By Mark Dice
Published on Aug 13, 2019
MUST WATCH: CNN’s Chris Cuomo GOES BALLISTIC After Being Called ‘Fredo’
This fake news anchor is unhinged.
By Shane Trejo
CNN Anchor Christopher Cuomo, little brother of Democrat New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, lost his marbles after a conservative heckled the fake news anchor by calling him “Fredo,” comparing him to the bumbling, disloyal Corleone in “The Godfather” who ultimately slept with the fishes.
Cuomo’s violent, threatening rant to a group of conservatives can be seen in its entirety here:
While Cuomo may get enraged over being called Fredo, he has allowed that exact same insult to be used on his own show in reference to Donald Trump Jr.
Other CNN commentators, such as ‘Never Trump’ phony conservative Rick Wilson, have used the Fredo jab on the network as well. It is rather surprising how is allowed so frequently on CNN, considering that Cuomo claims “it’s like the N-word” for his people.
In an odd twist to the story, the video of Cuomo losing his mind – which is now going viral – was published on the birthday of the late John Cazale, the actor who portrayed Fredo in “The Godfather” and “Godfather, Part Two.”
This is not the first time that Cuomo has issued mean-spirited and violent attacks against his political opponents. He once attacked a rape survivor who displayed her message of empowerment because of her support for the 2nd Amendment.
Cuomo has also defended the left-wing domestic terror collective known as ANTIFA, who have repeatedly attacked unarmed people such as journalist Andy Ngo in the streets, claiming that their ambush attacks are justified.
“People who show up to fight against bigots are not to be judged the same as the bigots even if they do resort to the same kinds of petty violence,” Cuomo said last year.
As the fake news minions continue to get humiliated day in and day out by President Trump, they are likely to continue showing their true colors and further destroying their credibility. The heat is clearly getting to Cuomo, and he is now a national laughingstock as a result.
Facebook ‘News’: A bold step toward total control of reality?
By Helen Buyniski
Facebook‘s plan to hook ad-cash-deprived mainstream outlets on licensing payouts seems to be an attempt to hijack narrative control en route to total domination of the infosphere – the ultimate safe space, Zuckerberg-style.
More than two thirds of American adults get their news from social media at the same time that more than half expectthat news to be “largely inaccurate.” Perhaps sensing a business opportunity, Facebook has moved in to manage that news consumption, reportedly offering mainstream outlets millions of dollars per year to license their content in order to present it to users authoritatively, as “Facebook News” – having long since ceased trusting users to share news among themselves.
But trusting Facebook to deliver the news is like trusting a cheetah to babysit your gazelles – all that’s left at the end is likely to be a pile of bones. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg warned legacy media last year that if they did not work with his plan to “revitalize journalism,” they would be left dying “like in a hospice.”
An offer they can’t refuse? Facebook offers mainstream news millions in licensing fees
Dangling a few million in front of news outlets after depriving them of the advertising cash on which they once subsisted is merely the final step in the process of consolidation and control that began when Facebook removed actual news from its newsfeed in an effort to manage the narrative in the run-up to the 2016 election. A move ostensibly designed to “favor friends and family over publishers,” it instead plunged mainstream and especially alternative media into financial oblivion, setting them scrambling to recoup lost traffic as their place in subscribers’ feeds was taken by cat videos and family snapshots.
Alternative media were further marginalized after Zuckerberg inked a deal with the Atlantic Council – NATO‘s narrative-managers whose board is populated by some of the most notorious warmongers of recent history – who arrived to set the platform straight after it failed to deliver the 2016 election to Hillary Clinton. The group would ensure Facebook played a “positive role” in democracy in the future, a press release promised. Six months later, hundreds of popular political pages had been purged for getting in the way of the Atlantic Council’s version of “democracy.” Several more purges followed, many pages getting the axe for nothing more than espousing views “favorable to Iran’s national interests” or posting content with “anti-Saudi, anti-Israeli, and pro-Palestinian themes.”
