Categories
College Corruption Federal Debt Truth

Biden Will Eventually Cancel College Debt, And So Enrich The Squad

By Rod Thomson

Tax-sucking Congressional socialists continue to pressure kinda sorta President Biden to cancel at least $50,000 in student debt via executive order. Despite the enormous strain other Democrat policies have had on hard-working American families, this bailout to college grads will almost assuredly happen because this presidential anomaly’s handlers cannot or do not want to stand up to the radical left for long.

There are endless problems with this, which were well hashed out when Sen. Bernie Sanders made this college grad bailout a hallmark of his campaign. 

First, the fairness issue. Millions of Americans over many generations, myself and wife included, paid off student debt from college over the years. And now this crop of entitled college kids want a bailout, even as a college degree has diminishing value — and no real value in several degree areas. 

Second, the $1.6 trillion price tag is just another completely irresponsible load of national debt on a system that may not be far from buckling from already existing astronomical debt.

But there is also a little known element: Many of the most outspoken proponents of canceling student debt themselves have substantial college debt. They would directly benefit financially from their vote. If there was such a thing as a conflict of interest in Congress, this would be at the top of the list. But such unabashed corruption is simply accepted in D.C.

Make no mistake, every dollar of this debt will fall to the federal government, which is eventually paid by American taxpayers.

As members of Congress, these folks pull down $174,000 in taxpayer money, plus gold-plated benefits that literally no other Americans get. And now they also want taxpayers such as coal miners, convenience store clerks, maids, lawn service guys, roofers, road workers, pavers, pool installers, along with bankers, lawyers, doctors and business owners, to pay off their college debt. In fact, they want to force them to.

Like on Instagram

It’s all pretty unconscionable on a moral level, but also the sheer chutzpah of socialists who supposedly want to help the little guys by spreading the wealth, demanding the little guys help pay off debts they can clearly afford to pay off themselves. A $174,000 annual salary makes them 5 percenters, making more than 95 percent of Americans — who they want to pay off their debt. This puts the lie to the whole schtick. Like every socialist ever in power, they simply want more for themselves.

And it’s right out there in plain sight. For instance, Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib owes $70,000 in college debt for her law degree and is one of the biggest proponents for Biden to sign away $50,000 with an executive order, as many, such as Senate President Chuck Schumer and Sen. Elizabeth Warren along with a bundle of others, say he has the authority to do so. (Obviously Constitutional authority is not what they are referring to.)

To blunt the obvious corruption in her position, Tlaib struggles up onto her self-righteous high horse and claims she didn’t become a lawyer to make money or buy “bougie cars,” but she went into the nonprofit world and worked as a lawyer for the good of the community. For that oh-so noble reason, her debts should be forgiven. (Probably should point out that many non-profits make more than most business owners or average lawyers, so, ah, no.)

Like Rod’s new Youtube channel

But it is classic socialist philosophy: Individuals are not responsible for the consequences of their actions, which parenthetically is why they favor releasing criminals based on skin color and not actions. They want the communal whole, via government, to pay for their consequences.

It’s not just Tlaib. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Ilhan Omar both have substantial college debt and are vocal proponents of wiping out all college debt. There may be others. Since that is not going to happen in Congress, they favor Biden’s pen. 

Two-face socialist authoritarians just being true to themselves.

Rod Thomson is an author, former journalist, past Salem radio host and ABC TV commentator and Founder of The Revolutionary Act and The Thomson Group. Twice banned on TikTok. Follow him on Instagram. Like Rod on Facebook.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Categories
Geneva Truth Vaccines

The Geneva Conventions War With Forced Vaccines

By Cathi Chamberlain

Combining various international treaties since its inception in 1864, the Geneva Conventions were originally intended for, and still stand as, protections for soldiers and civilians in wartime. So, with the vaccines for COVID being discussed as a possible crime against humanity under the Nuremberg Code, which falls under the Geneva Conventions, the question arises: Are we at war? 

During what became known as “The Doctors’ Trial” after WWII, concerns arose about medical experimentation on humans. 

According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “German doctors had argued in their own defense that their experiments differed little from those conducted before the war by German and American scientists. They showed that no international law or informal statement differentiated between legal and illegal human experimentation.” (Emphasis mine). Thus, the Nuremberg Code was created comprising ten points outlining acceptable medical research and standards.

Part I of this series is entitled, “How the Nuremberg Code Applies to the Vaccine.” It explains the doctrine of voluntary and informed consent of the participant in medical applications under the Code. Its “adoption into the 1949 Geneva Conventions later gave [it] international standing. Breaking from the Convention’s intent presumably constitutes a war crime.”

More importantly, the term “medical experimentation” as stated in the Nuremberg Code is defined in Part 1.

My argument in Part I of this series asks why, since the Code falls under the Geneva Conventions, ought not the Conventions’ umbrella classification applying to “wartime” victims also extend to the Code’s intention by default? And, if true, where do civilians fall? Of course that’s a legal question and I don’t pretend to be an attorney. But it seems to me that the presumption could easily be made. Yet no one is making it.

That said, why have tens of thousands of doctors recently signed on to what’s being called the new “Nuremberg Trials 2021?” Legal proceedings have been filed against the CDC, the WHO and the Davos Group for crimes against humanity by over a thousand attorneys worldwide.

Led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, the “Nuremberg Trials 2021” team argues that the vaccines are in violation of Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. It claims that Article 32 states that “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited. And, “according to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a grave breach of the Convention.”

Indeed, the International Committee of the Red Cross confirms that Article 32 specifies that “protected persons must not in any circumstances be used as ‘guinea-pigs’ for medical experiments. ‘Biological experiments’ are also prohibited by the other three Conventions of 1949.”

I believe, as laid out in Part 1, that there are convincing arguments as to why the COVID-19 vaccines fall into the “experimental” definition of the Nuremberg Code in multiple ways.

Regardless, on a deeper dive into Article 32, its title is telling. The formal document, shown in an uploaded PDF version from the United Nations, is called the “GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR OF 12 AUGUST 1949.” Again the reference to wartime is notable.

Cornell Law School says that, “[t]he Geneva Conventions … provide minimum protections, standards of humane treatment, and fundamental guarantees of respect to individuals who become victims of armed conflicts.” It doesn’t say ‘victims of unarmed conflicts.’

Like on Instagram

Multiple educational resources concur with the aforementioned references to “wartime” terms, including World Atlas. It states that “[t]he Geneva Conventions refer to international agreements that are made up of four treaties and three protocols that define the treatment of people during a war.” (Emphasis added.)

How can it be, then, that the Nuremberg Code, falling under the Geneva Conventions, could be used in any argument against the COVID vaccine during a time of peace? Recent history offers some clues.

