YouTube Deletes Video of Rand Paul Saying Name Of CIA Whistleblower on Senate Floor

Paul called the move ‘A chilling and disturbing day in America’

– FEBRUARY 13, 2020

Google-owned YouTube is proving their allegiance to the Democratic Party by assisting in the censorship of anyone who dares utter the name of alleged CIA “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella.

Ciaramella is reportedly the individual who filed a complaint about President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, resulting in the Democrats’ latest impeachment witch-hunt.

After Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read a question from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) containing the name of the alleged “whistleblower” during the Senate impeachment trial in late January, Paul read the name himself during his floor speech.

Paul argued Justice Roberts singled out Ciaramella by refusing to read the question, saying, “By not allowing the question, he’s sort of confirming to the public who it is. I have no idea who it is.”

After footage of Paul’s floor speech was uploaded to YouTube, the video platform deleted the clip.

A YouTube spokesperson announced, “Videos, comments, and other forms of content that mention the leaked whistleblower’s name violate YouTube’s Community Guidelines and will be removed from YouTube.”

Don’t worry though, YouTube isn’t singling out Sen. Paul, spokesperson Ivy Choi also bragged, “We’ve removed hundreds of videos and over ten thousand comments that contained the name. Video uploaders have the option to edit their videos to exclude the name and reupload.”

Paul responded to the YouTube decision, telling Politico, “It is a chilling and disturbing day in America when giant web companies such as YouTube decide to censure speech,” adding, “Now, even protected speech, such as that of a senator on the Senate floor, can be blocked from getting to the American people.”

Continuing, Sen. Paul explained, “This is dangerous and politically biased. Nowhere in my speech did I accuse anyone of being a whistleblower, nor do I know the whistleblower’s identity.”


The censored question Paul asked was, “Manager Schiff and counsel for the #president, are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella when at the National Security Council together, and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?”

Sen. Paul discussed the matter on Fox News:

Dunce’s cap for Russiagate coverage should go to CNN (by George Galloway)

Screen Shot 2019-07-17 at 10.54.21 AM

If there was a dunce’s cap awarded to the most gullible – or worse, complicit – news outfit in the whole ‘Russiagate’ affair, it would surely go to CNN.

The small consolation is that its ratings have plummeted in direct proportion to its fake news agenda. Unless trapped in a hotel room in Ulan Bator and having already read the Gideon’s Bible, nobody in their right mind goes looking for CNN.

However, other media do, of course, amplify their prevailing narrative. This is that the Democratic Party didn’t lose because they chose the only person in America who could possibly lose to Donald Trump, but because a bearded man with snow on his boots smelling of vodka and speaking with a thick Russian accent fooled everyone into voting for the GOP. And where no such man can be identified, then a Western cipher can be demonized as his proxy.

Screen Shot 2019-07-17 at 10.56.43 AM

So unhinged has CNN – the last hold-out of the Russiagaters – become that they have now piled new levels of ordure on the political prisoner Julian Assange in a much touted “Special,” heaping speculation upon speculation on what they hope is the coffin of a man they once lionized.

Because, dear readers, in a now-forgotten coincidence, it was CNN that in a way brought Julian Assange into the public limelight. They interviewed him a number of times, including once in 2010, when they sent their team to showcase the then-pale-blonde ascetic wonderkid of the whistleblowing business. That was way before RT had aired Assange’s show ‘The World Tomorrow’ – because that suited CNN’s agenda then, in the way that burying him does now.

Full disclosure: Julian Assange is a friend of mine and so opportunists seeking his crucifixion to serve an anti-Trump agenda cut no ice with me. Furthermore, I work for RT, and know personally the fine broadcasting professionals traduced in a disgraceful way by the CNN “Special.”

Julian Assange was hiding in plain sight by having his own show on RT. That’s how espionage works nowadays in the fevered minds of CNN. And he appeared on news shows throughout the world – any one of which could have “passed him a USB drive” when they went into the Ecuador Embassy to film him. He even appeared on my show on TalkRadio, whose proprietor could of course be a (deep) undercover Russian agent.

The fatal flaw in all of this, of course, is that the DNC computers were never hacked in the first place, not by a “master-hacker” or even a schoolboy in his bedroom. That’s why their servers were never examined by the FBI, Mueller or anybody else wearing any kind of official badge.

Screen Shot 2019-07-17 at 11.00.44 AM

The scandalous behavior – including CNN’s own (now Fox) contributor Donna Brazile – through which the Democratic Party rigged their own Primary process to defeat Bernie Sanders and procure the coronation of the aforementioned Mrs Clinton was not hacked but leaked. Not by Russians but by Americans. Not by RT but by Democratic Party insiders, disgusted as they should have been at the shameless Tammany Hall shenanigans going on in their party.

