Trump Signals Major Political Offensive As He Solidifies His Control Over Government

till

President Donald Trump foreshadowed a potential major offensive against his enemies as he purged his government of malcontents and traitors, in a major shakeup that signaled an escalation in hostilities.

Trump fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Under Secretary Steven Goldstein on Tuesday, citing fundamental differences between the Texan and the President on a whole host of issues, including the Iran deal, the Paris climate accord, refugee resettlement, North Korea, and many others. Media reports also claimed that Tillerson had called the president a “moron” and had been working behind the scenes to foil or obstruct his agenda.

Tillerson’s chief of staff Margaret Peterlin and deputy chief of staff Christine Ciccone resigned the same day as well. Tillerson’s aide Brian Hook remains as Director of Policy Planning, although it is highly likely that he too will soon be terminated.

Trump’s replacement was CIA Director Mike Pompeo, a West Point graduate and highly decorated former congressman. Nominated to lead the CIA was Gina Haspel. The NYT, a propaganda organ for the Democrat Party, immediately launched a campaign to discredit her and kill her confirmation by the Senate.

The broader picture appeared to be a consolidation by President Trump, and a solidifying of control by him over the various pieces of the machinery of government. It also appeared to signal an escalation in the relationship with Iran. While Tillerson saw no problem with the Obama-Iran deal promoted by Ben “Echo Chamber” Rhodes, Pompeo’s thinking was more in line with President Trump’s, who views it as “disastrous” and “one of the worst in history”. The move appears to foreshadow a tearing up of the deal and increased pressure against Iran, perhaps in the form of sanctions.

The recent moves also appeared to portend a long-awaited purge of the State Department and the Obama-Clinton appointees who still inhabit its’ halls. While most anticipated a cleaning house process to take place immediately after Inauguration, Tillerson did very little to fire or re-assign personnel. It remains to be seen if a large-scale re-organization or purging of Democrat operatives will commence under Pompeo’s leadership.

Media reports also predicted the firing of VA Secretary David Shulkin and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster.

A rally in Pennsylvania for defeated candidate Rick Saccone showcased an exuberant, almost giddy Donald Trump, leading many to speculate that he knew something that some didn’t.

The Department of Justice Inspector General’s 14-month long report on the FBI’s handling of the Clinton Email investigation is anticipated to be released any week now.

Secretary Pompeo is slated to begin his deconstruction of the State Department almost immediately.

A meeting with the hermit dictatorship of North Korea is planned for March, when all eyes will be on President Donald Trump.

A new front is expected to emerge in the administration’s war on Iran, with possible deal nullification or sanctions reportedly on the table. Noted Twitter pundit Thomas Wictor predicted a populist Iranian revolution occurring shortly, aided by Saudi Arabia, and tacitly supported by the United States.

Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum also suggest the opening of a broader trade war that many had hoped for. The news that he was suggesting additional tariffs on $30 billion worth of Chinese goods would seem to confirm that thesis. Major decisions regarding NAFTA will also have to be made soon.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has a momentous decision to make within the next 2 days as to whether he should fire notoriously corrupt deputy director Andrew McCabe and deprive him of hundreds of thousands of US dollars. Both the decision to fire and the decision to abstain are guaranteed to provoke strong reactions.

And Republicans are threatening to sue over “irregularities” in the Pennsylvania election amid reports of “vote-flipping” by voting machines. Coincidentally, an 8chan anon predicted this exact scenario would happen, leading to a large-scale scandal on election fraud committed by the Democrats:

Regardless of how March and April turn out, President Trump has set the stage for some major changes, both in his administration, in the country, and in the world. North Korea, Iran, the executive branch, and the investigation into Obama operative criminality are all guaranteed to play a major, major role. It should definitely not be dull.

Advertisements

Katy Perry’s Sexual Assault Of A Young Oklahoma Boy Is Yet Another Unfortunate Example Of Female Liberal Privilege

14idol-combo-superJumbo

When a young boy from Oklahoma showed up at American Idol to audition, he certainly wasn’t expecting to be sexually assaulted by one of the judges, or to have his bodily autonomy forcibly violated by someone who claims to respect human rights.

But that’s exactly what happened when Benjamin Glaze, a 19-year old from Oklahoma, entered the audition room for his chance at stardom.