In an intriguing article from Wired published on Nov. 7, 2002, it seems as a country we’ve travelled this road before. The article’s title reads, “Forced Vaccines Haunt Gulf Vets — Rule No. 1 in the Nuremberg Code for conducting medical experiments: Get the subjects’ consent.” The author explains how our soldiers were given non-FDA-approved drugs prior to deploying to Desert Storm. Many returned with assorted unexplained illnesses. 

“‘We had a third day of shots before we went over (to the Gulf),’ said the ex-Ranger, who requested anonymity because his Army Reserve commitment [had] yet to expire. ‘Guys in other units only had two, but most Rangers had three. They wouldn’t tell us what they were for.’”

According to the article, the question of forced vaccines had been addressed years before. “In a February 1953 directive, Defense Secretary Charles Wilson established what [was] still the ‘law of the land’ governing such experimentation. Consistent with the Nuremberg Code, the directive’s cornerstone is voluntary consent,’ according to Wilson.

“‘The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential,’ Wilson wrote, ordering that such consent be given in writing before at least one witness. Wilson also banned use of ‘force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion’ in obtaining consent. When did that change?

“Did the Pentagon obey this directive during the Gulf War? According to Dr. Jane M. Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, it did not. The administration of experimental drugs without consent was, Orient said, ‘the first instance in which an official government agency officially sanctioned the direct violation of the Nuremberg Code.’” And it was intentional!

“In a 1994 report called Human Experimentation and Other Intentional Exposures Conducted by the Department of Defense, [the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs] claimed that “‘[t]he results of our investigation showed a reckless disregard that shocked me,’ said Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV. ‘The Pentagon … threw caution to the winds, ignoring all warnings of potential harm, and gave these (investigational) drugs to hundreds of thousands of soldiers with virtually no warnings and no safeguards.’”

“‘There is no provision in the Nuremberg Code,’ the Rockefeller Committee report concluded, ‘that allows a country to waive informed consent for military personnel or veterans who serve as human subjects in experiments during wartime or in experiments that are conducted because of threat of war.’

If it protects our soldiers then in time of war, one would think it would also protect our civilian populations who are NOT in a state of war, right?

Responding to the accusations at the time, a Pentagon spokesperson stated: “‘[i]n all peacetime applications, we believe strongly in informed consent and its ethical foundations…. But military combat is different.’

In other words, according to the Pentagon in 1994, the Nuremberg Code only applied to soldiers in peacetime. It seems the narrative changes by what the “powers that be” deem convenient, at any given time.

In my book and articles, I habitually reference radical leftist Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, because it contains the tactics by which the left endeavors to transform America to socialism and then communism. As important as his thirteen tactics, however, are his lesser-known eleven rules of ethics of means and ends. They provide a window into why the left, and Democrats by extension, can justify their out-of-control unethical behavior.

“Alinsky’s third rule of ethics of means and ends, ‘in war the end justifies almost any means’, applies to the left’s unapologetic, unethical shaming of all things conservative.” (Rules for Deplorables, pg. 215)

Arguing for the new “Nuremberg Code 2021” wouldn’t require convincing others that we’re at war with China per se (as if they even needed such justification). In order for the experimental vaccines to be criminalized, just say: We’re at war with the left!

If, on the other hand, the Pentagon’s position in 1994 is considered, then the Code’s “informed consent and its ethical foundations” are binding “in all peacetime applications” stays. They can’t have it both ways.

Necessarily, Alinsky’s fourth tactic, “make the enemy live up to its own book of rules,” must be applied. If the original Nuremberg Code of 1949 falls under the “wartime” parameters of the Geneva Conventions, and the vaccine is indeed “experimental” as my Part I of this series argues, then the signers of the “new Code” may well have a case.

It’s a fact that the military knowingly condoned experimental medical treatment well after the 1949 Nuremberg Code was established under the Geneva Conventions. And, that they felt justified in doing so. Why on earth should Americans believe the government would follow ethical standards now?

The simple answer is, we shouldn’t. Whether Americans accept it or not, we are in a state of war for the very survival of our country. The enemy should neither be trusted nor obeyed. 

We ought to be fighting for transparency, the right of informed consent, and most importantly, the right to freedom of choice. If we do not stand strong for these minimal protections now, we are not mere guinea pigs, we are the experiment itself.

Cathi Chamberlain, aka The Deplorable Author and founder of The Deplorable Report, is a four-time start-up business owner, published author of a self-help book featured on CNN worldwide and owner of the nation’s first all-female construction company. She is a sought-after political speaker and has been a regular contributor on the Salem Media Radio Network. In her book, “Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism,” Cathi heavily references Saul Alinsky’s 1970’s blockbuster book, “Rules for Radicals.” She is currently on her “Florida Deplorable Book Tour.” Contact her for your next speaking event at [email protected]


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Categories
Truth Vaccines

How the Nuremberg Code Applies to the Vaccine

By Cathi Chamberlain 

The first mandate listed in the “Permissible Medical Experiments” section of volume II of the Trials of War Criminals reads: “[t]he voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” That’s it then, right? Shouldn’t Biden be locked up as a war criminal? After all, he’s been calling for forced vaccines. And they are experimental.

During Military Tribunals in Germany following World War II, Nazi doctors and medical administrators were tried for atrocities committed during the holocaust. To prevent a repeat of the evils perpetrated on humanity, the judges outlined 10 conditions for permissible medical experiments in the future that became known as the Nuremberg Code. 

Its adoption into the 1949 Geneva Conventions later gave the 1947 Code international standing. Breaking from the Convention’s intent presumably constitutes a war crime. Thus, with COVID jabs being forced on unwilling participants, we ought to at least understand what the Nuremberg Code is about.

Some fact checkers, as is often the case, are basing their Nuremberg Code vaccine arguments on opinion. Take USA Today, for example. Once a respected news organization, they’ve now jumped on the lucrative bandwagon of having in-house “fact-checkers.” If any of your Facebook posts have ever been banned, there’s a good chance USA Today was responsible. 

An article published August 10, 2021 attempts to discredit one Facebook user’s claim that forced vaccinations go against the Nuremberg Code. USA Today’s fact-checkers state that “[t]he claim that ‘forced’ vaccines are against the Nuremberg Code is FALSE, based on our research.” Notice they aren’t discrediting that vaccines are covered under the Code. Simply that the current forced vaccines aren’t illegal.

That claim might have held water until one reads the disclaimer at the end of the article: “Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.” Oh, no bias there!

Putting that aside, let’s dissect the USA Today fact-checkers’ “evidence.” 

Their “research” led to their assumption that the “Nuremberg Code addresses human experimentation, not vaccines approved for emergency use.” Fair enough. But where is their proof that “Americans who get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not part of an experiment.” Or that “[t]he vaccines have been tested in clinical trials and found to be safe and effective.” I couldn’t find it.