The real target of fading, failing, flailing CNN was not Julian Assange but Donald Trump. His administration is currently trying to incarcerate Assange in the gulags of the US injustice system for the crime of publishing the truth. That’s the real scandal.



Tucker: Real Collusion Is Between Media And Democratic Party

Carlson opened Wednesday night’s edition of his show with a “story about collusion, actual collusion that’s currently” taking place “in the open on live television.”

Chris Menahan | Information Liberation – MARCH 28, 2019

Tucker Carlson argued Wednesday that the media shifted from the Russiagate hoax to talking about “healthcare” by taking cues from Democratic Party leader Nancy Pelosi.

From The Daily Caller:

Fox News host Tucker Carlson contended that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi successfully changed the coverage agenda at CNN from the Mueller report to health care.

Carlson opened Wednesday night’s edition of his show with a “story about collusion, actual collusion that’s currently” taking place “in the open on live television.”

“This is a story about where your news comes from,” he said.

[…]“Something had to be done,” Carlson said. “So into this disaster stepped the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. On Monday, just hours after the collusion story collapsed, Pelosi announced that the Democratic Party would be switching gears. Going forward, Democrats would focus intently on health care, just like she disingenuously claimed they always have.”

What Tucker said about both networks talking about “healthcare” during his monologue a little after 8PM EST was entirely true:


Not A Single Senate Democrat Votes "For" Green New Deal

Instead of voicing their support for the most ludicrous proposal in socialist history, 43 Democrats decided to take the easy way out

By Tyler Durden

How embarrassing is the green new deal?

So embarrassing that when Senate majority leader McConnell tried to force the Democratic party’s presidential contenders into an embarrassing vote over the berserk, MMT-inducing climate-change proposal (which Republicans are confident that even sober liberal will oppose), not a single Democrat voted for it. Instead, in the vote which was blocked late on Tuesday with a vote of 0-57, 43 Democrats voted merely “present”, including the Senate’s half-dozen presidential candidates, to sidestep the GOP maneuver and, as Bloomberg put it, “buy time to build their campaign positions.”

The vote was the first of many attempts by Republicans to force (socialist, MMT) supporters of the Green New Deal to come into the spotlight and suffer the public scrutiny. The proposal – mostly a collection of goals for mitigating climate change rather than a fully formed plan of action – which according to some would cost north of $100 trillion and would require the launch of helicopter money, also known as “MMT”, has been a favorite target for criticism by McConnell and Republicans ever since freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts rolled it out in February.

“I could not be more glad that the American people will have the opportunity to learn precisely where each one of their senators stand on this radical, top-down, socialist makeover of the entire U.S. economy, McConnell said before the vote.

Alas, that opportunity was denied because instead of voicing their support for the most ludicrous proposal in socialist history, 43 Democrats decided to take the easy way out.

Even the six Democratic presidential contenders, including Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, all voted present.

At this point, the candidates for the Democratic nomination generally haven’t spelled out specific proposals. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey has called the Green New Deal “bold,” and Senator Kamala Harris of California has said it’s “an investment” worth the cost. Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota described it somewhat less enthusiastically, as an “aspiration” to act on climate change.

Fresh off what has been dubbed the best day in Trump’s presidency, on Tuesday Trump, no longer the subject of Russia collusion conspiracy theories, met with Senate Republicans at the Capitol, and according to Lindsey Graham the president told them regarding the Green New Deal, “make sure you don’t kill it too much because I want to run against it” in 2020.

Well, so far so good. In an attempt to save face with progressives, Adam Green, a co-founder of the grassroots Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said McConnell was trying to force some “no” votes at a time when Democrats are still reviewing the plan. Voting “present” shows that Democrats aren’t going to hamper things with an early dissent, he said.

While the “present” votes were to be expected, what came as a surprise is that three Democrats voted with Republicans against the resolution including Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Doug Jones of Alabama, who faces a tough re-election campaign next year in a deep-red state. Independent Angus King of Maine, a member of the Democratic caucus, also voted against the measure.

The challenge for Democrats looking ahead to next year’s campaigns is to avoid having their support for a still-evolving climate proposal tarred by Republican efforts to portray it as an extremist agenda that would do away with hamburgers and airplane travel.

“It’s one thing to be on the campaign trail and say here is what I believe in and fill in the details,” said Democratic strategist Rodell Mollineau, who was a top aide to former Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. “It’s another thing to go on record and let other people fill in the details for you.”