Zuckerberg has never hidden his desire to see Facebook become an internet driver’s license, and he has no doubt watched gleefully as French President Emmanuel Macron‘s government weighs requiring citizens to turn over actual identity documents in order to sign up to use Facebook. The platform was the first to adopt an intelligence-agency-friendly “real name policy,” irritating political activists, performers, and others who prefer not to have their social media activity follow them around in real life.
Privacy advocates are currently up in arms over the FBI’s recently-revealed plans to monitor social media platforms in real time. Combined with the recently leaked FBI decision to label all “conspiracy theorists” as potentially-dangerous domestic extremists, this looks an awful lot like a manufactured rationale to spy on the majority of the US population. Yet Facebook has been feeding users’ data to the government for over a decade. It joined the NSA’s PRISM program in 2009, providing the agency with its own convenient backdoor for slurping up the data others have had to hack themselves. Not that that’s been very hard – Facebook admitted last year that data on “most” of its users has been compromised at some point by “malicious actors.”
Facebook’s decision to hire one of the co-authors of the notorious PATRIOT Act as General Counsel earlier this year was touted as a move that would help the company “fulfill its mission.” Which would be what, exactly?
Despite its egregious privacy record, the areas of reality outside Zuckerberg’s control are dwindling rapidly. With the rollout of Facebook’s Libra coin, commerce, too, is falling under the shadow of this menacingly bland figure.
When Zuckerberg was photographed traveling through Middle America several years ago, many pointed out it looked like he was running for president. His announcement around the same time that he had found religion – a vague, made-for-TV, feel-good faith guaranteed not to antagonize anyone – also had the feel of a campaign move. If Facebook – and Zuckerberg’s – history is any guide, he has bigger things in mind for Facebook News than a new tab on the user interface. Every campaign needs a press office, after all…
It doesn’t take a tin-foil hat to smell a rat in Epstein’s ‘way too convenient’ death
By Neil Clark
The death of disgraced financier, pedophile and alleged blackmailer Jeffrey Epstein came just a day after more court documents were unsealed, leading to speculation he may have been “suicided” to stop his case from going to trial.
On Saturday morning, I was discussing Jeffrey Epstein with a friend. “He’ll be bumped off and found dead in his cell,”was my friend’s prediction. “It won’t come to court.”
A few hours later, I went on Twitter to see what was happening in the world and I saw #EpsteinMurder trending.
The whole thing was quite uncanny.
Let’s be honest: has there been a death of a high-profile prisoner whose expiration has been so unsurprising?
Suicide (non-)watch: What we know about Jeffrey Epstein’s death…and what we don’t
Anyone claiming this time last week that Epstein wouldn’t make it to trial because too many very rich and very important people would be dragged in would of course have been dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist.”
But this morning, it’s the “don’t be so stupid, of course he’ll make it to the courtroom” brigade who are looking rather silly – and you could also argue, quite naive.
If this means we get more open discussion on “conspiracy theories,” it can only be a good thing. Here’s why. When it comes to conspiracy theories, there are three types of people. There are well-paid, establishment gatekeepers who routinely use the CT term to gaslight people and close down legitimate debate. At the same time, these gatekeepers are themselves often the biggest pushers of conspiracy theories – but only when it comes to “official enemies.” Let’s not forget that the deadliest conspiracy theory of this century so far was the one suggesting that Iraq possessed WMDs in 2003. It was, by and large, peddled by those who routinely scoff at conspiracy theorists and label them“cranks.” The same people are also very quick to blame Russia for just about everything, regardless of the lack of hard evidence.
The second category are those who seem to believe everything – or at least almost everything – is a conspiracy. The Moon landings were faked. Elvis never died. Sandy Hook never happened. Every terrorist attack is a “false-flag.” I was once accused by someone at a public meeting of being a member of ‘Agenda 21.’ The fact that I didn’t know what she was on about was proof that I was really an ‘Agenda 21 agent.’
The third category – and this is where surely all sensible people are – accept that while not everything is a conspiracy, it’s actually quite daft to think conspiracies never occur, especially when people involved are very wealthy and very powerful and the stakes are extremely high.
Put another way, did you really think, deep down, given who he was, the people who he was associated with – and the nature of the allegations – that Epstein’s case would ever get to court? Be honest. I’d reckon about 90 percent, even though they might not publicly admit it, would entertain serious doubts.
