Crime Media Race Truth

Media Refuses To Cover Black Man’s Murder Of White Boy

Rod Thomson

The media continues to be the primary driver of racial divisions in America. The most recent example makes the blood boil, but perfectly demonstrates how coverage, and lack of coverage, drives a false narrative that results in American cities burning for a lie.

Five-year-old Cannon Hinnant was playing outside his father’s North Carolina house on a sunny Sunday afternoon, riding his bike with his two sisters, eight and seven years old. He apparently rode onto the lawn of the neighbor’s house, where Darius Sessoms lived. According to police reports and witnesses, Sessoms came out of his house with a handgun, went up to little Cannon, put the gun to his head and murdered him while his sisters were watching.

Sessoms jumped in his car and drove away, but was captured by indispensable law enforcement and arrested within 24 hours.

This is just a gut-wrenching story at multiple levels. And yet the mainstream media outside of Fox News has refused to cover it. Doing searches for NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, Reuters News Service and so on, you will not find a story on it. Only local media in North Carolina and some conservative outlets have covered it.

How does ignoring this story drive racial divisions? Compare the coverage of George Floyd’s death by Minneapolis police. That story could have been about a bad cop acting outrageously. Because that’s actually what happened. But because it was a white cop on a black man with video evidence, it became a giant national story and the media could not get enough. 

The story of Cannon is more compelling in that he was not a convicted felon high on drugs and resisting arrest, not an excuse for the cop’s behavior but a bit of context. Cannon was a five-year-old boy executed for riding his bike. While white? That is what the media and Democrats would jump to if the races were reversed.

Some will argue that the Floyd killing represented the bigger issue of murderous police brutality against blacks. But that actually is not supported by the data.

A study by Roland Fryer Jr., a black professor of economics at Harvard University, found that there was not a disproportionate impact in terms of police shootings. Actually, the opposite.

After the 2014 Fergus, Mo., shooting of a black man by a white police officer, which touched off riots and destruction on a smaller scale after heavy media coverage of “hands up, don’t shoot” that never happened, Fryer and his assistants spent 3,000 hours assembling detailed police reports from several major cities. Their findings were that law enforcement officials “were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white.” Also, Fryer found that black and white civilians in these types of situations were equally likely to have a weapon on them.

After controlling for numerous other factors — so in basically similar situations — Fryer found that blacks were 27.4 percent less likely than whites to be fatally shot by police. Police have recognized, at least subconsciously, the higher negative impacts of shooting a black man than a white man for years now.

The media was fully aware of Fryer’s findings — which were subsequently reproduced — but after the Floyd killing, they went right back into the same mode. Meaning that they and their fellow-travelers in Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Socialist Party USA and other anti-American subversive organizations, ignored the data and focused on an anecdote that is duty-bound to whip up racial animosity.

But did you know that there actually is a major issue with violent black crime against white people?

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics 2018 survey of criminal victimization, the latest year available, there were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations (excluding homicide) between blacks and whites last year. Blacks committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies, or 90 percent, and whites committed 56,394 of them, or less than 10 percent. That means blacks committed nine times more violence against whites than whites did against blacks. That’s a fairly compelling piece of data.

And while the media loves to make the fact-free claim that there is increasing Trump-inspired white supremacist violence against blacks, the opposite turns out to be true. In 2012-13, blacks committed 85 percent of all interracial victimizations between blacks and whites, while whites committed 15 percent. From 2015 to 2018, the total number of white victims and the incidence of white victimization have grown as well.

Interestingly, blacks are also much higher perpetrators of hate crimes by 50 percent, according to the Justice Department data from 2017. Whites are underrepresented at only 24 percent. This is particularly true for anti-gay and anti-Semitic hate crimes.

So absolutely none of the stories we see constantly from fatal police brutality to whites hunting blacks are true. In both of these cases, the opposite is true.

The actual story, and one that is uncomfortable and that the media will not report, is that black Americans are committing violent crime against white Americans at astronomically higher rates than the other way around. And police killings are so small as to be irrelevant.

If seeking a powerful anecdote to reflect a factual truth, the death of little Cannon is the proper one.

But better yet, the media and Democrats could just treat both the Floyd killing and the Cannon killings as individual bad people doing bad things where both were arrested and charged, and race does not play a role.

