants selectively censor the independent media while granting the lying left-wing media near-total control over the public narrative? Because the tech giants want to destroy America, too. They’re all in on it. It’s a plot to bring down this nation, blame white people, depose Trump, silence all dissent and sweep in an authoritarian regime run by deranged, fraudulent Leftists.

Brighteon.com/6002684589001

https://www.brighteon.com/embed/6002684589001

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