Their main source justifies the record speed of the vaccine by the “layering” of trials made possible by advancements in technology, abundance of funding, and relaxing of bureaucratic regulations. That’s all well and good, but nowhere does the fact-checkers’ source state that the resulting vaccine was proven safe and effective.

My research has discovered quite the opposite.

While the jabs were indeed approved for emergency use authorization, such status is normally reserved when no other treatments are available. Per the FDA’s own website, they “may authorize unapproved medical products … to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions … when … there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.” (Emphasis mine.)

Like on Instagram

But COVID-19 did have several “adequate, approved, and available alternatives.” And those had proven track records by the time the vaccine’s EUA was approved. Had they not been highly censored by social media and our own government agencies, including Facebook and Dr. Fauci’s NIAID, those alternatives would have saved many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, more lives than they already have as has been proven by experts brave enough to publish their findings.

Dr. Peter McCullough, for example, known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers on COVID is just one of many. Today his work remains the most downloaded and utilized papers throughout the pandemic.

In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson of FOX News, McCullough, who has treated thousands of COVID patients, told Carlson there’s “been a global oblivion” to the idea of treating patients with COVID-19. There are effective outpatient treatments, “including monoclonal antibodies such as Regeneron and intracellular anti-infectives including hydroxychloroquine.” He is also a big proponent of Ivermectin.

McCullough added: “What frustrated me, was in the media cycle, all we heard about was reducing spread, and then later on vaccination. We never actually heard about treating sick patients. Had there been more of a focus on treating sick patients, early treatment could have prevented up to 85% of COVID deaths.” Instead, he said, there’s an “incredible suppression of early treatment in the medical literature.”

He’s hardly the only one speaking out. America’s Frontline Doctors, the mRNA inventor of the vaccine technology Dr. Robert Malone, Nobel Prize nominee and world-renowned “Physician of Presidents” Dr. Vladimir Zelenko have all risked their livelihoods and fortunes to get the truth out. Heavily censored and ridiculed, these whistleblowers have collectively saved scores of people with their successful treatment plans.

So just because social media controllers have shaped the narrative that treatments are non-existent doesn’t make it true. And simply because vaccines have been approved for EUA means little when the very alternative, and inexpensive, treatments for COVID have been banned. 

Which returns us to the original question of whether the vaccines are experimental as the above-mentioned fact-checkers deny.

Nuremberg Code Principle #1 makes clear that the recipient of a medical treatment “should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension … as to enable him to make an … enlightened decision.” And that, “there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment … and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.” Were vaccine recipients provided such “knowledge and comprehension” about the effects before getting the jab?

In an in-depth research article I published on April 28, 2020, I exposed that “an April 16th Press Release on the Gates-funded Moderna’s website announced that ‘no commercial product using mRNA technology has been approved before and the safety and efficacy of mRNA-1273 has not yet been established.’”

In other words, human beings would become the experimental guinea pigs for the ultimate “safety and efficacy of mRNA” technology.

According to Smithsonian Magazine, “in July [2020], both Moderna and Pfizer/bioNTech began studies of their mRNA vaccines in about 30,000 people apiece, hoping to show their vaccines are safe in large groups.” Those results were, supposedly, released in November — a mere four months after the first studies in humans began. Seems awfully convenient that the testing was deemed adequate for mass distribution just as the waning immunity now known was about to become discovered.

When the left uses Saul Alinsky’s Tactic #9, “the threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself,” anything is possible. And so it was with the rush to get a COVID-19 vaccine into the arms of human test subjects paralyzed by the fear from the left’s lies that there were no other treatment alternatives available.

Experts agreed even then that the normal time to bring a vaccine to market safely is 10-15 years as Heritage.org reported in April 2020. They stressed that, “[b]efore a vaccine can be tested in humans, it’s investigated carefully in a lab. This step usually involves animal trials, but regulators have allowed researchers to skip this step to fast-track development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.”

A third point in Principle #1 of the Nuremberg Code states that “the person involved should … be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” For those who understand the deception behind the vaccine’s rush to market, our final outrage is our looming loss of freedoms.

Those who have done our research trust no Facebook bought-and-paid-for fact-checker to convince us that these experimental jabs are safe or deserve the Emergency Use Authorization designation they’ve been so hastily given.

Perhaps fact-checkers should instead focus on the tenets of the Geneva Convention which state that the rules pertain to war-time atrocities. Then the argument becomes whether we are being experimented on during a state of war. Now that’s an argument worth having and will be explored in my article next week. Stay tuned!


Cathi Chamberlain, aka The Deplorable Author and founder of The Deplorable Report, is a four-time start-up business owner, published author of a self-help book featured on CNN worldwide and owner of the nation’s first all-female construction company. She is a sought-after political speaker and has been a regular contributor on the Salem Media Radio Network. In her book, “Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism,” Cathi heavily references Saul Alinsky’s 1970’s blockbuster book, “Rules for Radicals.” She is currently on her “Florida Deplorable Book Tour.” Contact her for your next speaking event at [email protected]


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Categories
Alinsky Collusion Truth

Durham’s Timing Could Not Have Been Worse

By Cathi Chamberlain 

Headlines over the past couple days seem to have shocked the collective conscience. But, that’s only because most Americans were following lame stream, fake news media over the past five years. During what became known as the “Trump-Russia Collusion” scandal, few understood what it was even about. Oh how different today would be if only they had taken the time.

Special Counsel John Durham announced his third indictment on November 8th after a two-and-a-half-year investigation. Russian national and analyst Igor Danchenko has pled not guilty to five counts of lying to the FBI. Big deal. While Conservatives are jumping for joy, I’m mad as hell.

Excuse me if I sound a bit snarky but, what the hell took so long?

Under President Donald J. Trump, Attorney General Bill Barr appointed John Durham in May of 2019 to look into “Crossfire Hurricane.” That was code speak for an investigation that was launched by the FBI to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. What it really turned into was a witch hunt against Trump.

By fall of 2019, Durham’s probe became a criminal one. 

What ticks me off is that a lot of what Durham has been “secretly” investigating has already been researched to death by competent investigative journalists like John Solomon. Durham’s groundwork had been laid out for him on a silver platter. I know because the facts were unfolding during the same time I was writing Chapter 3 of my book, Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism. 

At the time I wrote that “[l]eaders in some of our most trusted government agencies are intent on a soft coup of our current administration. These aren’t conspiracy theories. The evidence is overwhelming and provides the motive for the witch hunt against President Trump….