As Bloomberg notes, “the Green New Deal has more than 100 congressional Democrats as co-sponsors, including the six senators running for president. While Democrats are united on the need for significant action to stem climate change, they don’t agree on specific proposals.” As a result, McConnell introduced his own version, drawing on the language of the Democratic measure.

Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer tried to shield Democrats from having to expose splits between moderates and progressives on the issue. He dismissed the vote as “gotcha politics” intended by Republicans to distract from the fact that they don’t have their own plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

“Republicans want to force this political stunt to distract from the fact that they neither have a plan nor a sense of urgency to deal with the threat of climate change,” he said.

Following tonight’s Senate vote, Democrats plan to introduce a resolution in the House this week that calls for the U.S. to remain part of the Paris Climate Accord and requires the Trump administration to create a plan to meet its emission reduction goal, according to a senior Democratic aide. As a reminder, in 2017 Trump announced that he intends to pull out of the Paris agreement, under which the U.S. pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

While Senate Democrats weren’t under any real pressure from outside progressive groups to vote for the Green New Deal at this point, they will be in due course.

Meanwhile, capitalizing on the ultra-liberal faction within the Democratic Party, the GOP’s message focuses on the botched February rollout of the proposal, which included the release of documents from Ocasio-Cortez’s office promising economic security even for those “unwilling to work,” and suggesting the eventual elimination of air travel and “farting cows.”

WATCH: Dem Presidential Candidate Julián Castro Favors ‘Reparations’ For Slavery, Though He’s Unsure How To Go About It


Julian Castro, former secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), listens as a volunteer speaks at the 'Navigating Recovery of the Lakes Region' organization in Laconia, New Hampshire, U.S., on Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2019.

On Sunday, democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” with Jake Tapper.

During the segment, Tapper spoke with Castro about the issue of reparations for descendants of slavery: “This is also dividing Democrats on the trail. You’ve said that there needs to be some kind of reparations to descendants of slaves to compensate for years of slavery and discrimination against African Americans in this country.”

Tapper then played a clip in which presidential rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) talks about Castro’s and Sen. Kamala Harris’ (D-CA) support for reparations:

What do they mean? I’m not sure anyone’s very clear. What I just said is that I think we must do everything that we can to address the massive level of disparity that exists in this country.

Tapper asked Castro: “So, what do you mean? Do you think that there should be actual monetary payments to descendants of slaves? Do support more like what Senator Sanders is talking about, policies such as child care and education that help those who are disadvantaged?”

Castro replied:

Well, you know, what I said was that I’ve long believed that this country should address slavery, the original sin of slavery, including by looking at reparations, and if I’m president, then I’m going to appoint a commission or task force to determine the best way to do that. There’s a tremendous amount of disagreement on how we would do that.

Castro then took a jab at Sanders, saying that he shouldn’t be arguing against an approach to reparations that might include “writing a big check” because that’s been the senator from Vermont’s position on health care and college tuition.

He concluded: “So, if under the Constitution, we compensate people because we take their property, why wouldn’t you compensate people who actually were property?”

The notion of somehow compensating the ancestors of American slaves has long been a topic of discussion among academics and political thinkers. However, the mechanics by which a reparations program would operate have challenged even the most diligent.

On an episode of “Point Taken” on PBS regarding reparations, libertarian commentator Kmele Foster stated bluntly: “I think the important things to consider are, who pays? How much do they pay? And who do they pay it to? These are impossibly difficult questions to actually reconcile and answer in a meaningful and just way.”

Even progressive author Ta-Nehisi Coates, in his 2014 thesis on “the case for reparations” published in The Atlantic, didn’t come to any conclusion as to how reparations should work, writing in part:

Perhaps no number can fully capture the multi-century plunder of black people in America. Perhaps the number is so large that it can’t be imagined, let alone calculated and dispensed. But I believe that wrestling publicly with these questions matters as much as—if not more than—the specific answers that might be produced. An America that asks what it owes its most vulnerable citizens is improved and humane. An America that looks away is ignoring not just the sins of the past but the sins of the present and the certain sins of the future. More important than any single check cut to any African American, the payment of reparations would represent America’s maturation out of the childhood myth of its innocence into a wisdom worthy of its founders.

Coates does refer to a bill from former Rep. John Conyers as the beginning of a potential solution: “A country curious about how reparations might actually work has an easy solution in [John] Conyers’s bill, now called HR 40, the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act. We would support this bill, submit the question to study, and then assess the possible solutions.”

Former President Obama even commented on the non-feasibility of a reparations program:

As a practical matter, it is hard to think of any society in human history in which a majority population has said that as a consequence of historic wrongs, we are now going to take a big chunk of the nation’s resources over a long period of time to make that right.