But the media does just the opposite. And American cities burn while large swathes of Americans think the lie is the truth.

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

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Crime Democrats FBI Politics Trump Truth

The Ominous Prosecutorial Misconduct Pattern Emerging In America

by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

There is a growing pattern here, and its deeper than you think.

Last week we learned from a published plea deal with prosecutors from the Southern District of New York (SDNY) that American Media, Inc. (AMI), the National Enquirer‘s parent company, admitted to “making a contribution and expenditure. . . to the campaign of a candidate for President of the United States.” In exchange for this admission, the SDNY agreed not to prosecute AMI for any crimes related to this contribution with the exception of any criminal tax violations that may have arisen.

Although the admission allows AMI to avoid prosecution for its campaign contribution, a neutral review of the facts laid out in the addendum to the September 30th plea deal calls to question whether a contribution to any campaign even occurred.

According to the plea deal arrangement published by SDNY, AMI made a contribution to the Trump campaign when it paid $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal in order to procure the rights to her story regarding her extra-marital affair with Donald Trump. Prosecutors claim that the money paid to McDougal by AMI represented a campaign contribution because it was made with the intent of influencing the results of the election and in coordination with Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, and unnamed “members or agents of the Trump campaign.”

The payment was allegedly made to McDougal after AMI CEO David Pecker received assurances from Cohen that he would reimburse Pecker for the transaction, and after Cohen created a shell corporation housing the money to be used to reimburse Pecker and AMI.

However, despite the execution of the deal between McDougal and AMI, Pecker later called Cohen to tell him “that the deal was off and that Cohen should tear up the assignment agreement.”  The addendum does not explain why Pecker called off the deal with Cohen, but it does say that AMI subsequently published articles and pictures of McDougal on many of its magazines “to keep the model from commenting publicly about her story and her agreement with AMI.”

Consequently, neither Cohen, Trump, nor the Trump campaign ever gave the money to AMI (the parent company of the National Enquirer).

Under these circumstances it is debatable whether the actions by Pecker were contributions to the Trump campaign or a business transaction voluntarily undertaken by Pecker and independent of any political campaign. Moreover, even if there was a deal with Cohen, pending the identification of the “members and agents of the campaign” and their participation in the transaction, it appears Cohen was acting as Trump’s personal attorney and not as an agent of the campaign.

And finally, being that AMI never consummated the deal with Cohen, doesn’t that obviate whatever association AMI may have had with Cohen and therefore the campaign? Regardless, it certainly seems unpalatable that a campaign finance statute would be written so broadly as to capture any activity that any person undertook in support of a candidate in the absence of any participation on the part of the campaign. Such a statute would be impossible to enforce and an open affront to the protections enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.

Support Truth!

So if AMI never consummated a deal with Cohen or the Trump campaign, was it really a campaign contribution? And if it was not, then why would AMI make a deal with prosecutors in exchange for immunity?

The answer is simple: economic and legal expediency.

Pecker knows that a legal defense of this matter would likely run in the scores of thousands of dollars regardless of whether or not he prevails. Additionally, although this transaction may be defendable, there’s no telling what other things prosecutors may turn up about AMI independent of the Trump dealings that may place it in real legal turmoil. So in the end, it pays for AMI, which has no unbreakable interest in Trump, to just agree to the deal and tell prosecutors whatever they know. After all, the admission of an illegal campaign contribution on the part of the National Enquirer will neither hurt its public standing nor its sales. AMI gets its immunity, and the prosecutors get a cooperative witness with which to pursue its case against the President. And the world moves on.

Indeed, if the AMI matter had taken place in isolation there would be little impetus for a story here. But consider the events involving Jerome Corsi.

Mr. Corsi is a journalist and an author notable for his book Obama Nation. Corsi was approached by Special Counsel Robert Mueller regarding his alleged interactions with Candidate Trump adviser Roger Stone and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. These contacts resulted from Corsi’s investigations of the Wikileaks July 22, 2016, publication of Hillary Clinton’s emails where he noted the absence of a batch of emails between Clinton and her former campaign manager, John Podesta. According to the later-filed complaint by Corsi’s lawyers, that observation led Corsi to contact Assange regarding Assange’s possible possession of the Podesta emails and their potential publication.