“In March, 2018, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Judiciary Committee requested then-AG Sessions to appoint a special counsel to investigate the ‘FBI and DOJ decisions [relating to Crossfire] in 2016 and 2017.’  Sessions, disappointingly, refused to do so. Instead, he appointed U.S. Attorney John W. Huber from Utah to review whether or not the law was followed during the … Crossfire investigations, including the FISA warrant applications. When asked to appear before Congress in December, 2018, Huber declined.’” (Pp. 188-189)

What exactly has Huber been doing?

Like on Instagram

Some media, like CBS News, are now making it sound as though this whole business about the Steele dossier’s actual origins is a big deal. They’re reporting that Danshenko’s lying “to federal investigators about the sources of information he provided to Steele’s firm, which was then included in the dossier passed to the FBI … impugn the source of the now-debunked Steele dossier’s most salacious accusations.”

“As part of efforts to determine the validity of information contained in the dossier, the FBI conducted numerous interview[s] with Danchenko between January 2017 to November 2017 regarding the information he provided to Steele,” adds the CBS reporter.

And, according to Durham’s indictment, Danshenko withheld information from the FBI about an unidentified executive’s role “as a contributor of information to the [dossier]” that “was highly relevant and material to the FBI’s evaluation of those reports.” It begs the question: are we being conditioned to believe the FBI was simply hoodwinked by a few bad actors?

While Danchenko’s new “source” for the dossier might be “news,” the involvement in the coup against Trump of Christopher Steele, Hillary Clinton, her legal firm Perkins Coie, the DNC and the FBI’s top leaders began months prior to the FBI’s interviews with the Russian. And, there were plenty of facts to support that.

“On October 3, 2018, John Solomon [provided evidence that] the FBI had good reason to suspect the dossier was connected to the DNC’s main law firm [Perkins Coie] and was the product of a Democratic opposition-research effort to defeat Trump – yet failed to disclose that information to the FISA court in October 2016, when the bureau applied for a FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.” (Pp. 74-75)

Indeed, on “four separate occasions, ‘Federal authorities used … the Steele dossier … to convince the FISA court to authorize a surveillance warrant for Page.’” (Pg. 77)

As written in my book, “‘[i]n mid-October, 2016 … a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) order was approved to spy on [Carter Page] for supposed criminal activities with Russia. A large part of the evidence supporting that warrant was based on the ‘Steele dossier’. Since the Steele dossier was known even in 2018 to have been fake, how is it nothing was done…?” (Pg. 68)

Had Durham given a glimpse into the whole rotten affair before the 2020 election, it would have gone a long way in providing the American people with some evidence of how truly criminal the Democrats are. Our country deserved at least that. And, he had plenty to go on.

It was clear by the DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on December 9, 2019 of his investigation into the FBI’s conduct in Crossfire Hurricane that his team had “found the implication that senior FBI employees would be willing to take official action to impact the presidential candidates [sic] electoral prospects to be deeply troubling and antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Justice Department.” (Pg. 69

They were all involved in criminal activity before and after the 2016 election. One would think there was nothing more important for Durham to get to the bottom of prior to the election of 2020.

The third of Saul Alinsky’s thirteen tactics for radicals to transform our country to socialism/communism states that, “whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.” He claims its “intent is to cause confusion, chaos, fear and retreat on the part of one’s opponent.” If it’s one thing the Trump-Russia collusion scandal did well, it’s that. But the truth was there if one was paying attention to the right sources.

Disturbingly, Trump had the chance to declassify relevant materials in 2018 and chose not to. Only months prior to the 2020 election did his Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe release nearly 1,000 pages of materials to the Department of Justice per Durham’s request

At the time, Republican Congressman Devin Nunes revealed that “evidence suggests that the senior-level people who headed our most trusted agencies, the FBI and DOJ, concocted the Trump-Russia collusion narrative in order to deflect the public’s attention from what was real collusion with Russia between the FBI and DOJ, and Hillary and the DNC in order to bring down a duly-elected president.” (Pp. 73-74)

The Russia-Collusion witch hunt was no ordinary crime. It was designed to bring down a sitting U.S. President by his political enemies. As such, the American people deserved to know at least some truth about that plot prior to the 2020 election. Durham’s timing is not to be applauded at all. We were robbed.

Until the American people start paying attention, digging for truth, and demanding answers, the criminals will carry on. This week, the Democrat-led House panel subpoenaed six Trump aides including General Flynn for the January 6th supposed insurrection. Here we go again.


Cathi Chamberlain, aka The Deplorable Author and founder of The Deplorable Report, is a four-time start-up business owner, published author of a self-help book featured on CNN worldwide and owner of the nation’s first all-female construction company. She is a sought-after political speaker and has been a regular contributor on the Salem Media Radio Network. In her book, “Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism,” Cathi heavily references Saul Alinsky’s 1970’s blockbuster book, “Rules for Radicals.” She is currently on her “Florida Deplorable Book Tour.” Contact her for your next speaking event at [email protected]


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Categories
BLM Freedom MAGA Truth

BLM and MAGA form Extraordinary Backlash against Democrats

By Cathi Chamberlain

On a recent weekend in New York City, thousands of protesters gathered in Times Square. But the number of protesters wasn’t the headline. Rather it was the diversity of the crowd that was surprising. One sign indicative of the mood read, “Dear Democratic Party, you lost me at mandate. Sincerely, a lifelong liberal.” 

It appears that the American people may have, finally, had enough. Indeed, we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of the Democrat Party. All without one Conservative even firing a single shot.

Mixed into the masses were MAGA folks like John Tabacco, New York City Conservative Activist and host of the Newsmax show “Wiseguys”. He’s convinced that “New Yorkers are finally coming together on this issue. Biden and the government overplayed their hand with these draconian vaccine mandates and as a result people are uniting on the right and left. This is the government’s worst nightmare.” Could it be true?

Marching alongside residents like Tabacco were equally incensed New Yorkers like Reverend Kevin McCall, a Black Lives Matter activist. Where MAGA rally-goers generally remain lawful and peaceful, unlike what mainstream media likes to portray, BLM protesters have no such parameters.

McCall “made it clear to the crowd that sometimes civil disobedience is the only way to get the government to listen.” Consistent with the group’s historic ideologies, the Reverend said “[t]he revolution will not be televised. The revolution is going to be in the streets. Yeah we can rally, yeah we can say ‘no justice no peace’, yeah we can scream ‘my body, my choice’ but the only thing that they respect is when we shut stuff down!”

Now we’re talking!

I’ve preached for years the necessity of using Saul Alinsky tactics in order to win the war against the left’s march towards communism. One of his most successful early strategies was to threaten boycotts of big corporations like Macy’s in New York City to force compliance with his bullying tactics in order to change policy. He never needed to actually shut down most of the companies. He merely used his Tactic #9: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. If shareholders caught wind of Alinsky’s plans, it was enough to give protesters what they wanted. Conservatives have been cowering by the left’s threats alone ever since. Such wimps we are.