Katy Perry, an aging has-been singer who is 14 years older than Glaze, decided to bless the young man with her unwanted sexual advances. Ordering an already-uncomfortable young Glaze to kiss her on the cheek, Perry suddenly turned and subjected Glaze to an aggressive, violating kiss on the mouth.

Glaze recoiled and was visibly upset at the involuntary theft of his purity:

“I was a tad bit uncomfortable,” Mr. Glaze said by phone this week, after the incident aired on the season premiere. His first kiss was a rite of passage he had been putting off with consideration. “I wanted to save it for my first relationship,” he said. “I wanted it to be special.” – New York Times

It is unclear if the young man will press charges. The public is understandably enraged at the singer and is calling for her to be fired from the show. It remains to be seen if Fox Entertainment will take a firm stand against sexual assault.

The saga merely underscores the unfortunate prevalence of female liberal privilege in contemporary society, and how important it is to call it out when it occurs. Katy Perry must acknowledge her privilege, and apologize for thinking it was okay to foist her unwanted embrace on young Benjamin Glaze.

Liberal privilege is the ability to engage in actions that would normally be condemned by society, yet because of liberal control of the media/education/entertainment industries, the beneficiary of liberal privilege suffers virtually no consequence or a far less severe punishment.

Living in a system of liberal supremacy, those with high positions within the progressive hierarchy enjoy privileges unavailable to the common citizenry. As a consequence, incidents of liberal privilege occur with almost shocking and repulsive frequency.

The ability of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to openly commit crimes with regards to the handling of classified information, yet suffer virtually no consequences, is another example of female, liberal privilege.

The ability of the geriatric singer Madonna to openly threaten the assassination of the sitting President of the United States, yet suffer no criminal charges, is another example of liberal privilege.

Liberal privilege exists because of the iron control exerted by liberal coalitions over the power institutions of media, entertainment, and education that often act as the arbiters of acceptable behavior in society. Many times, this privilege is used tactically or strategically for political benefit, in order to push hate speech into the social conversation without suffering the consequences.

Conservatives have remained largely silent on the structural competitive disadvantage afforded them by liberal privilege, and what plan, if any, they have in place to retake control of the power institutions.

The scourge of liberal privilege, in all its’ many manifestations, will no doubt continue to inflict pain on American society until it is irrevocably uprooted and extinguished.

 

Protectionism Is A Good Thing And Has Been The Historic Position Of America & The Republican Party

A simple look at history tells us that not only is economic protectionism a good thing for America, but that it has been the historic position of the Republican & Whig Party, going all the way back to the Founders of the nation.

They believed that political independence could only be built upon economic independence, and that domestic industries must be protected from foreign competition, so that they could be nurtured and grown.

U.S. Trade Balance – Past 120 Years

U.S._Trade_Balance_(1895–2015)_and_Trade_Policies

George Washington signed the Tariff Act of 1789, making it the Republic’s second ever piece of legislation.

He believed that in order to be free, a nation needed to have its’ own industry:

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies…

Alexander Hamilton believed that “despite an initial “increase of price” caused by regulations that control foreign competition, once a “domestic manufacture has attained to perfection… it invariably becomes cheaper.”

Alexander Hamilton’s system of instituting industry protections, tariffs, and other protective walls around American industry came to be known as “the American System“, and was further developed long after him by Henry Clay and US President Abraham Lincoln, during the period between the 1860’s and the 1940’s, “when the US became the planet’s leading manufacturing economy behind a high wall of tariffs”.

Abraham Lincoln stated that protectionism was superior to free trade because the money spent  on products remained inside the country instead of flowing out of the nation:

I do not know much… but I know this… when we buy manufactured goods abroad, we get the goods and the foreigner gets the money.  When we buy the manufactured goods at home, we get both the goods and the money.

President Teddy Roosevelt believed that protectionism directly caused economic prosperity:

“The country has acquiesced in the wisdom of the protective-tariff principle. It is exceedingly undesirable that this system should be destroyed or that there should be violent and radical changes therein. Our past experience shows that great prosperity in this country has always come under a protective tariff.

President Mckinley said protectionism was the “law of nature”, securing the “best destiny” of man:

“Under free trade, the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man.”

While some disingenuous traitors claim that America only implemented tariffs to generate revenue and not to protect industry, in reality the opposite is true.

While it is true that tariffs were an important source of revenue in the early years of the Republic, as can be seen from the quotes above, the Founding Fathers believed in protecting domestic industries as a matter of principle, not simply for its’ revenue-generating capabilities.