You really don’t have to be overly suspicious – or be a permanent tin-foil hat wearer to smell a rat in this one.
If, as was reported, Epstein did try to kill himself about three weeks ago, why was he taken off suicide watch just six days later? Who made that seemingly baffling decision? If he was still on suicide watch – and the source cited in the New York Times was wrong, why wasn’t his death prevented?
These are only a few of the many questions that need to be answered. What is particularly interesting is the kind of people demanding answers. It’s not just the “usual” suspects who are routinely labeled cranks by the gatekeepers. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has called Epstein’s death “way too convenient.”
“How many other millionaires and billionaires were part of the illegal activities that he was engaged in?” he asked. Even the BBC website has as its heading of a news story today “Jeffrey Epstein: Questions raised over financier’s death.”
The FBI is investigating the case and who knows, we may get some answers. Perhaps Epstein did after all, kill himself – prisoners facing the prospect of 45 years in jail are quite likely to be depressed; moreover the sociopathic billionaire might even have relished evading justice and depriving his accusers of their days in court. But until more evidence of his suicide comes to light, (and we really do need to see some camera footage), it is reasonable to think that some other explanation is, on balance, more likely.
Taking that line doesn’t make you barmy – just someone who very sensibly breaks with the binary when it comes to“conspiracy theories.”
BREAKING: They Aren’t Even Trying To Hide It Anymore!!!
By WeAreChange
Published on Aug 10, 2019
WOW! Joe Scarborough and Liberal Cranks and Conspiracy Nuts Blame RUSSIA after Epstein is Found Dead in Prison Cell
By Jim Hoft – August 10, 2019
ABC 7 says he died by SUICIDE!
The 66-year-old financier was hospitalized in July after he was found unresponsive in what appeared to be a possible suicide attempt.
In July Epstein was found injured and in a fetal position inside his cell at a New York City jail,
He was reportedly put under suicide watch.
On Saturday he reportedly hanged himself.
This came the DAY AFTER several top Democrats including Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Governor Bill Richardson were implicated in unsealed Epstein court documents.
Within an hour #ClintonBodyCount was trending on Twitter.
But the liberal mainstream media is pushing another conspiracy.
IT WAS RUSSIA!!
Joe Scarborough…
Russia offed Jeffrey Epstein to assist Donald Trump!
Seth Abramson…
MSNBC’S JASON JOHNSON SAYS TUCKER CARLSON “BASICALLY SUPPORTS TERRORISM” – (THIS IS WHY THEY WANT OUR GUNS AMERICA!)
Commentator truly jumps the shark.
By Paul Joseph Watson – AUGUST 9, 2019,
MSNBC regular Jason Johnson claimed that Fox News host Tucker Carlson “basically supports terrorism” during an appearance on Chris Hayes’ show last night.
Carlson has been under fire since he asserted earlier this week that America faces much bigger problems than “white supremacy.”
This angered Johnson, who brazenly suggested that Carlson supports the kind of domestic terrorism exemplified by the El Paso mass shooting.
“For the rest of news the media system, for everybody everybody else who is talking about it, we have to now frame this is as this is someone who basically supports terrorism,” said Johnson.
Johnson’s assertion that Tucker supports political violence is also rich given that he previously justified Antifa violence against police by claiming they were a protection force for white nationalists.
“I see Tucker Carlson as a guy who has repeatedly failed in television,” Johnson also remarked, an odd comment given that Carlson’s show routinely competes with Hannity’s Fox News show for the number one cable news broadcast in America.
The Left Doubles Down on White Supremacy
Published on Aug 8, 2019
Mainstream Media and Democrats have doubled down on the white supremacy narrative and it doesn’t look like they’re going to stop.
(THIS IS WHY THEY WANT YOUR GUNS AMERICA!) – SICK FILM SHOWS LIBERAL ELITES HUNTING DOWN, MURDERING TRUMP SUPPORTERS
Hollywood fantasizes about killing conservatives so much they made a movie about it
By Jamie White
Hollywood produced an upcoming film about liberal elites systematically hunting down and killing Trump supporters in a mass civil war purge.