Now it appears Conservatives won’t have to do the heavy lifting, shameful as that may be. When all is said and done, it could all boil down to the age-old mantra, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Since last summer when I helped organize marches in my own downtown city, I’ve known that we somehow must unite people with varying goals if we want to slay the real dragon — the left. I held rallies with titles like “Black and White Unite for Blue” against defunding the police, for example. Only together, I preached, could Americans beat back the tyrannical stranglehold of the Marxists’ transformation of our country. But few listened back then. 

That MAGA and BLM would later unite in a desperate sign of unity to save our country from the encroaching enslavement now becoming more visible to all is a dream come true. Timing is everything.

If ever there was a poster “boy” responsible for the chaos the COVID mandates have wrought, it’s Rachel Levine. He has just been promoted as the first female four-star officer ever in the armed forces of the United States of America. Who knew breaking the glass ceiling was as simple as a sex-change? 

Like on Instagram

The openly transgender health official may best be remembered as Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Health who, at the height of the CCP-virus pandemic across America, forced infected patients to return to nursing homes after moving his own 95-year-old mother to safety. That hypocrisy is the root of the anger coming back to haunt the Dems. 

According to The Gateway Pundit (TGP), at the swearing-in ceremony in an unabashedly candid display of hubris, Levine stated, “I stand on the shoulders of those LGBTQ plus individuals who came before me, both those known and unknown. May this appointment today be the first of many more to come as we create a diverse and more inclusive future.” Ugh.

It’s that kind of gross government blasphemy that has awakened otherwise complacent MAGA folks and the still-rational Democrats, including the less radical members of BLM. People are saying, enough is enough.

The even greater news is that this symbiotic unification isn’t only happening here in America. Uprisings are taking place worldwide.

Local organizers responsible for the NYC march have been coordinating with the World Wide Rally For Freedom. These are “ongoing bimonthly events planned all over the USA as well as in over 400 locations including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Israel, Lebanon, New Zealand, Scotland, Switzerland, Uruguay”, according to TGP.

The World Wide Demonstration (also known as the World Wide Rally For Freedom) website, “is an internationally syndicated community demonstration dedicated to emboldening citizens to push back against Coronavirus related restrictions in their countries. The event is deployed by member organizations in each city, with full local autonomy at the grass roots level.”

As whole city populations around the globe are rising up as one against the tyrannical mandates, so too are segmented groups of workers in varied occupations.

In Chicago, a third of the police force refused to comply with vaccine reporting requirements. While Mayor Lori Lightfoot is infamous for her “defund the police” policies, she is now accusing the officers of “fomenting an ‘insurrection’”. Dare she risk losing 30 percent of her city’s protective force? We know Democrats are insane of late. But, are they that suicidal? Apparently so. 

Now police officers who’ve opted to retire rather than be vaccinated are at risk of losing their pensions under even more draconian measures. While the Fraternal Order of Police are telling their members to “hold the line,” nothing could unify Americans from all sides against Dems better than injustices like this.

Democrat Governor Terry McAuliffe’s race in Virginia also encapsulates the division created by the Party’s rapidly degrading overreach. Exposing the entrenched tyrannical attitude so many Dems have adopted over the last decade, the once popular Governor may have just lost the gubernatorial race with one simple gaffe. 

Proving his insensitivity towards a parents’ rights to their own kids’ education given the explosive Critical Race Theory topic prevalent today, McAuliffe said he didn’t “think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” The backlash has been immediate and diverse.

Could it be that Americans are finally waking up to our alarming loss of rights? Only time will tell. But, one thing is for certain: none of us can sit this one out, no matter what side of the fence we sit.

Is there risk in getting involved? You betchya. We are fighting pure evil. Recently a Patriot who joined a rally I organized was contacted by the FBI, most likely for their participation. Scary as it sounds, we must understand this is a long battle for the very survival of our country. To the left, this is war and they aim to win by any means necessary. We must be equally determined.

For far too long we’ve focused on fighting each other. That’s been by the left’s design. If we’re lucky, those days are numbered. In uniting we can at least have hope for freedom and justice for all once again.

Join the movement. Go to World Wide Demonstrations here and become part of history while we still have a chance.

Cathi Chamberlain, aka The Deplorable Author and founder of The Deplorable Report, is a four-time start-up business owner, published author of a self-help book featured on CNN worldwide and owner of the nation’s first all-female construction company. She is a sought-after political speaker and has been a regular contributor on the Salem Media Radio Network. In her book, “Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism,” Cathi heavily references Saul Alinsky’s 1970’s blockbuster book, “Rules for Radicals.” She is currently on her “Florida Deplorable Book Tour.” Contact her for your next speaking event at [email protected]

Categories
America Border Immigration Truth

The fundamental transformation of America roars forward with a pen and phone

By Rod Thomson

Democrats’ ongoing fundamental transformation of America continues. What they cannot get through Congress — which are the most radical, anti-American ideas they can conjure — they just use the pen and phone as the godfather of radically changing America taught them.

The latest on this front is that the Sock Puppet administration continues to castrate immigration enforcement once the illegals they invited are here. One way or another, they seem determined to turn America into just another, run-of-the-mill, freedom-crushing, big-state nation on the decline.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Wednesday ordered immigration officers not to arrest illegal immigrants at even more places, trying to maintain the pretense they are actually still conducting homeland security that isn’t aimed at parents attending School Board meetings.

Mayorkas said “sensitive locations” or “protected areas” — which in practice are just more sanctuary locations that no one voted for — will be places where Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are now barred from detaining people who broke the law to enter or stay in America. So lawbreakers are “protected” from law enforcement, which as we see with defunding the police is just terrific for the law-abiding community.

Protected areas now include social services facilities such as homeless shelters, anywhere disaster or emergency relief is being provided, and places where children gather, including playgrounds, childcare centers, and school bus stops. These are in addition to the previous safe spaces of churches, hospitals and schools.

It sounds so compassionate on the surface. But legal Americans can be arrested in any of those locations. Guaranteed that the January 6 trespassers and “paraders” would be.

Of course this comes during an historic overwhelming of our southern border at the direct invitation of the Sock Puppet. 

Like on Instagram

The Border Patrol apprehended a total of 1.7 million illegal immigrants along the southwest border in fiscal 2021, breaking every record since the agency was formed in 1925. Another 300,000 people were stopped after trying to enter at a port of entry without legal papers. Estimated “gotaways” — the number of which the agency does not maintain for some reason — hit at least 400,000 in the past year, according to former CBP Commissioner Mark Morgan. That means that nearly 2.5 million people are now in the country illegally, almost all since the Sock Puppet was sworn in. The monthly numbers continue at about 200,000, so the change in our communities is rapid.