George Washington advocated protectionism for independence, not for generating revenue.

Abraham Lincoln advocated protectionism for retaining capital domestically and not allowing it to leave the nation.

William McKinley promoted protectionism because he believed free trade was a form of slavery.

Roosevelt recommended protectionism in order to achieve prosperity, not to raise money.

George Washington was a protectionist. Alexander Hamilton was a protectionist. Abraham Lincoln was a protectionist. Teddy Roosevelt was a protectionist. William McKinley was a protectionist.

President Donald Trump is simply following in the path of the original patriots of this great nation. He is returning us to the principles that made us great.

The history of America is a history of building and maintaining an economic wall around the nation’s industry. The past 50 years of breaking down those walls is an anomaly and a veering off of our original path.

There are several major benefits to protecting domestic industry with import quotas, tariffs, and barriers to foreign entry:

  • Capital remains inside the nation, and continues to circulate, with multiplier effects
  • Capital spent on goods flows to American companies and American workers, enriching them, instead of foreign companies and foreign workers
  • Domestic industrial companies remain strong and virile in the event of a national emergency or war
  • Quality control is much more tightly controlled and overseen by US government

Some of the initial tariffs imposed by the United States were in response to a foreign nation intentionally flooding the country with superior goods at cut-rate prices, with the explicit intention of driving American businesses into bankruptcy.

In the aftermath of the War of 1812, Britain embarked on an explicit path of economic warfare against the United States, with the goal of keeping them dependent on British industry.

When a foreign nation cheats economic rules by aiding its’ domestic companies in flooding foreign markets, the target of the attack is guaranteed to die unless its’ government steps up to protect them. It simply cannot compete at that cost level.

The young American Congress responded to this act of economic warfare by building a wall of economic tariffs around their manufacturing industry.

While some have said tariffs are only suitable when an economy is developing, the truth is that tariffs and barriers to foreign entry must permanently and eternally stay in effect.

The minute the tariff walls are lowered and broken down, the nation becomes susceptible to dumping, subsidization by a foreign hostile power, and domestic manufacturing industry withers away and dies.

manufacturing-employment-as-percent-of-employment

Manufacturing went from over 30% of all jobs in the United States to under 10%.

The minute politicians in the United States lowered the tariff walls and began to lower costs for its’ foreign competitors, they began to kill literally millions of jobs within their own country, accelerating dramatically with the admission of China to the World Trade Organization.

America lost 5 million quality, high-paying manufacturing jobs with the span of less than 10 years:

manufacturingemployment-1-1-1

Tariffs and trade deals are not temporary measures, but conditions that must remain permanently in place in order to protect industries. There is never an appropriate time to remove tariffs or lower the cost of entering the American market, as US politicians did for China during the Bush period.

The wisdom and knowledge of the American founders contrasts greatly with the many major figures within the Republican Party currently attacking President Donald Trump over the small tariffs he is placing upon washing machines, solar panels, steel, and aluminum.

Understanding the history of the American Republic, it becomes clear that Trump is a man cut from the same cloth as the Founders, while people like Orrin Hatch, Ben Sasse, Pat Roberts, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, & Paul Ryan, are small, simple-minded impostors with no knowledge of history or economics.

It has always historically been Democrats who believed in ultra-low or non-existent tariffs, commonly known as “free trade”, despite the decades-long data showing that free-trade nations generally performed worse economically than protectionist ones.

Looking at the history of the United States trade balance, an obvious trend appears, with a clear starting point:

fp0207_us_trade_deficit

Canadian trade deficit over 20 years – Financial Post

us-trade-deficit-became-very-dangerous-after-free-trade-began

credit: Culture of Life News – St. Louis Fed

The logic is simple: by erecting economic borders around a country, the nation was essentially subsidizing the creation of companies within its’ borders, and thus JOBS. Applied across all industries, the cumulative effect of these policies would be the creation of tens of millions of JOBS, and not only jobs, but stable, consistent jobs that would not be in danger of overseas outsourcing.

The benefit to the nation would be the creation and stable maintenance of a large supply of well-paying jobs and an extremely strong manufacturing sector capable of supplying the country with all its’ needs. The downside, if there was one, was that products would initially be more expensive.

From the free trade perspective, the benefit was cheaper goods, while the downside was the loss of tens of millions of jobs, thus creating an entire class of unproductive, unemployed, stagnant workers.