As a result of this contact, Mueller suspected Corsi of possibly aiding Russia in colluding with the Trump campaign through Assange. According to Corsi’s complaint, Mueller and his team then attempted to coerce Corsi into admitting that he was colluding with the Russians on behalf of Candidate Trump. In this case, however, Corsi refused to admit engaging in activity in which he was not involved and fought back by filing a lawsuit against Mueller.

But the Corsi and AMI affairs are not the only two examples of potential prosecutorial coercion in the Trump affair.

General Michael Flynn is a soldier and public servant with an impeccable reputation dating back over 30 years. In 2017, Flynn served as President Trump’s first National Security Advisor. In December 2016, Flynn had two conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. On January 24, 2017, four days into his tenure as NSA, FBI agents approached Flynn regarding those contacts. Among the FBI agents conducting the interview was Peter Strzock, the same agent who was later disgraced because of personal texts where he openly expressed his intense bias against President Donald Trump.

Like Us!

Apparently, during that interview, General Flynn was asked whether he had ever spoken to Kislyak. Flynn denied such a conversation. When confronted about this discrepancy, Flynn said that he did not initially recall the contacts. And in point of fact, Flynn had reason to not be as defensive and careful as he would have been had he known the prosecutorial peril under which he had been placed.

First, even though the law specifically prohibits knowingly and willfully lying to the FBI, Flynn was never placed under oath nor told that anything he said could and would be held against him; a basic tenet of prosecutorial conduct and fair play. Second, when Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe approached Flynn via a telephone conversation, he billed the interview as being for the purpose of pursuing information regarding media coverage of the leaked memos. Even more damning was McCabe’s reassurances to Flynn that the latter did not need his attorney to be present.

This latter fact is perhaps the most implicative of a concerted entrapment on the part of the FBI even before one considers that then FBI Director James Comey recently observed that that he knowingly broke protocol in this case because the Trump administration was a mere three days into its tenure and “disorganized.”

Based on these coercive and unethical, and likely unconstitutional circumstances, Flynn would be threatened with prosecution unless he admitted to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Kislyak and cooperated with the Mueller investigation of President Trump.  After losing his house to the overwhelming legal bills and seeing his son similarly threatened by prosecutors, Flynn acquiesced.  The case is presently under judicial review for possible prosecutorial malfeasance. A decision on this matter is expected this Tuesday as part of Flynn’s sentencing hearing.

Then there’s President Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, admittedly a category onto himself. Cohen was recently sentenced to three years imprisonment on charges of campaign finance violations stemming from payments he made to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking regarding her affair with Trump prior to his becoming President.

Once again, the legal premise under which prosecutors sought to indict Cohen was controversial. There is significant disagreement over whether Cohen was engaging in campaign activities when he made the arrangements with Stormy Daniels. His actions, although shady, could have reasonably been found to have taken place on behalf of Trump’s personal capacity and outside the purview of Trump’s presidential campaign. But once again, coercive prosecutorial activities come into play, and Cohen worked out a deal so to not have to defend himself in court.

In the end, Cohen was sentenced to three years in jail, largely based on his less than total candor with prosecutors. However, still unresolved is the question of whether his actions were truly illegal. Regardless, prosecutors now can use a possibly erroneous admission of guilt as another brick in their efforts to take down a sitting president.

And just this week, we learned that Dennis Nathan Cain’s home was raided by the FBI, a protected whistleblower regarding the troubled Clinton Foundation’s Uranium One dealings; a raid that may in fact be illegal.

The implications of these activities are immensely troubling.  The tendencies towards the abuse of power and prosecutorial misconduct that these cases demonstrate represent clear affronts to our democratic system of government and a testament to the dreadful state of affairs into which our nation will devolve should they not be checked.

There’s no question that any tendency towards politically based prosecutorial misconduct must be shut down. The problem is that doing so may place any resistor or whistleblower at legal and personal risk simply for calling it out. And that is the greatest danger of all.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Crime Politics Truth

Watch Your Money: Rip-Off Artists Acting As Political PACs

By Peter B. Gemma

More than 7,000 political action committees (PACs) are on the election playing field this cycle, and most are diligent, effective, and transparent. But like any industry, from auto repairs to wedding photographers, there are operatives making a fast buck.