Mayorkas said: “We can accomplish our enforcement mission without denying or limiting individuals’ access to needed medical care, children access to their schools, the displaced access to food and shelter, people of faith access to their places of worship, and more. Adherence to this principle is one bedrock of our stature as public servants.”

A few thoughts on his justification. First, it seems like a bedrock principle of public servants who are tasked with law enforcement should be, well, enforcing the law. Second, they are not “their” schools. Those folks are not Americans nor in the country legally. Illegal aliens don’t get squatters rights because they just crossed the Rio Grande and put their kid in a school. They didn’t pay for the school or vote for the School Board. But now the rest of us have to pay for their kids’ education and the law enforcement we already pay for won’t enforce the law. 

Like Rod’s new Youtube channel

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said of ICE: “The agency still exists, but it has been stripped of all of its functions with regard to the enforcement of immigration laws. Nearly all illegal aliens are already off-limits to enforcement due to a Sept. 30 memo, and as a result of Mayorkas’ ‘expanded and non-exhaustive list of protected areas,’ where ICE agents are permitted to do their work, the secretary has essentially nullified an entire body of constitutionally enacted laws.”

But all of this goes to the Democratic Party now run by radical leftists who see up as down, good as bad, racism as anti-racism, parents as domestic terrorists, laws as obstacles, a border as immoral and America as irredeemably evil — even as the evidence of millions of people trying to get in openly disproves.

Rod Thomson is an author, former journalist, past Salem radio host and ABC TV commentator and Founder of The Revolutionary Act and The Thomson Group. Twice banned on TikTok. Follow him on Instagram. Like Rod on Facebook.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Categories
America Media Truth

Thomas Jefferson: The Media Betrayed America

By Rod Thomson

There is plenty of finger-pointing going on right now over who is to blame for America’s shockingly rapid decline. Joe Biden, Donald Trump, radical Democrats, Trumper Republicans, public education, universities, Hollywood culture, woke culture in general and so on. 

But Thomas Jefferson would point to something far more fundamental in the nation’s decline: the media. In 1786, he wrote from Paris to James Curry: “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” Freedom of the press has been lost by being willingly given away in service to a single party, rather than a watchdog.

Yes, it is the radicalized Democrat Party making it happen in government at the moment. But it is the media that has betrayed Americans by becoming a one-party propagandistic organ of both misinformation and squashing real stories, rather than being information providers to the American public that Jefferson understood to be essential to the Republic.

Jefferson keenly had so much more to say on this In one of the letters that Jefferson wrote from Paris to Edward Carrington, whom Jefferson appointed as a delegate to represent Virginia in the Continental Congress, he makes perfectly clear the critical importance of unrestricted avenues of information to the American people.

“The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them.

Jefferson saw the media as unfettered providers of information to the American public as more essential than the government itself. Of course, this explains why the very First Amendment in the Bill of Rights includes both freedom of speech and of the press, specifically that the government should not “abridge” either. “Abridge” means to curtail a right or privilege. And both free speech and freedom of the press involves the American public being informed in the public square. Newspapers were distributed at the time of Jefferson’s writings and for more than another century, largely in the literal public squares of cities and towns, where speakers would also stand to give opinions from religion to politics to anything else. Is it not clear that Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and the rest act now as the public square?

Jefferson wrote: “Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error…Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves.”

Yet top government officials, including White House mouthpiece Jen Psaki, openly call on all social media outlets, along with old-line corporate media, to ban “misinformation.” Let us be very honest about this, misinformation is the left’s euphemism for information they don’t want out or opinions they want squashed.

Psaki told reporters that any American banned from, say, Facebook (a major public square for free speech) for spreading “misinformation” should be banned from all social media outlets — all of the public squares of today. “You shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others for providing misinformation out there,” she said. All public squares must be closed to those who disagree with the government. Closed for good. Memory holed.

That is a powerful member of the government calling on the media to spread the government request (so far a request) that the gatekeepers of the public square block and ban information that the government does not want Americans to get. There is plenty of misinformation floating around. There always has been. But a core essential of America’s grand success is that the government was not allowed to determine what was misinformation and what was not because any sentient being should realize that will lead to government censorship in about five seconds.

How does this work? Psaki’s boss, the President of the United States, has openly lied to the American people dozens of times just regarding the Afghanistan fiasco. But of course that is not the misinformation she is talking about. Questioning the innumerable irregularities of the 2020 election is the misinformation she is talking about, and the social media public square along with the corporate media immediately oblige. Reporting Hunter Biden’s laptop that could incriminate the Democrat running for President is misinformation. Reporting on it minimally now that the Democrat President is in the White House is not. This is also true of Covid, masking and vaccines. So epidemiologists at Stanford, MIT and Harvard who question the government’s pronouncements on Covid are literally banned by the public square of social media and mostly by the corporate media — in the same way Hunter’s laptop was and questioning the 2020 election remains — because they do not align with the CDC, which is part of the federal government.

But of course this is the whole crux; just some people are to be banned from the public square. WrongThink people, to use Orwellian terms, will be silenced. By the government. And the media is not just compliant, but act as censors themselves working in league with the government. It’s possible that Jefferson was so worried about the government infringement, rightly so, he never considered that the media would voluntarily give over their First Amendment rights to the government.

Rod Thomson is an author, former journalist, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Follow him on Parler and Instagram. Like Rod on Facebook.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Categories
Leftists Truth

Leftists support white supremacy, could learn from Classics

Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

The American Left continues to shut down mascots and products that celebrate minorities while being fine with those that uphold whites.

From Indians and Redskins to Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima, the Left clears the aisles, stadiums and airwaves of venerable and wholesome images of black Americans and Native Americans — often without the support of blacks and natives. But these same Leftists are totally find with the Fighting Irish, Celtics, Vikings and Patriots along with every white face in your local grocery store aisle.

Of course they have eschewed history and the classics. Such a shame.

Our modern-day American Left stands much to learn from Greek mythology, specifically Erysichthon’s tragic plight. Erysicthon was a mythological king of the Greek region known as Thessaly who became so overwhelmed by the insatiable hunger cursed upon him by vengeful nymph that he eventually ate himself into oblivion.  The same thing is now happening to the Left, with its insatiable drive to teach white people a lesson.

As Americans, we have witnessed the unnecessary deletion of the word “Redskins” from the still-nameless Washington football team.  Although those few thin-skins who complained about “Redskins” were ostensibly attempting to combat stereotyping, in reality they accomplished the suppression of a celebration of positive qualities Native Americans displayed throughout their proud history.  In naming the team “Redskins” the Washington organization was tapping into the strength, heroism, fierceness and loyalty Native Americans displayed to their land and to each other when confronted with the brutal attacks from the incoming Europeans.  Clearly, Washington did not choose the name as a result of some racist drive, but rather they found something inspirational in the Redskin.  Still, the Left and a band of irrational thin-skins doubled down on America’s troubled history of prejudice bounded to skin color.  No matter how earnestly the Washington apologists made their point, the thin-skins argued the problem was the attention the name brought to our differences in skin color.  