Which would you rather have? A thriving domestic economy with slightly more expensive goods, or a stagnant, jobless economy, with slightly cheaper ones? The answer seems extremely clear.

We are meant to compete within our own nation against each other as a people and a labor force. We are not meant to compete with a Chinese slave working in a sweatshop 16 hours a day, living in a room with 10 people, and eventually leaping to his or her death from their prison factory.

The major media corporations have done an extremely good job perpetuating the myth that free trade is a Republican position, when in reality even the most cursory look at history shows that not to be the case. In fact, protectionism has been the Republican position since the founding of the nation, while free trade has always been a Democrat position. This means that the nation has essentially adopted Democrat policies for the past 50 years and Donald Trump is attempting to return the country to founding American and Republican policies.

China intentionally floods the global market with its’ steel products. If the US attempts to protect its’ domestic steel  industry from China by implementing tariffs, China deceptively re-routes its’ steel through another country, such as Vietnam, South Korea, or even Canada.

In an interview here between Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross & Bloomberg, the corporate media mouthpiece openly lobbies for a Canadian exemption. The question Ross could have easily asked was, “how much steel does Canada produce?”, which would have immediately embarrassed the corporate mouthpiece, as the answer is zero.

Canada imports all of its’ steel from China, and then sends finished product to the US.

It is honestly remarkable that major corporate media figures openly advocate for China loopholes to exploit the world trade system and actually think the American people or President Trump are stupid enough to not see what they’re doing.

If President Trump is successful in erecting economic borders around the country, the impact is easy to predict: investment will come flooding into America and an explosion of job creation will occur. The fact remains that 90 million Americans remain unemployed and out of the labor force. Regardless of the good news seen in the stock market, the American economy in 2018 is not that good, and in fact could be many, many times better.

Protecting domestic industries is not simply the right thing to do for economic prosperity, it’s the right thing to do for national security. China currently manufactures over 10 TIMES more steel than the US, with America’s production declining year over year.

If the trend continued and China ever entered into a military engagement with the US, it could simply stop all steel shipment to the United States and win any war. This is such an obvious notion that it is surprising Senators Hatch & Sasse have not been tried for treason yet.

It is really quite remarkable that political figures, commentators, and actual industry leaders in other nations are openly threatening President Trump & America with increased tariffs. The United States is the creme de la creme of economies and is desired by all. It is the market all producers wish to sell in. Trump holds all the cards. Either they do not understand what type of a man he is or they have simply grown used to abusing and exploiting the United States.

It is always humorous to me that the esteemed socialist and communist nations always need the capitalist US to sell their slave-labor products to, while we don’t need them for anything. I personally would be OK with 75 or 100% tariffs on foreign nations and we produce everything ourselves. The economic boon in millions upon millions of high paying jobs would vastly outpace whatever increased costs trickled through to product prices.

Now Europe is threatening the US with high tariffs, in addition to the high ones already existing. The reaction from these stagnant, putrid socialist economies is almost laughable. They would lose any “trade war”. America’s economy is only going to become more and more vibrant, nimble, and reactive, while Europe’s economy is crippled under enormous regulations, taxes, and bureaucracy. Trump is simply exposing the truth that many of us know already – the delusional European bureaucrats who sneer at America need the US for economic prosperity, not the other way around.

The New York Times attempted to threaten Donald Trump as well, admitting some shocking facts in the process:

The risk comes from the potential ripple effects.

Affected countries may well retaliate by ordering tariffs on American goods, and they could carefully target goods to cause economic or political pain. American exporters — whether they sell passenger airplanes or soybeans — should be nervous about the next shoe to fall. There are few winners in an all-out trade war like one that enveloped the world economy in the 1930s.

In particular, the Trump administration’s invocation of national security concerns could set a precedent in which China and other nations are willing to use national security as grounds for tariffs, hurting the ability of the World Trade Organization to arbitrate disputes.

The real risk isn’t that steel and aluminum are a bit more expensive, though that is likely to be the case. It’s that an entire system of global trade, which the United States helped build, might be undermined.

Think carefully about what exactly the NYT is threatening as a consequence here: that foreign nations will buy less from the United States, and that the WTO will lose power to control American trade policy. It’s such a remarkable admission I find it difficult they could write it with a straight face.

America loses 800 billion dollars in wealth every single year. Gone. Wealth generated by the American people that leaves the nation and enriches other countries. There is literally no downside if other countries stop buying from us. They already don’t buy from us. That’s literally what having a trade deficit means. It means we are buying way, way, way more from foreign countries than they are buying from us.

Fundamentally, Donald Trump understands that at the end of the day, this is about wealth, capital, and where it is flowing to. Right now, roughly 800 billion dollars in wealth generated by the American people is flowing out of the country and into hostile foreign nations, funding the rise of their militaries and expansionist aims.

Trump is attempting to close the leak. He is attempting to stop that capital from leaving the nation. He understands that we are getting poorer as a nation the more this continues.

Americans continue to spend money on cheap foreign goods, but they no longer have the good, high-paying, manufacturing jobs to fund their buying sprees. It is no coincidence that the debt in America has exploded.

US_Private_Debt_to_GDP_by_Sector

us-private-debt-to-gdp-20-09

1-Federal-Debt-1.png

800px-components_of_total_us_debt-svg

We are literally running up our credit cards, converting that to cash, and exchanging it with the Chinese Communist Party for cheap trinkets. Think about that for a second. We are bankrupting ourselves, helping China become a dominant military power, and all so that a toy at Walmart will be cheaper.

Think about that next time a Chamber-of-Commerce purchased US Senator gets on TV and frets about Walmart losing profits.

The decision by the President to impose tariffs means America will automatically stop buying goods from other nations, and instead purchase those goods from domestic companies. That automatically decreases the trade deficit with foreign nations. It is ludicrous when a foreign nation that has been taking advantage of America threatens to retaliate – they can’t retaliate because they are the ones who have been reaping the benefits. Any change in the relationship short of increasing the trade deficit benefits the United States. We literally have nothing to lose.

What we are witnessing across the media and corporate industries is many people who were receiving a free ride through exploitation being told that the free ride is over, and throwing a massive temper tantrum and threatening Armageddon because it is all they have. Their only last hope is to threaten Armageddon and hope they could apply enough pressure to change Trump’s mind. It is certainly a large public relations campaign, and against any other traditional Republican President, it would certainly work, or he would compromise and carve out “exemptions” for nations such as Canada, which import Chinese goods anyways.

But they don’t really understand who they are up against. They are going up against a titan of industry with a backbone of steel. And he is exposing the fact that, short of their loud media megaphones, they are basically powerless. He is pulling back the curtain and showing the world that they held their power through sheer media bullying and not much else. He is showing the country that when you simply ignore the media tantrums, they are totally impotent.

And the threat that China will stop buying goods from America? That is so laughable it’s difficult to believe they actually had the gall to state it. China sells 500 billion dollars more of goods than they buy from the US. They buy nothing from America. It literally can’t get any worse.

To summarize, the NYT says that China (-$500 billion trade deficit) will buy less from the US, other nations(-$800 billion trade deficit worldwide) will buy less from the US, the WTO (a non-state trade body) will lose the ability to CONTROL & DICTATE American trade policy to a sovereign nation, and somehow this all means… “an entire system of global trade is being undermined”.

It’s not just that the NYT is nonsensical, it’s that they outright lie, and that they are actually taken serious by people. What they really mean is America will actually defend its’ critical national industries and protect its’ jobs and people, and the NYT doesn’t like that. Now why would the NYT support foreign nations over America? That’s the endless question. Why did the NYT support Stalin while he was murdering his own citizens? Why do they essentially behave as traitors to the country?

It doesn’t matter, the only important thing to do is carefully note the fact that they are advocating on behalf of foreign nations, advocating on behalf of our enemies, and move on.

Calls Grow For Criminal Negligence Charges Against The Broward County Sheriff’s Office

0000000000000000000000000-52-600x394

In the wake of overwhelming new evidence, many are calling for the Broward County Sheriff’s Office to be charged with criminal negligence for the murder of 17 individuals in the Parkland shooting.

The newest damning information to come to light was the revelation that a Broward County deputy arrived at the school during the shooting and refused to intervene. Deputy Scott Peterson reportedly arrived just 90 seconds into the shooting and stayed frozen in place for over 6 minutes as child after child was gunned down in cold blood.

Critics called for Peterson and Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel to be charged with criminal negligence.

A petition has been created on Change.Org to immediately arrest and charge Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel & Broward County deputy Scott Peterson with criminal negligence and manslaughter. Sign the petition here!

nikolas-cruz-mug-shot-credit-broward-sheriff-office-and-instagram-v1

The revelation came after it was brought to light that Broward County deputies had been called to the murderer’s house 39 separate times, and had been informed that Nikolas Cruz had placed a gun to another person’s head.