The business of a PAC is to invest money from contributors directly to campaigns, while some conduct independent expenditure efforts to oppose candidates or advocate issues that impact voters.

Some slick players are running PACs to simply line their own pockets: for instance, meet Jack Daly. From January 2017 to July 2018, Daly, who serves as chairman and treasurer of the Draft Sheriff David Clarke for Senate PAC, was paid more than $585,000 for his services. That’s about 30 percent of the organization’s total income, but there was even more spent on fundraising expenses. One hitch however: the Wisconsin Sheriff and conservative activist has called the PAC “a scam.” He explained to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that, “they don’t need my permission to [fundraise]. Every time I talk to people and say, ‘No, I’m not running for Senate, hang onto your money.’”

So, what does the Clarke for Senate PAC actually do? In 2016, Daly’s group spent $5,000 on tickets and expenses for President Trump’s inauguration. His PAC also paid $12,000 to be a sponsor of the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference, incurring more than $10,000 in expenses, including $1,000 for meals and lodging at the Trump International Hotel.

One of the most notorious political profiteers is Scott Mackenzie. In the 2016 election cycle, he served as the treasurer of no less than 22 political action committees. Some of the organizations affiliated with Mackenzie include the Black Republican PAC, which, since 2012, has raised $2,512,759, while donating $134,605 to candidates. Over the last four years, his Conservative Strikeforce PAC raked in a whopping $11,114,614 but dedicated less than seven percent of that booty to political action.

According to political investigative site Open Secrets, one of Mackenzie’s PACs, Freedom’s Defense Fund, paid 69 percent of its income to firms linked to Mackenzie.

Sham PAC vendors cash in on the racket too.

More Truth On Our Facebook Page

InfoCision, a robo-call agency, has worked for many conservative campaigns and causes including presidential candidate Ben Carson, Citizens United, National Right to Life PAC, and something called the Committee to Defend the President. During the past five years, political committees have paid InfoCision at least $24.8 million to send recorded messages to prospective donors, keeping more than half for their services. Former employees have alleged the company preys on elderly people, and an investigation by Bloomberg Markets Magazine revealed that the company held onto 78 percent of the donation money it collected on behalf of the American Diabetes Association. At one point, the American Cancer Society reported that InfoCision kept 100 percent of what was raised, plus charged them more than $113,006 in fees for services.

Of course, political profiteers fleece donors from all sides of the political spectrum through PACs.

In the last four years, 21st Century Democrats have raised $7.1 million from donors, and blew through $5.2 million of it on salaries, overhead, and fundraising expenses. The group asserts it funds “a diverse array of candidates who show unusual promise to advance our progressive goals,” and contributes “in some of the most competitive races.” However, 21st Century Democrats gave $11,847 to candidates (.0015 percent of its gross) but spent more than 30 times that amount on promoting itself in the media.

Last year former MSNBC host Krystal Ball created the People’s House Project to help Democratic candidates. So far, the group has raised $734,419 and paid its founder and staff almost half if its income ($339,300); candidates were allotted about 10 percent, and the rest, incredibly, covered the cost of doing business.

More Truth On Patreon

And here’s a huckster who does business on a bipartisan basis: Brian Hampton, treasurer of Put Vets First PAC, uses veteran’s issues to solicit funds. Since 2016, his group has raised more than $4 million, but only $14,000 (.0035 percent) has been used to help Democrat and Republican candidates. More than $1.7 million was paid to one vendor, Outreach Calling, a telemarketing company that has raised more than $118 million on behalf of a dozen charities — two of which have been forced to close by New York regulators. According to New York state government records, Outreach Calling keeps 90 percent of the money it brings in.

There is some good news in all this.

Campaigns & Elections magazine quotes Republican strategist Tony Marsh as saying: “The rise of scam PACs has created new energy for federal investigators.” Last May, the FBI raided the offices of Scott Mackenzie, and Outreach Calling executives have been banned for life from fundraising in New York. In January, InfoCision agreed pay $250,000 to settle a civil complaint filed by the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission.