But if the Left’s mission is merely over skin color, then why go after teams named “Indians”?

Hold on to that thought.  

Let’s first review the other slogans and marketing brands upon which the Left has concentrated its efforts.  Due to the Left’s Erysichthonian obsession with all things perceived to be racist, in one felt swoop, it erased the gentle, heart-warming, African-American face of Aunt Jemima from syrup bottles, the very distinguished dark-skinned façade of Uncle Ben from rice boxes, and the absolutely beautiful and untainted appearance of Mia, the Native American Indian woman, from butter boxes.  In each case, the selected brand was meant to bring out positive qualities of the represented group.  Aunt Jemima was a symbol of stability, hospitality, and love. Uncle Ben was an inherently virtuous man who could be trusted.  And Mia was a woman deeply rooted in her land, a symbol of purity and honesty, the same qualities that could be found in the butter she was offering. 

There is only one conclusion to be gleamed from the furious attacks on Indians, Mia, Uncle Ben, and Aunt Jemima:  the Left, in its own racism cannot stand to leave undisturbed symbols of wholesomeness, virtue, and purity emanating from people of color!

Don’t believe me?  Then take a look at the things the Left has left undisturbed.  Why can a team not exalt qualities of resilience and relentlessness of the American Indian while the same qualities are highlighted in Notre Dame’s Fighting Irish?  Is it because the Irish, despite their stubborn embrace of Catholicism, are white? 

How about the Vikings?  They were from the whitest parts of Europe, and they were ruthless and fierce, great qualities for sports team and shared by Atlanta’s Braves, Cleveland’s Indians, and Washington’s Redskins, yet, according to the Left, these qualities are acceptable in Swedes, Norwegians, and Irish, but not in Native Americans.  

How about Boston’s Celtics?  Few greater symbols of whiteness exists than the Celtic tribe inhabiting England and northern Europe that held off Rome, but the Left has no problems with them.

And just in case the Left tries to base its weak defense on a contrived concern over the stereotypical features of ethic groups, one can simply direct it to the caricature of the Irishman in Notre Dame’s logo.  

And why does a team calling itself “Patriots” plaster an image of a colonial white man on its helmets?  Is it saying that only white people can be Patriots? I, for one, would be proud to play under the image of Crispus Attucks, Peter Eastabrook, or a Danbury slave named Adams on my helmet . . . look them up.  

Oh, and no problem with the white Sam Breakstone (even though he was one of the most demanding men alive), Mr. Clean, the Brawny Guy, or Cap’n Crunch.  Somehow, they’re okay, but not Mia, Aunt Jemima, or Uncle Ben.

But so far, I have left untouched the greatest real-world casualty of the Left’s ignorant drive for its self-defined and misguided sense of social justice.  Most assume that the Indians were named in honor of the continent’s original inhabitants.  They would be wrong.  The Cleveland Indians were named in 1915 as a tribute to the then Cleveland Spiders player Louis Sockalexis, the first Native American major league baseball player to play the game and a member of the Penobscot tribe.  Ignorantly, or worse yet, purposely, in trading “Indians” for “Guardians” the Cleveland organization cut the last remaining cryptic tie to the Jackie Robinson of Native Americans-Louis Sockalexis. Which brings up the question, “Guardians” of what?  Cleveland’s baseball team is certainly not the guardian of tradition, history, Native Americans, or even diversity.  Indeed, if it was any of these attributes that Cleveland was guarding, it would have named the team the Cleveland Sockalexians,  which actually has a nice ring to it!  Oh, and by the way, in one last ironic twist of fate, the group that today vociferously celebrates the name change–journalists–is the same group that selected the name “Indians” in 1914!  (seriously, you cannot make this stuff up.)

Our cursory review of the Left’s charge at ethnic and cultural symbols leads to only one inescapable conclusion: to liberals, positive qualities in ethnic groups, symbols, or persons are only acceptable when they are encountered in whites.  If one is black or Native American and displays attributes of virtuousness, wholesomeness, honesty, integrity, strength, vigor, tenacity, or bravery, one’s legacy is to be erased from our nation’s collective consciousness, but if they are encountered in Celts, Vikings, Irish, Britons, or even Cowboys, then celebrate away!

In Greek mythology, so voracious was Erysichthon’s appetite for food that he devoured himself into oblivion.  One can only hope that the Left will do the same today with its craving for cancel culture and mass harassment.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.

Categories
Truth

Earmarks are back and now pork spending is great!

By Rod Thomson

Earmarks are back! And now, the unaccountable chicanery at taxpayer expense is a good thing, according to the unaccountable media. We shouldn’t be surprised. Clearly Washington has the financial responsibility of a 16-year-old with an unlimited credit card from a magic wizard.

Earmarks were those highly unpopular Congressional expenditures where any member of Congress could and did insert their pet spending projects in giant spending bills that no one read. No accountability. It’s how we got the famed “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska.

There had been bipartisan abuse of them running up the taxpayer tab without any real representation for years. Eventually, the American people were disgusted. Media coverage was appropriately savage as it highlighted absurd expenditure after absurd expenditure.

That was then. This is now. In reading a Miami Herald story on how their local members of Congress are playing a role in the return of earmarks, this lead tells a giant story of how far the media partisanship has gone, and the willingness to rewrite history. Journalism today is just cancerously bad.

“Over the last decade, members of Congress have been unable to request federal funds for specific projects in their districts after Republicans banned the practice at the height of the Tea Party wave to curb what conservatives called wasteful spending.

“But now the requests, called earmarks, are back. And two South Florida lawmakers will play an important role in the process, which is competitive. Not every lawmaker will get what they want.”

Like Rod’s new Youtube channel

Virtually everything in that is wrong. “Unable to request” is 100 percent false. Members have continued to request funds for projects in their district. They just had to do it in the light where the public and voters could see it.

Of course then they tied it to the Tea Party, which the Democrat operative media rank as second to Trump as a negative connection point. But it was bipartisan. The Tea Party merely channeled the anger with it. 

What “conservatives called wasteful spending”? They should have done a google search. Reuters reported: “Soon after House Republicans banned the practice in 2011, the Democratic-led Senate followed suit at the urging of Democratic President Barack Obama. Earmarks have been gone since.”

It was bipartisan because it was obvious that the American people despised it. The Miami Herald’s knee-jerk operatives however, spin it as a Tea Party and conservative move. Doubt that’s what President Obama and the Democrat-run Senate was thinking.