Additionally, information came to light that Broward County engaged in an almost decade-long conspiracy to violate their oath of office and let crime go unpunished:

In addition, an individual close to Cruz placed a phone call to the FBI in January and informed them that Cruz was a dangerous threat for a school shooting, and subsequently gave them all of his information.

Additionally, a Mississippi man notified the FBI last year that Cruz left a comment on a Youtube video that stated “I’m gonna be a professional school shooter”, to which the FBI subsequently did not follow up.

Cruz was known to get into fights at school and posted pictures of dead animals on his Instagram page.

With all of the above facts, it remains unclear as to why Broward County did not escalate their measures, why the FBI did not interview Cruz, and why Parkland did not expel him.

The revelation that an armed deputy stood coldly outside the school as child after child was murdered may meet the legal definition for criminal negligence, legal experts said. Similarly, the decision by Broward County Sheriff Scott Peterson to not escalate investigative measures with Cruz after his lengthy interactions with the police department may also render him legally liable for criminal charges.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions & President Donald Trump have not yet commented on whether the deputy or the Sheriff should be brought up on federal or state charges.

The sheriff’s department may also face civil lawsuits due to their inaction with a clearly unstable individual, as well as the Parkland school system. Writers at TCT have documented how Parkland eliminated enforcement measures for criminal students, and in some cases had school officers alter crime records to improve their statistics.

Far-Left Political Organizations Exploit Parkland Child Victims In Massive Psy-Op To Disarm Citizenry

5a8e534087faf255018b477a-750-375

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel listens as NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch speaks. Loesch, a rape survivor, was bullied, harassed, and verbally abused by the exclusively far-left crowd, while Israel, a Clinton supporter, was praised and wildly applauded for advocating the restriction of constitutional Second Amendment rights.

Sheriff Israel has come under fire for doing nothing about the shooter despite the police being called to his house 39 times, indirectly leading to the Parkland shooting. Remarkable, Israel has not only not apologized, he has had the gall to show his face in public and exploit the tragedy.

The American political left-wing machinery sprang into action after the Parkland school shooting, exploiting the child victims in a massive psychological operation designed to disarm the citizenry and restrict their Second Amendment rights.

Their propaganda arm CNN led the charge, working with far-left organizations to selectively pick child victims, rent busses, venues, and create signage to stage a massive psy-op designed to create the impression of national consensus.

Critics condemned the exploitation of child victims by the Democrat Party and their affiliated organizations, calling it “disgusting” and “sickening”. Many said they could never vote for the Democrats ever again after the spectacle of using child victims as human shields for their crass political purposes.

The act of exploiting the Parkland victims was compounded by the fact that the shooting was widely considered to be a creation of far-left Democrat policies, such as encouraging school violence through un-enforcement, the promotion of heavy psychotropic medication, and the degradation of culture through their Hollywood entertainment arm.

“The Democrats caused this shooting,” one insider remarked. “They need to sit down and shut up. They’re only making this worse.

The psy-op reached new heights on Wednesday night, as far-left CNN produced a propaganda spectacle straight out of Nazi Germany, with a hand-picked feral crowd and snotty, disrespectful activists comparing a Senator to a mass murderer, attacking the Second Amendment and its’ pre-eminent civil rights organization, all under the false pretense of representing child victims.

This scene was straight out of the Soviet Union:

The utilization of this particular insufferable individual, who is doing his best to destroy any remaining sympathy for the Parkland victims, highlights a trend that appears to be intentional among the political Left: the notion that attempting to publicly humiliate or embarrass your opponent is a substitute for actual discussion or dialogue.

The fact that this teenager is so extremely comfortable employing this particular technique tells us not only that this has become the Left’s primary technique for debate, but that it has become a taught methodology by leftist parents.

It is the tactic borne from the mindset of a totalitarian, who does not wish to compromise or exchange ideas, but instead wishes to psychologically shame their opponent into submission through carefully constructed stagecraft. The control of the building, filling it with far-left supporters, the creation of the embarrassment dynamic – it was all planned from the beginning by CNN. All they needed to do was find someone pompous, self-entitled, and full of himself to actually do it. This child does not even remotely represent the Parkland victims. He is an anomaly.

CNN carefully controlled the staged event, screening out any Parkland victims who did advocate restricting the Second Amendment, and instead populating the auditorium with far-left Democrats, their children, and their supporters.

Parkland shooting survivors who wished to ask questions about school security were banned by CNN from participating unless they engaged in the sham “town hall”, with one student testifying that he was ordered to read from a script or not participate.

The effect was a bizarre and disturbing jeering, bullying, and harassing environment, particularly when a rape survivor and spokeswoman for the civil rights organization NRA participated in the discussion. She was verbally abused from the crowd while passionately advocating for rape victims and survivors.

While there were thousands of students that survived the Parkland shooting, the major media corporations working in co-ordination with CNN selectively picked a handful to represent the entire student body. Those students were all primarily children of far-left parents and all advocate the restriction and elimination of the Second Amendment. Some have advocated violence against Republicans, NRA members, and others.

Critics said this small number of selective survivors does not represent the larger student body, or even the younger generation at large. Many younger students support school fortification, greater defenses, and the strengthening of a select number of qualified teachers.

The shadowy far-left organizations behind the bussing, organizing, signage, and booking of certain specific students stayed in the background. Yet within days of the shooting, a domain had been registered and an entire expensive website constructed for a propaganda operation staged for March 24. Many wondered which central organization was coordinating the PR spectacle, what office they were working out of, and where their funding was derived from. These questions are still unanswered.

The spectacle was a potent reminder of the power of the far-left-media complex, a synergistic co-operation among the major media corporations and political organizations that can convince many naive Americans of a false reality of the situation, and a reminder of the necessity of dismantling the structures that support and propagate far-left supremacy in society.

Twitter-Allied Platform MEDIUM Silences Free Speech Rights Of Independent Journalists

alltwitter-twitter-bird-logo-white-on-blue

Twitter-allied platform MEDIUM silenced the free speech rights of independent journalists Michael Cernovich, Laura Loomer, and Jack Posobiec, as they immediately vowed to sue in court.

The popular writing platform run by Twitter co-founder Evan Williams arbitrarily destroyed all of the journalists’ articles, editorials, and thinkpieces.

MEDIUM attempted to defend their actions by claiming the journalists were members of the Alt-Right, a discredited and highly controversial group that espouses socialist and racial rhetoric.

In reality, none of the censored journalists are members of the Alt-Right. While Cernovich did identify with the movement in its’ infancy, when it was primarily an immigration advocacy group, he publicly broke with the group and denounced them when they first appropriated National Socialist imagery, symbolism, and language, at a small conference in Washington, DC, organized by its’ self-professed founder Richard Spencer.

The journalist and lawyer immediately condemned the group and said he no longer identified with the movement in a public statement at the time.

Cernovich has in fact been the target of a long and steady campaign of harassment by Alt-Right members, who have attacked his Persian wife and baby with vile racial language.

The decision by MEDIUM to censor the independent reporters based upon false information has raised questions about the company’s true motivations. Critics said the true motivation was retaliation for exposing the censorship scandal at the Big Four social media corporations. The action is doubly curious due to a similar action by Twitter around the exact same time to conduct a “bot purge”, which has reportedly disproportionately affected right-of-center figures.

The two operations, conducted at roughly the same time, have caused critics to wonder if Twitter is effectively implementing a political purge of its’ ideological enemies.

In a misleading article written for Outline on the MEDIUM platform, apparent ally Paris Martineau continued to propagate the false narrative of affiliation with the Alt-Right as the claim for the censorship.

Neither Jack Posobiec or Laura Loomer currently identify as Alt-Right members, and it is unknown if they ever have.

Unlike billion-dollar Silicon Valley mega-corporations, Cernovich, Posobiec, & Loomer are all private individuals unaffiliated with large companies or powerful journalistic enterprises. Many of them rely on donations from citizens who support their work. Cernovich is currently working on a documentary on accuracy in media reportage.

The reaction to the powerful corporations silencing the First Amendment rights of the powerless was swift and furious on Twitter.

Free press advocate and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange condemned the censorship:

Independent journalist, lawyer, and author Michael Cernovich announced that he was immediately suing Medium.

The major social media corporations have all seen their public image suffer recently due to censorship scandals. Google, Youtube, Facebook & Twitter have all had to absorb negative press as a result of their hamhanded, sometimes Orwellian thought control.

The education and documentary company PragerU recently filed a lawsuit against YouTube for censoring their educational videos. Many media critics have begun to openly speculate if there is an ideological agenda at the Big Four.

The stifling of free speech across America has raised an important question about corporate rights and responsibility. While companies have historically had a large leeway to control the discourse within their control, the monopolistic and all-encompassing nature of the Big Four’s control on public discourse means that in practice they effectively function as a government arm, with the power to determine what is and is not appropriate speech.

Those who are silenced are effectively rendered invisible. A new speech policy by Youtube or Twitter essentially functions as a new law passed by the US legislature. Few anticipated that corporations would abuse their power to amplify their allies’ voices and squelch their enemies. But that is what is occurring in America in 2018.

As the progressive political movement has captured and consolidated their control over the Big Four, their accompanying censorship has raised difficult questions for the American people and legislators at large.

When four corporations control such an enormous part of speech in America and subsequently abuses that responsibility to oppress their enemies, must the government step in to protect the oppressed? When the Big Four collude and act as one to violate citizens’ First Amendment rights, does the American government and its’ regulatory arms have a responsibility to intervene?

If they do not either break up the Big Four or levy enormous legal fines for suppressing freedom of speech, the First Amendment will essentially cease to exist in reality. Free speech advocates say that although it might remain in principle, as words written on an ancient piece of paper, the new reality in 2018 America will be a society ruled by the new Social Stasi.

This tension has already resulted in flashpoints, from former Google engineer and manifesto author James Damore’s lawsuit against the search behemoth, to Cernovich’s new lawsuit against Medium. The two cases spell enormous import for the future of speech, discussion, and who can dictate it in the nation.

Billionaire George Soros Staged Fake Riots In Ferguson

MW-EE076_soros__20160127113703_ZH

The Daily Mail has reported that billionaire agitator and currency pillager George Soros spent 33 million dollars to stage fake riots that caused significant damage to property and potential loss of life.

In addition, Soros’ provocateurs descended upon the state from their headquarters in New York City and Washington, DC, to stage false media events, which they then reported on through their media arms.

The entire operation was amplified by the American corporate news media and presented as authentic and genuine.

The partnership between the major American media corporations and the Soros agitation organizations has been a potent one. The most recent example of their synergistic efficiency has been the mobilization of exploited children in public schools across the nation, as irresponsible parents and hardline teachers have abused their young, impressionable children for ideological gain.

Nevertheless, the mere fact that public school students have mobilized in any form has proven the ability of the major media corporations to amplify Soros Operations and project them as major cultural moments.

The Soros operation is vast and encompasses hundreds of organizations that present themselves as separate entities, but in reality work on parallel tracks to promote the same language, political figures, and events.

These organizations divide into three major subgroups, with several basic examples listed:

  • Think Tank Organizations:
    • Center For American Progress – One of the largest Soros-funded organizations, they produce propaganda and legislation for their larger goal.
  • Propaganda organizations:
    • Media Matters – One of the largest and most effective information warfare operations, MM employs tens, if not hundreds of employees, has a multi-million dollar budget, and focuses primarily on policing, censoring, and smearing those who oppose their agenda.
  • Mobilization organizations:
    • MoveOn.Org – Tasked with forming rallies and mobilizing the unstable individuals imbibing CAP & MM propaganda, the executive Director of MoveOn boasted of the violence that occurred in Chicago when it successfully played a role in destabilizing the situation and forcing then-presidential candidate Donald Trump to postpone his rally.

Questions are being raised as to the legality of the specific Ferguson operation, and whether Soros employees crossed state lines with the intention of inciting a riot. That is a crime, and one which can carry a penalty of years in prison.

Ferguson-Unrest-Police-Car-on-Fire

The fake Ferguson riots impacted the national psyche at a delicate moment in the country’s consciousness, and one in which President Obama inflamed racial tensions across the nation. From the Trayvon Martin incident, which was judged by a jury to be a justified execution, to the Michael Brown action, also deemed to be justified, former President Obama seized every opportunity to incite racial hatred against white Americans and divide the races.

The revelation that Soros essentially worked in parallel with Obama to further amplify racial anger and fearmonger arrived as a shock to Americans. Many are calling for the Hungarian-born billionaire to be held accountable for his harmful, damaging actions to the country.

It is illegal to cross state lines with the intention of starting a riot. During the Ferguson riots, many homes and businesses were burned down to the ground. It now appears as if those fires may have been started by Soros employees with the goal of dividing the races against each other and starting a race war.

The Trump administration has not commented so far on what legal action, if any, they will take against Soros for these new revelations.