Instead, Obama pointed toward progressive redistributionist programs as a means of reparations:

[I am] not so optimistic as to think you would ever be able to garner a majority of the American Congress that would make those kinds of investments above and beyond the kind of investments that could be made in a progressive program for lifting up all people.

As the Democratic presidential candidates gear up for a contentious primary season, they should be prepared to answer questions about reparations. With Julián Castro, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren already promoting the issue, it’s unlikely that it will fade silently into the night.


THE SWAMP In Age of Trump, Democrats Claim It’s Anti-Semitic to Expose Money in Politics

By Shane Trejo

A favorite bogeyman of the Democratic Party throughout the years has been “money in politics” hurting our electoral integrity.

The whining reached a fever pitch after the Supreme Court reached a decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which supposedly stacked the deck for Republican fat cats to purchase US politics wholesale.

In the age of President Donald Trump, everything has flipped on its head. Democrats have lost their marbles and with it, all principles they used to hold dear have gone out the window.

These maniacal liberals are now more than happy to take dirty billionaire money if they think it might help stop Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda.

Trending: EXCLUSIVE: Virginia Democrat Party Communications Director Calls Black Conservatives ‘An Embarrassment To America,’ Urges Them To Leave Virginia

House Freedom Caucus founder Jim Jordan (R-OH) was called “inane AND anti-Semitic” by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-CT) for issuing the following tweet pointing out the fact that Nadler was aggressively lobbied to push for impeachment by ‘Never Trump’ billionaire Tom Steyer:


Nadler said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday that he plans to use his authority to harass Donald Trump Jr. as well as Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg.

“We are going to initiate investigations into abuses of power, into corruption … and into obstruction of justice,” Nadler said. “It’s our job to protect the rule of law.

“It’s very clear that the president obstructed justice,” Nadler added.

The newest liberal scheme is to call any criticism of billionaire leftist paymasters an anti-Semitic trope regardless of whether the accusations are true or not.

Republicans have been maligned in this despicable manner for pointing out the activism of not only Steyer but also billionaire oligarchs Michael Bloomberg and George Soros.

Data compiled by shows that Steyer, Bloomberg and Soros were each within the top ten overall donors during the 2018 election cycle, giving nearly $200 million dollars to solely Democratic candidates.

While Democrats like to invent fake anti-Semitism to get people’s eyes off of who is funding them, they permit literal anti-Semitism to foment within their own ranks in the name of multiculturalism and diversity.


The Democrats are the party of radical Muslim anti-Semites, and the likes of Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) will make that abundantly clear in the years to come.


Former Dem Comms Director Arrested For Child Porn

National media silent as another Dem embroiled in scandal

Big League Politics – DECEMBER 7, 2018

The former communications director for the Arkansas Democrat Party was arrested and charged with several crimes related to possessing and distributing child pornography in late November.

“A federal investigation into certain online child exploitation chatrooms has resulted in the arrest of Harold “HL” Moody, Jr.,” said a Justice Department press release. “According to the complaint affidavit, on August 29, 2018, Moody was present in a chatroom when child pornography was being displayed. Agents observed Moody in the chatroom, via his webcam. Moody’s face was clearly visible and the undercover agent observed what appeared to be an office setting in the background.”

The story has received zero attention from the mainstream press, but according to Arkansas OnlineMoody was a Democratic Party employee just two years ago.

“He was hired by [Pulaski County] after a year-and-a-half stint as communications director for the Democratic Party of Arkansas,” the report said. “Before that, he had been chairman of the Pulaski County Democratic Party for two years.”

Trending: SNAP: Watch as Grandfather Lets Loose on Teacher Who Made Grandson Wear Dress

According to the Justice Department statement, Moody not only viewed, but distributed child pornography.

“On September 7, 2018, Moody was again visible on camera and observed in the chatroom actually distributing child pornography,” the report said. “Among the images that Moody distributed was a video that depicted a nude, adult, male performing oral sex on two nude, pre-pubescent males.”

Two days later he was doing the same thing, according to the release.

Federal agents also found methamphetamine in Moody’s home.

Moody is currently being held without bail while he awaits a “tentatively scheduled” January trial. Due to the serious nature of the charges and length of potential punishment, he reportedly posed a flight risk.

“Distribution of child pornography carries a penalty of not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years imprisonment, not less than 5 years to life of supervised release, and a fine of up to $250,000. Possession of child pornography carries a penalty of not more than 10 years imprisonment, not less than 5 years to life of supervised release, and a fine of up to $250,000,” the Justice Department release said.


Blog at

Up ↑