The Hunt, set for release on September 27, depicts a group of left-wing elites stalking a dozen “Deplorables” for sport.
“Did anyone see what our ratfucker-in-chief just did?” one liberal character asks in the trailer.
Another left-winger responds: “At least The Hunt’s coming up. Nothing better than going out to the Manor and slaughtering a dozen Deplorables.”
The film also depicts Trump supporters as uneducated, racist hillbillies.
“The script for The Hunt features the red-state characters wearing trucker hats and cowboy shirts, with one bragging about owning seven guns because it’s his constitutional right,” wroteThe Hollywood Reporter Tuesday.
“The blue-state characters — some equally adept with firearms — explain that they picked their targets because they expressed anti-choice positions or used the N-word on Twitter. ‘War is war,’ says one character after shoving a stiletto heel through the eye of a denim-clad hillbilly.”
The poor timing of the trailer’s release prompted several outlets to pull ads for the film in the wake of two recent shootings by right-wing and left-wing gunmen in El Paso and Dayton.
Breitbart Editor-at-Large John Nolte said the film may appear to be hardcore leftist fantasy, but the Trump supporters may actually be the protagonists.
“At first glance, the movie looks like murder-porn for leftists — wish fulfillment when it comes to killing we deplorables,” Nolte wrote Wednesday.
“The trailer, though, actually makes it look as though the deplorables are the heroes-victims, though I’m sure it will be a bit more complicated than that.”
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), who was nearly killed by a pro-Bernie Sanders gunman in 2017, took to social media Tuesday to remind Americans that people shouldn’t be “targeted for their political views,” after Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) doxxed over a dozen Trump-supporting businesses on Twitter.
“People should not be personally targeted for their political views. Period,” Scalise tweeted.
“This isn’t a game. It’s dangerous, and lives are at stake. I know this firsthand.”
2019 DATA SHOWS 51% OF MASS SHOOTERS WERE BLACK, ONLY 29% WERE WHITE
When gang-related shootings are included, white people are underrepresented.
AUGUST 7, 2019
Data from Mass Shooting Tracker, a source widely used by the media, reveals that 51% of mass shooters in 2019 were black, 29% were white, and 11% were Latino, contradicting the media narrative that white people are overrepresented in mass shootings.
Investigative journalist Daniel Greenfield gathered the crucial data which confirms that mass shootings are not a “white man’s” problem.
He points out that while blanket media attention was focused on the shootings in El Paso and Dayton, 60 people were shot in Chicago over the weekend while Baltimore just reached its 200th murder victim of the year.
Greenfield then quotes Rep. Ilhan Omar, CNN’s Don Lemon and Newsweek, who have all claimed that white people are the biggest mass shooter threat and have carried out more mass shootings than any other group.
But that doesn’t appear to be the case for 2019.
“Looking at the data from the Mass Shooting Tracker, widely utilized by the media, as of this writing, of the 72 mass shooters, perpetrators in shootings that killed or wounded 4 or more people, whose race is known, 21 were white, 37 were black, 8 were Latino, and 6 were members of other groups,” writes Greenfield
“51% of mass shooters in 2019 were black, 29% were white, and 11% were Latino. Three mass shooters were Asian, two were American Indian and one was Arab.”
Many mass shootings in predominantly black areas that claimed black victims also remain unsolved, meaning the figures are if anything “vastly understated.”
The white population of the U.S. is around 61 per cent, African-Americans make up just shy of 13 per cent and Hispanics around 18 per cent.
Most mass shootings (where there are 4 or more victims) are gang-related shootings. By excising these shootings from the record, the media is able to pin the blame on white people.
Separate stats compiled by Statista of mass shootings between 1982 and August 2019 in the United States show that mass shootings by ethnicity and race are broadly in line with demographics, meaning white people are not overrepresented as mass shooters.
There are “no clear patterns between the socio-economic or cultural background of mass shooters,” according to Statista.
None of this matters of course because facts stopped being important years ago and everything is based on narrative and emotion.
Tom's Blog 