Again, most political action committees are professionally run and have above board business practices. They represent the legitimate interests of conservatives, liberals, farmers, chiropractors, defense contractors, labor unions, and more. But just as supermarket customers check the ingredients and not just the labels, political donors must remember caveat emptor — buyer beware — when spending money on politics.

Peter B. Gemma is an award-winning freelance writer whose articles have appeared in the websites DailyCaller and AmericanThinker, as well as the Washington Examiner and Military History.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Crime Politics Truth Violence

A Florida Legislator’s Steps To Blunt School Gun Violence

by Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

The Chamber of the Florida House of Representatives is an austere place. Upon entering, you feel the weight of your constituents urging you to work for the betterment of all Floridians. Despite its loftiness, during session it is also a place bustling with activity.

But on Wednesday, Feb. 14, 2018, all of that came to a halt as the announcement was made that a terrible mass shooting incident was taking place at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Miami, and a moment of silence was called in solidarity with those who were tragically affected by the day’s events. The work of the Florida House continued after that, but at a much more somber pace.  

As we know, 17 people paid the ultimate price for this senseless act of violence while countless others were left with a huge void in their lives and in their hearts. And those of us in the Florida House were left with a renewed call to do something to address this tragic problem.  

The question, of course, is what?

The easy but fruitless answer is to reach for gun control legislation. All sorts of ideas have been floated, ranging from a ban on assault weapons all the way to confiscation. The problem with these suggestions is that no matter how many of these laws are passed, the nefarious shooter will continue to obtain weapons and wreak havoc on the frail and unarmed. Although many are frustrated by the Congress’s inability to enact stricter gun control legislation, the ineffectiveness and futility of these measures is the very reason for the gridlock.  Unquestionably, if gun control measures truly worked, their passage would be unstoppable.

Our Revolutionary Youtube Channel

So, absent these ineffective measures, what else can be done?

Well, there are actually some very promising solutions.

➜ For starters, school districts can enact programs designating individuals with familiarity in handling weapons (such as concealed weapon permit holders, military veterans, former law enforcement  officers, etc.) to carry them in schools for the purposes of protecting students in case of an active shooter or hostage situation. These programs may include training requirements, background checks and psychological testing in order to qualify to carry in a school. These individuals ought to be carrying in a concealed manner so that no student or stranger would know the identity or number of such designated carriers.

➜ Many states prohibit the carrying of any weapons at all in all schools, public or private, thus rendering even the members of churches with schools on church grounds powerless to respond in the case of an active shooter incident. Those restrictions need be lifted, particularly during times when the church’s school is not in session, such as Sundays, the same time that services are being held.  

➜ States ought to enact legislation requiring school districts to develop policies and response plans to active shooter situations, and drill them, so that all involved know how to respond.  

➜ States should coordinate simulation programs, such as the one run by the University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine, where field enactments are created requiring coordinated responses by local SWAT, EMS teams, and assigned weapons carriers. This will allow for better coordination amongst the different players needing to work together and for the identification of challenges before they are encountered in live events.

Like in other areas, prevention is the best policy and overreliance on the federal system is a prescription for failure. Consequently, state law enforcement must be tasked with the job of identifying high-risk individuals and with investigating them before a mass casualty event takes place. It follows that state legislatures must pass laws and appropriations providing these agencies the tools they need to hunt down these would-be killers and get them the interventions they need.

So why haven’t these very reasonable and logical steps been enacted?

In my experience, the number one reason legislation in this arena meets so much resistance is because of the conflations and misguidance provided by its opponents. Without fail, whenever these measures are presented, opponents turn the debate into a discussion about the expansion of guns in schools or the intrusion on gun-free zones when, in fact, these measures represent no such expansions or intrusions.  Additionally, fear mongering inevitably takes place as if the fear of the unknown were greater than the acknowledgment of the certainty of another deadly occurrence.  

Clearly, our country’s problem with violent behavior and murderous conduct is much greater than the mere existence of guns, and we should never have a discussion about gun violence and school safety without noting the need to improve the moral ills afflicting us.

More importantly, we cannot allow the paralysis that grips us regarding gun control to keep us from enacting useful and lifesaving measures. Doing so not only represents a terrible negligence on our part, but it will also lead to more tragic and needless loss of life.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod.  Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy. is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.