However, what is more alarming than the deceitful media is that the return of the earmarks is a bi-partisan decision to restore. All Democrats wanted the unaccountable pet spending back. And a small majority of Republicans also voted in favor.

To me, all this just says that other than a minority of Republicans, Washington D.C. has totally given up on any sense of controlled spending. Trillions for this Covid bailout, trillions for that one. Trillions more to remake healthcare, trillions more for the new green deal. Hanging on to the earmark ban is just cute at this point.

Does anyone really have any idea what our leaders in D.C. think this end game of infinite spending is? Perhaps enough Americans are getting “free money” that the self-consumed political class doesn’t care.

We used to want to leave the country better off for the next generation than we found it. Along with many other grand ideas, that one appears to be dead.

Rod Thomson is an author, former journalist, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Follow him on Parler and Instagram. Like Rod on Facebook.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Categories
Social Media Truth

The Keepers of the Public Square have Betrayed America

By Rod Thomson

Let’s be clear. When Republicans regain majorities in the House and Senate, if they do not redefine Section 203 of the Communications Decency Act more narrowly to strip its protections from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, it will be a dereliction of duty to the American people and the principles of free speech and truth.

If Section 203 is not the solution, then perhaps anti-trust is. Because these three social media giants legitimately and unarguably are the public square, and their unbounded, one-sided, political censorship cannot continue. Seeing that they collude with the mainstream media and major corporations, it becomes an affront to Americanism and a visible threat to the future of the country as we know it.

After allowing every false story on Russian collusion for more than two years, after allowing every false story on Russian “bounties” on the heads of American soldiers in Afghanistan — the most recent long-running media narrative definitively proven false now — after blocking every true story by the New York Post and other conservative outlets about Hunter Biden’s laptop, Facebook and Instagram have now blocked the Post’s true story on the luxury homes purchased by Black Lives Matter Co-Founder and avowed Marxist, Patrisse Khan-Cullors, in predominantly white neighborhoods. I would link to the fully documented story, but of course Facebook won’t allow it. It’s true and it’s based on public information. So this is just more woke partisanship.

Further, when sports writer Jason Whitlock shared the Post’s story with the tweet, “Black Lives Matter founder buys $1.4 million home in Topanga, which has a black population of 1.4%. She’s with her people!” he was locked out of his account by Twitter. Whitlock was told he had violated Twitter’s rules against publishing private information. When called out on such nonsense — there was no address, just actual public information — Twitter reversed the decision, claiming for the millionth time that it was just an error.

No it wasn’t. These are all on purpose, and that purpose is to help the Democratic Party and its increasing leftward lurch, to pursue a partisan and ideological agenda that is increasingly radical and outside the bounds of mainstream America.

Because BLM is one of the premier activist political organizations in the country, this is a blockbuster story squashed by the major social media outlets who are increasingly not just aligned philosophically, but also in business, with the Democratic Party. We see them getting protection from accountability when Democrats run Congress and they seem to be working hand in hand with other major “American” corporations to oppose election integrity laws, such as Georgia’s — which is less restrictive than New York’s and Joe Biden’s Delaware to name a couple and to show that none of this is about voter rights.

Like Rod’s new Youtube channel

The examples go on and on. Because social media is overtly acting as an arm of the Democrat communications establishment, just as the mainstream media has for years.

This partisanship cannot be defended by Section 203, which is meant to hold websites harmless for what readers or viewers put in comment sections. Mostly, it was designed for “interactive web sites” where third-party users might post defamatory information on a website, such as a comment section, and the website could not be held liable for that. Sometimes the analogy is made that the way it works in practice is like more benign information carriers, such as Verizon or AT&T, who are not held liable for everything from slander, or child porn or terrorist planning using their networks. 

Of course, the phone carriers don’t block political conservatives for violating nebulous “community standards.” They don’t keep Republicans from using their services to help Democrats, or vice versa.

It’s this “comments” protection that social media uses as a shield by counting every post as a comment from a third-party, which of course it is. And comments are moderated on news sites, mostly for language or indecent pictures, but also other purposes. But even the largest news websites are barely a blip compared to the social media giants.

Yahoo News and Google News are the biggest by monthly users, according to Statista, but a big part of that is because people have those auto-set as their homepage. If you remove those outliers, the three biggest are the Huffington Post (110 million unique monthly users) CNN (95 million) and the New York Times (70 million.)

By comparison, Facebook has 2.8 billion monthly active users. It also has 1.84 billion daily visitors. YouTube has 2 billion monthly users and Twitter has 330 million, but interestingly, it is the darling of the media and political class.

Follow Rod on Parler

You can see how these three social media sites dwarf traditional media, and form a de facto public square. That should change the knee-jerk defense of “a private business can do what it wants”  — said frequently by people who rarely suggest that same defense in a plethora of other situations for private businesses — because that is not true in a thousand different ways. A private business cannot be a monopoly. It cannot deny service based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference and so on. It cannot hire or fire based on that criterion. And now, apparently, cannot not make a cake for a gay wedding. So that argument is weak gruel and clearly hypocritical.

But the media does not have those 203 protections. They can be as biased or partisan as they want under the First Amendment, but they are also liable for the content that they create. So they can be sued for liable and slander and so on.

Yet in practice, the social media companies operate prima facie much more like the media than they do a comments section of a website or Verizon. This is critical because treating them like the media destroys their entire model. Every photo and story that the media publish from other media such as Reuters or AP or any other source, the media outlet pays for. If social media had to pay for every such usage they would be bankrupt in a week. Or they would have to block billions of users from sharing any copyrighted stories and photos. Completely unsustainable.

The social media companies say that their entire business is akin to a comments section, so they should be afforded the Section 203 protections. Indeed, this is where, I think, a Republican Congress needs to re-work the Section 203 — or another legal angle I do not see — to ensure that a cabal of three companies does not control the vast majority of arguably the most important industry in America: Information.

The comments section on a newspaper site is so paltry as to pose no threat to the public square. Not so with social media. The most glaring example of the power they wield is this data point: A post election survey found that 17 percent of Biden voters would not have voted for him if they knew about the Hunter Biden laptop and the implications in it. If those polled answered truthfully, that alone would have been a landslide for Trump. That one case, and the obvious collusion among all of the social media and mainstream to block out a truthful story, apparently swung a presidential election.

That cannot be allowed to continue.

The New York Post article that BLM leader Cullors purchased “four high-end homes for $3.2 million” in the United States since 2016 is only meant as another example of the ongoing closing of the public square by social media. This cannot be allowed to stand in a nation that can only thrive on robust and free debates.

Rod Thomson is an author, former journalist, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Follow him on Parler and Instagram. Like Rod on Facebook.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS