Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The complete history of Barack Obama's second term -- click Views/Repies for top stories

  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #1 

Just one more reason to avoid Google


Joe Schoffstall (FreeBeacon) is reporting that a data firm that is backed by Eric Schmidt, the chief executive of Alphabet, Google's parent company, has been paid millions by Democratic committees, Federal Election Commission filings show.

Schmidt is an investor and sits on the board of directors of Civis Analytics, a consulting firm that was founded by Dan Wagner, the chief analytics officer for President Obama's 2012 presidential campaign. Civis was "born" out of the Obama campaign after Schmidt, who helped as a recruiter and trainer for the campaign, approached Wagner about starting a company at the conclusion of the election.

The Alphabet CEO, who provided seed funding to Civis and later helped the group raise $22 million, was also found to be working with Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

A number of liberal committees and PACs have paid Civis for its services, including the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC); Democratic National Committee (DNC); Priorities USA Action, the largest liberal super PAC; NextGen Climate Action Committee, a PAC founded by liberal environmentalist Tom Steyer; and Senate Majority PAC, the political action committee started by former Democratic Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.).

Civis has received $22,500 from the DSCC for internet and website services and $27,500 from the DNC for polling expenses so far this year, filings show. From January 2015 to the December 2016, the DSCC paid $2.8 million to Civis for data modeling while the DNC paid the firm $560,000 for polling expenses.

The firm also received $68,400 from Priorities USA Action this year, the largest super PAC that backed Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. George Soros was the largest donor to Priorities, having donated $9.5 million to the group throughout the entirety of the 2016 election cycle. Priorities paid Civis more than $1 million during the cycle.

Schmidt and Google came under scrutiny during the 2016 presidential election after some Republicans claimed Google's search engine was manipulating results in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump. Schmidt responded to the accusations by saying that the company remains neutral.

Schmidt, on a personal level, was later found to be directly helping Clinton's presidential campaign.

Following the release of John Podesta's hacked emails, the Washington Free Beacon discovered that Podesta had linked up Schmidt with Cheryl Mills, a longtime Clinton aide, and Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, in April 2014. The email was sent six months before Clinton had launched her campaign.

During a later release, the Free Beacon found a PDF file attached to an email that verified Schmidt was working directly with the Clinton campaign. The document was tacked onto an email that Mook sent to Mills, Podesta, and David Plouffe, Barack Obama's former campaign manager.

Teddy Goff, a digital strategist for Clinton's campaign who was previously the digital director for President Obama's reelection campaign, wrote the memo.

"I have been kept apprised of the work being done by Eric Schmidt's group and others working directly and indirectly with your team. On the whole, I am comfortable with where we stand and confident in our roadmap to launch day and beyond," Goff wrote.

"We have instructed Eric's team to build the most important products in their portfolio -- specifically, the back-end of the website, the ability to accept donations (along with associated features, most importantly the ability to store credit card information), and the ability to acquire email addresses -- first," Goff says. "Given how much time remains between now and launch -- and, again, the availability of alternative solutions -- I believe there is effectively no chance that these core functionalities will not be in place in time for launch."

While the Schmidt-backed group is never mentioned by name in the memo, Schmidt provided seed funding to a company called The Groundwork.

Michael Slaby, the former chief integration and innovation officer for the Obama campaign, launched The Groundwork from a company he founded called Timshel.

The Groundwork was ultimately paid hundreds of thousands by Clinton's campaign. Schmidt was later spotted at Clinton's election night party wearing a "staff" badge.

Google, whose lobbyists enjoyed direct access to President Obama's White House, and visited more than 400 times for meetings during his tenure, was forced to pivot in an attempt to court Trump and Republicans following the election.

Schmidt later appeared at a Trump Tower meeting featuring tech giants despite his work on behalf of Clinton's campaign. Google donated $285,000 to Trump's inauguration and the company posted job openings seeking a Washington, D.C., veteran to help with conservative outreach on its policy team.

Schmidt did not return a request for comment.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #2 

Vanity Fair says Silicon Valley's plan to save the Democrat Party is "fatally flawed"


Mark Pincus (Breitbart) is reporting that Silicon Valley billionaires are reportedly committing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a quest to rejuvenate the Democratic Party.

Zynga Co-Founder Mark Pincus and LinkedIn Co-Founder Reid Hoffman have reportedly pledged $500,000 to "Win the Future" (WTF), which was described by Vanity Fair as an effort to harness "the power of the Internet to crowd-source ideas for a new center-left platform that's guaranteed to be a hit with the Sun Valley set."

"Think of WTF as equal parts platform and movement. Its new website will put political topics up for a vote -- and the most resonant ideas will form the basis of the organization's orthodoxy," reported Recode this week. "To start, the group will query supporters on two campaigns: Whether or not they believe engineering degrees should be free to all Americans, and if they oppose lawmakers who don't call for Trump's immediate impeachment."

"Participants can submit their own proposals for platform planks -- and if they win enough support, primarily through likes and retweets on Twitter, they'll become part of WTF's political DNA, too," they continued. "Meanwhile, WTF plans to raise money in a bid to turn its most popular policy positions into billboard ads that will appear near airports serving Washington, D.C., ensuring that ‘members of Congress see it.'"

WTF, which currently has six employees and "additional backing" from former Walt Disney Studios Chairman, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and venture capitalists Fred Wilson and Sunil Paul, is reportedly Pincus' solution to a Democratic Party that is "already moving too far to the left."

According to Recode, Pincus wants the group to be "pro-social, pro-planet, and pro-business."

"I just don't feel respected in the political process as a large donor or as a citizen voter," expressed Pincus in an interview. "I just feel patronized. Everything I get is like, ‘Hey, you couldn't possibly, it's too complex and sophisticated what really goes on,' and ‘Hey, leave it to us, and we will go and represent you and fight the good fight, and just give us money.'"

In their article, Vanity Fair remained unconvinced with the group's pitch.

"While the Democratic Party may be in need of reform, the Silicon Valley vision for a millennial-friendly upgrade seems fatally flawed," proclaimed writer Maya Kosoff. "At a time when the culture seems fed up with Silicon Valley navel-gazing, Win the Future brings to the table the worst aspects of the tech industry: the arrogance to think that politics can be ‘hacked'; the hubris to think that they are the one to overhaul it; and a total misunderstanding of the system they're trying to disrupt."

"At one point in his interview with Recode, Pincus clumsily compared politics to the video game industry a decade ago," she continued, before adding, "To Pincus's credit, the popularity of FarmVille does evince a real understanding of human psychology (even if it is convincing people to pay real money for virtual Farm Cash). And Pincus is right that the political system is needlessly exclusive, and failing to serve a broad swath of people who have become disillusioned with Washington."

"Yet it's hard to see how anyone could look at the results of the 2016 election and walk away thinking that what America needs now is a business-friendly, crowd-sourced agenda based on Twitter polls, whose underlying purpose seems effectively indistinguishable from the Innovation party, or No Labels, or Third Way, or Unity08 (or the effort to recruit Michael Bloomberg, who Pincus reportedly tried to sell Hoffman on in 2015)," Kosoff concluded, claiming that the progressive activists she spoke to "were similarly skeptical."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #3 

Thank the NSA for yesterday’s Shadow Brokers ransomware attack


The FireAndreaMitchell blog is reporting that there are reports of 99 countries affected by today’s ransomware attack that caused chaos all over the world. And you know who we can thank for all of this? The worthless spying NSA department that was hacked last month of these hacking tools what enabled the Shadow Brokers to create this chaos. What in the hell was the NSA doing by creating ransomware? I understand the NSA creates viruses and malware to infect other countries computers, but ransomware? The head of the NSA is Obama appointed Mike Rogers. He needs to be replaced like Comey. This is not the same Mike Rodgers who was once a Michigan congressman and reportedly one of the top candidates to replace Comey at the FBI.

IN MID-APRIL, an arsenal of powerful software tools apparently designed by the NSA to infect and control Windows computers was leaked by an entity known only as the "Shadow Brokers." Not even a whole month later, the hypothetical threat that criminals would use the tools against the general public has become real, and tens of thousands of computers worldwide are now crippled by an unknown party demanding ransom.

The malware worm taking over the computers goes by the names "WannaCry" or "Wanna Decryptor." It spreads from machine to machine silently and remains invisible to users until it unveils itself as so-called ransomware, telling users that all their files have been encrypted with a key known only to the attacker and that they will be locked out until they pay $300 to an anonymous party using the cryptocurrency Bitcoin. At this point, one’s computer would be rendered useless for anything other than paying said ransom. The price rises to $600 after a few days; after seven days, if no ransom is paid, the hacker (or hackers) will make the data permanently inaccessible (WannaCry victims will have a handy countdown clock to see exactly how much time they have left).

Ransomware is not new; for victims, such an attack is normally a colossal headache. But today's vicious outbreak has spread ransomware on a massive scale, hitting not just home computers but reportedly health care, communications infrastructure, logistics, and government entities.

Time for Mr. Rogers to go.

Related:  "Accidental hero" finds kill switch, stops ransomeware spread

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #4 

#FakeNews purveyors, Snopes and Politifact, are now the arbiters of #FakeNews for Google

Eric Lieberman (DirectorBlue) is reporting that Google rolled out a new feature Friday for its search browser, which uses media outlets like Politifact and Snopes to help combat "fake news."

After inputting a search query on the tech conglomerate's platform, a user is shown results with "fact checks for one or more public claims" or news stories.

"The snippet will display information on the claim, who made the claim, and the fact check of that particular claim," Justin Kosslyn, product manager of Jigsaw, Google's technology incubator, and Cong Yu, a research scientist, wrote on an official Google blog post. "As we make fact checks more visible in Search results, we believe people will have an easier time reviewing and assessing these fact checks, and making their own informed opinions."

Kosslyn and Yu don't specifically mention Snopes or Politifact in their text, but the pictures provided demonstrate the two projects in use. An accompanying map also lists the two websites.

Snopes, Politifact, or any such publication deciding which news stories are legitimate leads to editorializing as fact checking is prone to subjectivity.

This notion is further evidenced in that not a single fact checker at Snopes comes from a conservative background, which a Daily Caller investigation revealed. In fact, Snopes employs liberals and leftists almost exclusively.

Snopes' fact-checking skills have been called into question after numerous attempts to invalidate certain stories backfired.

Politifact has also made some extremely doubtful (and perhaps biased) efforts to disprove and verify certain public claims.

The Pulitizer Prize-winning site ruled former Secretary of State John Kerry's 2014 claim to have destroyed "100 percent" of chemical weapons in Syria as "Mostly true." Syrian citizens were victims of the worst chemical attack since 2013 on Tuesday, in what many believe was the work of the Syrian government.

Google clarified that not every search result will trigger an automatic fact check by Snopes and Politifact because sometimes "different publishers checked the same claim and reached different conclusions."

"Even though differing conclusions may be presented, we think it's still helpful for people to understand the degree of consensus around a particular claim and have clear information on which sources agree," Google elaborated.

The tech giant thanked its "fact check community," which reportedly includes 115 organizations, for helping to purportedly refine the feature.

Google isn't the only company trying to fight news it considers deceiving or false.

Facebook rolled out new tools in January and April to help determine what news stories are "sensational" or "misleading." The tech company also hired a former CNN anchor, Campbell Brown, who isn't shy about her anti-Trump sentiment in January to become its new arbiter of news.

In case you don't know, here are the people behind Snopes.

And Politifact was a key player in the conspiracy to sell Obama's "short form" birth certificate to the American People as a legitimate document. 

It's no surprise that Google, Snopes and Politifact have teamed up. After all, they're the same people with the same view of the world.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #5 

Protest aims to "take down" on Inauguration Day


Morgan Chalfant (WashingtonFreeBeacon) is reporting that a leading public-relations service blasted and then removed a news release this week highlighting a campaign to protest the inauguration of Donald Trump by crashing

PR Newswire, a global news-release distribution service, circulated a release on Thursday highlighting a campaign launched by, a digital protest organizing platform, to "take down" the White House website next Friday in protest of Trump's inauguration.

"On January 20th, hundreds of thousands of Americans are going to Washington, DC to march in protest of the inauguration of Donald Trump. Millions more around the country will be joining the cause from home. If you can't make it to Washington DC on inauguration day, you can still participate by occupying online," the release read.

"Why is it important to participate? Isn't this just another election? We haven't lost our democracy yet, but it is most definitely under threat. The only way we're going to defend and revive our democracy is by mobilizing." describes itself as a platform that helps individuals "organize protests like a crowdfunding campaign." A description of the Inauguration Day protest on its website, named "Occupy," instructs interested parties to go to the White House website on Jan. 20 and refresh the page as often as possible throughout the day. The page also includes instructions for protesters to "automate" page refresh so that their computers do this automatically.

"When enough people occupy the site will go down. Please join us and stand up against this demagogue who is threatening our democracy and our security," the protest page states.

Shortly after blasting the news release, PR Newswire issued a correction, changing the headline of the release from " Launches Campaign to Take Down on Inauguration Day" to " Launches Campaign to Voice Your Opinion at on Inauguration Day." Later, the news-release service removed the press release entirely.

PR Newswire was purchased by Cision, a global public relations software company based in Chicago, for $841 million from British business events organizer UBM in 2015. PR Newswire is based in New York and distributes public relations messages for companies largely located in the United States and Canada, according to the New York Times.

When contacted, a spokesman for Cision confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon that the original release had been modified and later removed entirely "after further evaluation."

"The issuer modified the original release at our request, but after further evaluation, we ultimately decided to remove the release in its entirety and have requested that the rest of our network remove the content as well," Stacey Miller, director of communication for Cision, wrote in an email Friday afternoon.

An organizer for the protest did not respond to a request for comment.

Federal investigators have probed what are called distributed denial of service, or DDoS, attacks, which block users from websites by overloading them with traffic. Such attacks brought down Twitter, Spotify, and Amazon last October, prompting investigations by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security.

It is unclear whether the planned "Occupy" protest campaign would constitute a DDoS attack. Attempts to reach the FBI on Friday were unsuccessful.

Several protests have been organized around Inauguration Day, including the "Women's March on Washington" that is expected to draw some 200,000 women to the nation's capital on Jan. 21, the day following Trump's inauguration. Fox News reported that protesters are also planning to blockade security checkpoints at the inauguration and organize a "dance party" outside the home of Vice President-elect Mike Pence.

Naturally, this is just a diversion. They goal is to take down Obama's "bogus" birth certificate that exists only on "" as electrical impulses.

Once " is "refreshed" for the next administration, Obama's birth certificate will no longer exist as an "official" document.

And yes, the "official" copy of Barack Obama's bogus birth certificate is still at

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #6 

Guccifer 2.0 comes out of hiding and says-- "I breached the DNC network. The Intel Russia report is 'a crude fake'"


Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that hacker Guccifer 2.0 came out of hiding and posted his first tweet since November on Thursday.

The obscure hacker admits he breached the DNC network in his latest post. He also says the Russia Report released by the CIA is a "crude fake."


From the Guccifer 2.0 website, Guccifer 2.0 reports:

I really hope you've missed me a lot. Though I see they didn't let you forget my name. The U.S. intelligence agencies have published several reports of late claiming I have ties with Russia.

I'd like to make it clear enough that these accusations are unfounded. I have totally no relation to the Russian government. I'd like to tell you once again I was acting in accordance with my personal political views and beliefs.

The technical evidence contained in the reports doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This is a crude fake.

Any IT professional can see that a malware sample mentioned in the Joint Analysis Report was taken from the web and was commonly available. A lot of hackers use it. I think it was inserted in the report to make it look a bit more plausible.

I already explained at The Future of Cyber Security Europe conference that took place in London in last September, I had used a different way to breach into the DNC network. I found a vulnerability in the NGP VAN software installed in the DNC system.

It's obvious that the intelligence agencies are deliberately falsifying evidence. In my opinion, they're playing into the hands of the Democrats who are trying to blame foreign actors for their failure.

The Obama administration has a week left in office and I believe we'll see some more fakes during this period.

I guess you have a lot of questions for me. So, feel free to send them via DM.

According to the flimsy intelligence community's Case Against Russia Guccifer 2.0, the entity that originally distributed hacked materials from the Democratic party, is a deeply suspicious figure who has made statements and decisions that indicate some Russian connection.

Guccifer 2.0 says the intelligence community is deliberately falsifying evidence to play into the hands of Democrats.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #7 

Intelligence officer who personally met the Democratic email leaker and confirms the leaker is with U. S. intelligence


George Washington (ZeroHedge) is reporting that the former intelligence analyst, British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, and chancellor of the University of Dundee, Craig Murray, wrote yesterday:

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks -- there is a major difference between the two.

I know who leaked them. I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

In other words, Murray -- a close friend of Julian Assange -- says he knows for a fact that there were no hacks at all … instead, an American insider leaked the information to Wikileaks.

Today, Murray writes:

If you set up the super surveillance state, hoovering up all the internet traffic of pretty well everybody, that is not just going to affect the ordinary people whom the elite despise. There is also going to be an awful lot of traffic intercepted from sleazy members of the elite connected to even the most senior politicians, revealing all their corruption and idiosyncracies. From people like John Podesta, to take an entirely random example. And once the super surveillance state has intercepted and stored all that highly incriminating material, you never know if some decent human being, some genuine patriot, from within the security services is going to feel compelled to turn whistleblower.

Than they might turn for help to, to take another entirely random example, Julian Assange.

This confirms what the NSA executive who created the agency's mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a "legend" within the agency and the NSA's best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened ("in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union's command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons") -- previously said:  the leaker was from U.S. intelligence services. And see this.

And Murray confirmed to Washington's Blog by email that Binney "was on the mark."  And see this.

In other words, Russia did not hack the Democratic party emails. Instead, an American intelligence whistleblower leaked them.

It wouldn't be the first time.

Update: David Swanson interviewed Murray today, and obtained  additional information. Specifically, Murray told Swanson that: (1) there were two American leakers … one for the emails of the Democratic National Committee and one for the emails of top Clinton aide John Podesta; (2) Murray met one of those leakers; and (3) both leakers are American insiders with the NSA and/or the DNC, with no known connections to Russia.

And see this.

Postscript: As we've pointed out for years, the NSA is collecting all digital communications, including emails, in America.

The NSA then shares this information with numerous other agencies, including the FBI, DEA, etc.

We've noted that the NSA's big data collection itself creates an easy mark for hackers. Remember, the Pentagon itself sees the collection of "big data" as a "national security threat" … but the NSA is the biggest data collector on the planet, and thus provides a tempting mother lode of information for foreign hackers.

And we've documented that the Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined.

It sounds like thiswitches brew of bad policy is what led to the Democratic email leaks from an insider in the intelligence services.

But if anyone wants to try to prove Murray and Binney wrong, it should be easy to check.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #8 

Web giants to cooperate on removal of extremist content


Julia Fioretti (Yahoo) is reporting that Web giants YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft will step up efforts to remove extremist content from their websites by creating a common database.

The companies will share "hashes: -- unique digital fingerprints they automatically assign to videos or photos -- of extremist content they have removed from their websites to enable their peers to identify the same content on their platforms.

"We hope this collaboration will lead to greater efficiency as we continue to enforce our policies to help curb the pressing global issue of terrorist content online," the companies said in a statement on Tuesday.

Tech companies have long resisted outside intervention in how their sites should be policed, but have come under increasing pressure from Western governments to do more to remove extremist content following a wave of militant attacks.

YouTube and Facebook have begun to use hashes to automatically remove extremist content.

But many providers have relied until now mainly on users to flag content that violates terms of service. Flagged material is then individually reviewed by human editors who delete postings found to be in violation.

Twitter suspended 235,000 accounts between February and August this year and has expanded the teams reviewing reports of extremist content.

Each company will decide what image and video hashes to add to the database and matching content will not be automatically removed, they said.

The database will be up and running in early 2017 and more companies could be brought into the partnership.

The European Union set up an EU Internet Forum last year bringing together the internet companies, interior ministers and the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator to find ways of removing extremist content.

The Forum will meet again on Thursday, when ministers are expected to ask the companies about their efforts and helping to provide evidence to convict foreign fighters.

So, who gets to decide what's extremist content?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #9 

The good, the bad and the politically correct -- assassination threats against Trump flood Twitter

In the days since Donald Trump earned the title of president-elect, social media has seen an increasing number of death threats aimed at Trump and even Vice President-elect Mike Pence.

The rising number of threats and calls for Trump to be assassinated has prompted the Secret Service to take necessary precautions, including advising Trump to wear a bulletproof vest when he is outside or around crowds.

Ronald Kessler, an investigative reporter and author of a book about Secret Service presidential details, said Trump and his detail should demand the extra protection.


Joshua Rhett Miller (NYPost) is reporting that the shock and anger over Donald Trump's ascension to the White House has triggered a flood of calls on Twitter and other social media outlets for the president-elect to be assassinated -- and authorities will investigate all threats deemed to be credible, The Post has learned.

Donald Trump met Thursday with Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with the Republican businessman calling the hour-plus session a "great honor." Obama said they had an "excellent" and "wide-ranging" conversation, while urging all people to "now come together."

But that message of inclusion was apparently lost in social media circles, particularly Twitter, where a simple search can reveal dozens and dozens of calls to gun down the next leader of the free world. Some posts called for both Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence to be assassinated, and there's even an #AssassinateTrump hashtag.

"Trump chose the literal worst case scenario as VP so nobody would try to impeach or assassinate him," one user posted on Twitter.

Another user wrote that the "only" remaining question after Tuesday's historic and polarizing election is who will "assassinate" Trump, who will be inaugurated on Jan. 20. Some users even cited that date as a deadline for the assassination.


Other postings called for users who used the inflammatory hashtag to be contacted by authorities.

Twitter banned Milo Yiannopoulos, Charles C. Johnson and George Zimmerman for a lot less.

Hell, Clint Eastwood's Twitter account was suspended two days ago after the actor and director praised Donald Trump.


If it weren't for double standards, the Left would have no standards at all.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #10 

The 44 most damning stories from WikiLeaks


Alex Pfeiffer (DailyCaller) is reporting that WikiLeaks has published tens of thousands of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails. This is what The Daily Caller believes are the most important findings from them.

They expose a corrupt press, Clinton Foundation play for play, cronyism, and the Clintons’ real thoughts on the issues.

The Clintons in private:

Hillary Told Goldman Sachs America Is Arming Countries That Fund Jihadists

Hillary In Goldman Sachs Speech: People Who Oppose Immigration Are ‘Un-American’

Bill Clinton Mocked Working Class Voters At Private Fundraiser

Leaked Transcript: Bill Clinton Says ‘Political System Is Rigged’ And Hillary ‘Deserves’ The White House

Leaked Speech: Bill Clinton Calls ‘Coal Country’ Most ‘Anti-Immigrant’ Part Of America

Bill Clinton Told Donors The Border Won’t Be Secure ‘For A Very Long Time’

Leaked Bill Clinton Speech: Obama Years Left No Hope For White Working Class

Podesta Email: It Would Have Been ‘Better’ If San Bernardino Shooter Had A Stereotypical White Name

Hillary Tells Bankers: ‘My Dream Is Open Borders’

Hillary Called Saudi Arabia The Number One Exporter Of ‘Extreme Ideology’ In Private, Paid Speech

When Speaking To Donors, Bill Clinton Sounds A Lot Like Donald Trump

Clinton Campaign Knew TPP Switch Was ‘A Huge Flip Flop’

Clinton Foundation:

Clinton Foundation Donors Expected ‘Benefits In Return For Gifts’

Hillary Wants Clinton Foundation To Keep Accepting Foreign Donations

Clinton Foundation Memo Shows Meetings With Bill Clinton Cost $100,000

Clinton Campaign Found ‘Huge’ Gender Pay Gap At Clinton Foundation

Bill Clinton Receives ‘Expensive Gifts,’ Is Personally Paid By Clinton Foundation Sponsors

Clinton cronyism:

Clinton Campaign Took Money From Agents For Foreign Interests

Hillary Got $12 Million for Clinton Charity As Quid Pro Quo For Morocco Meeting

Clinton’s Aide’s For-Profit Firm Illegally Raised $150 Million For Clinton Charity

Huma Abedin Granted Access To Hillary Based On Clinton Global Initiative Donor Status

DOJ Official Who Is Friends With John Podesta Offered A ‘Heads Up’ On Clinton Email Developments

Podesta Suggested Coordinating With State Dept. To ‘Hold’ Hillary’s Emails With Obama

Here’s How The Clinton’s Free Private Jet Scam Works

Leaked Emails Show Clinton Campaign Coordinating With Soros Organization

Emails Show Starbucks CEO Advising Clinton Campaign About Hillary’s ‘Brand’

REVEALED: Liberal Money’s Longterm Strategy To Control Public Opinion And Secure ‘Advantageous’ Demographics

iPay-For-Play: Apple VP Pledges To Play ‘Public Role’ In Exchange For HRC’s ‘Nuanced Encryption Stance’

Leaked Email Reveals Google Chairman Wanted To Be Clinton Campaign’s ‘Head Outside Advisor’

Facebook COO In Leaked Email: I Still Want Hillary To Win Badly

Clinton Campaign Planned To Work With Media Matters, Leaks Reveal

Emails Reveal Clintons’ ‘Sleazy’ And Intricate Relationship With Major Chemical Manufacturer

Clinton Campaign Chair Met With Soros To Talk TPP, Immigration Policies, Leaked Emails Show

The cozy press:

Leaked Emails: CNN Journalist Refers To ‘GOP Hell,’ Calls Podesta A ‘Star’

CNN Source Fed Clinton Camp Information

Politico Reporter Sends Story To Hillary Aide For Approval, Admits He’s A ‘Hack’

Hill’s Shills: Leaks Have Exposed Journalists In Clinton’s Corner

Politico Reporter Was ‘Glad’ Hundreds Of Superdelegates Backed Hillary

Politico Reporter Gets Caught AGAIN Sending A Story To A Clinton Staffer For Approval

Donna Brazile Shared CNN Town Hall Questions With Clinton Camp

Donna Brazile Shared Additional Debate Questions With Clinton Campaign, Identified Her Tipster

Debate Moderator Congratulates Podesta On Nevada Caucus Victory 

Chuck Todd Hosted Swanky Dinner Party At His Home For Top Clinton Campaign Official

Clinton Campaign And Harry Reid Worked With NYT To Smear State Dept Watchdog

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #11 

WikiLeaks servers under targeted denial of service (DoS) attack

WikiLeaks has come under a DoS attack since publishing a new tranche of DNC e-mails, the whistleblowing website has announced on Twitter. The announcement was made by WikiLeaks on its official Twitter account after the organization had released more than 8,000 emails from key figures in the Democratic National Committee.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Birther Deluxe

Posts: 93
Reply with quote  #12 
If they've got it, what are they waiting for? The MSM will not cover it, that leaves We The People and we need time to disseminate it.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #13 

WikiLeaks threatens Hillary Clinton


Ray Starmann (USDefenseWatch) is reporting that recently, Julian Assange confirmed that WikiLeaks was not working with the Russian government, but in their pursuit of justice they are obligated to release anything that they can to bring light to a corrupt system -- and who could possibly be more corrupt than Crooked Hillary?

"The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything. Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That's false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source," Assange said in a recent interview. "Hillary Clinton is just one person. I actually feel quite sorry for Hillary Clinton as a person, because I see someone who is eaten alive by their ambitions, tormented literally to the point where they become sick -- for example faint -- as a result of going on, and going with their ambitions. But she represents a whole network of people, and a whole network of relationships with particular states." The cryptic tweet says.

"Hey, @HillaryClinton, you have until Monday to drop out, or we will destroy you completely,"

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #14 

Apple app helps #NeverTrumpers rig the election

S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that Apple – Tim Cook – has offered a voting app that will allow #NeverTrump voters to rig the election. The app is offered at iTunes.

Potential voters will trade votes via this app to boost Hillary's support in swing states while 3rd party candidates get more support in blue states where it won't matter.

pic166.jpg     pic167.jpg

Vote trading works like this according to Apple:

We match Hillary voters in blue states with third-party voters in swing states to help them trade votes. Hillary gets more swing votes and third-party candidates get their votes counted.

* Find vote trading matches and get comfortable, before agreeing to the trade
* Optionally connect with Facebook or LinkedIn to increase confidence in the trade.
* Group Chat across members helps coordinate, evangelize and match
* Help others channel their frustration positively. Spread the word and help save America

This app is free to use for any Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Green Party or anyone against Donald Trump for this 2016 US Presidential Election. Whether you are for Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, let's agree on one thing: Never Trump.

Where are the never Hillary people who don't want a president under FBI investigation?

Silicone Valley is almost 100% for Hillary and now they are rigging elections or at least Tim Cook is?

It is an idea that rose to semi-prominence with "Nader Traders" during the 2000 election to block George W. Bush. It's dirty pool.

The anti-American hard-left American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Voting Rights Institute took up the cause in court and argued  that vote trading is protected by the First Amendment. In 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed Internet-based vote swapping is legal. Judge Raymond C. Fisher said in the official opinion, "The websites' vote-swapping mechanisms as well as the communication and vote swaps they enabled were constitutionally protected."

How are our votes protected from wheeler-dealers?

It could matter in this election because of the intense feelings about the candidates. The participation could be high. The vote swappers do operate on the honor system and there is little else to assure they are trading with a legitimate swapper. [As if these clowns are honorable]

What kind of country have we become?

It's very one-sided. The #NeverHillary people have no such app.

To make matters worse, Guccifer 2.0 is claiming that he has inside information from the FEC that the software installed in the FEC networks by IT companies will allow Democrats to rig the election. We will report on that when Guccifer 2.0 offers more information.

It's a good thing this App wasn't released a month ago!

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #15 

Hillary's secret meeting with Silicon Valley bosses

Google's boss Eric Schmidt

Nikki Schwab (DailyMail) is reporting that new emails from the Wikileaks cache show that Hillary Clinton's campaign had Google"s Eric Schmidt draw her up a campaign plan.

And she secretly met with Silicon Valley entrepreneurs after some interpreted remarks she made as being against the "sharing economy."

Schmidt sent a detailed plan to Cheryl Mills, who had served as Clinton's chief of staff when she was secretary of state, in April 2014, a full year before the Democratic politician announced her bid for the White House. 

The Google titan outlined a number of things, including one Clinton definitely listened to -- where she should base her campaign headquarters. 

"Its important to have a very large hiring pool (such as Chicago or NYC) from which to choose enthusiastic, smart and low paid permanent employees," Schmidt argued.

He also nixed Washington, D.C., as an idea, even though it's a thriving city for millennials.

"DC is a poor choice as its full of distractions and interruptions," he wrote in the memo, emailed to Mills.

She then passed it along to John Podesta, whose emails were hacked and made public by Wikileaks.

The note was also addressed to Robby Mook, who became Clinton's campaign manager, and David Plouffe, a veteran of Barack Obama's campaign, who now works for Uber.

In the memo, Schmidt also argues for transparency when it comes to financial transactions.

"All investments and conflicts of interest would have to be publicly disclosed," he wrote. "The rules of the audit should include caps on individual salaries and no investor profits from the campaign function," he said, adding in parentheses, "For example, this rule would apply to me."

Clinton engaged with a broader swath of Silicon Valley about a year and a half later, sitting down for a secret roundtable with tech leaders in August of 2015.    

The reason for this meet-and-greet, explained Stephanie Hannon, Clinton's chief technology officer, was because a speech Clinton gave at the New School a month before had ruffled some in the community's feathers. 

"Many in the technology community embraced YOUR comments and acknowledged that the rise of new technologies raises important questions about workplace protections, but some in the community interpreted them as challenging the promise of the on-demand economy," Hannon wrote to Clinton, explaining that relationship building was  the point of the meeting, in which press was banned.

The group, which included leaders at the top of Uber, Airbnb, Lyft, Instacart, Munchery and others, was assembled so that Clinton could listen to them and reinforce that she was "the candidate of the future." 

"Accordingly, the attendees have been selected with an eye toward fostering a positive atmosphere," Hannon wrote.

"Not everyone in the room will be a partisan Democrat, and some may wish to make their case for why on-demand economy companies do not compromise workers" rights, but all intend to participate constructively and should be open to your message," Hannon said.

The guest list for Hillary"s Silicon Valley meeting:

Tri Tran - CEO and co-founder of Munchery
Conrad Chu - Co-founder of Munchery
Nate Fagioli - Vice president of finance for Munchery
Brian Chesky - CEO and co-founder of Airbnb
Stacy Brown-Philpot - COO of Taskrabbit
Rachel Whetstone - Senior vice president of policy and communications for Uber
Aaron Levie - CEO, co-founder and chairman of Box
Logan Green - CEO and co-founder of Lyft
Kevin Gibbon - CEO and co-founder of Shyp
Scott Stanford - Co-founder of Sherpa Ventures
Apoorva Mehta - CEO and founder of Instacart 

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #16 

Leaked email reveals Google Chairman wanted to be the Clinton campaign’s "Head Outside Advisor"


Alex Pfeiffer (DailyCaller) is reporting that Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google's parent company Alphabet, wanted to be "head outside advisor" to the Hillary Clinton campaign, according to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta in an email released by WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks has continued to reveal Schmidt's cozy relationship with the Clinton campaign. In a previously leaked email, a memo showed that Schmidt was working directly with the Clinton campaign on setting up various backend features to their website.

In an April 2014 email from Podesta to Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook discussing the launch of Hillary's campaign, Podesta described how much Schmidt wanted to work with the campaign.

"I met with Eric Schmidt tonight. As David reported, he's ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn't pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn't seem like he wanted to push others out," Podesta wrote. He added, "Clearly wants to get going. He's still in DC tomorrow and would like to meet with you if you are in DC in the afternoon. I think it's worth doing. You around? If you are, and want to meet with him, maybe the four of us can get on the phone in the AM."

Cheryl Mills was copied on the email and let Podesta know that Mook wouldn't be able to make the call that day because he was in Australia. Mook said that she was correct but would love to talk to Schmidt eventually.

Podesta wrote back: "The thing [Schmidt] really pressed me hard on was geography. Very committed to the idea that this be done in a city where young coders would want to be, preferably outer borough NYC. Thought No Cal was priced out of the market and too into itself. Thought DC lacked talent in this arena."

The Clinton campaign ended up putting their headquarters in Brooklyn, an outer borough.

In another email released Sunday by WikiLeaks, Tina Flourney, Bill Clinton's personal chief of staff, said in February 2015 that Schmidt asked to meet with President Clinton and that they would do so on that Friday.

Flourney later wrote in the email chain, "it is about the business he proposes to do with the campaign. He says he's met with [Hillary Clinton]."

Podesta responded, "Yup. I've talked to him too. Robby is in touch with his team. I see no harm in [Bill Clinton] seeing him." Flourney replied, "FYI. They are donating the Google plane for the Africa trip."

Google has not responded to questions about Schmidt's role with the Clinton campaign.

Schmidt has been busy programming Google so that the giant search engine only provides positive search results for Hillary -- but he missed one.

As of midnight, last night, a search for "pathological lying" returned the following:


As of this morning, it is gone, gone, gone.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #17 

Internet disruption linked to Hillary and the election


Tad Cronn ( says if you were on the Internet on Friday, and you most likely were, you may have noticed some of your favorite sites being glitchy, slow or even entirely unavailable. That's apparently because hackers decided to go after the Internet.

Not a site or a server. The Internet. In at least three waves of attacks, major sites were assaulted by millions of infected computers and linked devices, such as webcams and phones.

It was the latest incident in a high-stakes game of cyber chicken being played by the Obama Administration in an effort to stop the founder of Wikileaks and ensure Hillary Clinton wins the election.


Oh, what a tangled interweb we weave when first we practice to deceive. …

Anyone who's been awake for more than an hour at any time during the past month or two, and managed to avoid the mainstream media, is surely aware of the ongoing flood of hacked emails from the Hillary Clinton campaign, the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and now President Obama being posted online.

Nearly all of it is thanks to Wikileaks, the organization founded in 2006 by Julian Assange.

Assange was once a favorite of the Left, back in the good old days when he was blowing the cover off the bad behavior of Republicans. His site has received several awards, and Assange was the Readers Choice for Time's Person of the Year in 2010.

Things change.

The Obama Administration has for several years been doing everything it could think of to make Assange's life miserable, harassing him and his associates. In late 2010, Sweden tried to extradite Assange from Britain, but seemingly it was the United States behind the effort. After running out of legal options in Britain, he fled to the asylum of an Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he is staying still, surrounded this week by heavily armed police who are just itching for a chance to arrest him.

Assange's de facto house arrest has not stopped Wikileaks from publishing tidal waves of damning information about Hillary Clinton, her staff, the Democratic National Committee -- just about everyone who's anyone on the Left -- during a hard-fought election year.

As much as the Clintons have managed to control the mainstream media, they haven't been able to control Wikileaks and the hundreds of conservative sites that actually read what Assange's group has posted.

That doesn't mean the Left hasn't tried to fight back.

Access to Wikileaks is blocked on computers at the Library of Congress and in all federal offices. Since 2010, the White House Office of Management and Budget has prohibited federal employees and contractors from accessing any classified information that might be found on Wikileaks.

The U.S. Army, the FBI and the Department of Justice all want to criminally prosecute Assange for "encouraging" theft of government property. The Obama Administration has pressured the United Kingdom, Germany and Australia to also consider criminally prosecuting Assange for leaking information about Obama's war in Afghanistan.

Hillary Clinton in 2010 denounced Wikileaks for a recent release of information, saying, "This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests, it is an attack on the international community."

Even Republicans have jumped on the Assange hate train. Rep. Peter King sided with Clinton against Wikileaks and joined her call for declaring it a terrorist organization.

Recently, things may have taken an even darker turn.

Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was murdered on July 10 in Washington, shot on a street corner at 4:20 a.m. His wallet, watch and other valuable items were not taken. According to his mother, the police who found Rich were surprised that he died "because he was talking away."

Although Assange didn't come right out and confirm it, he implied in an interview that Rich was Wikileaks' source for at least some of the DNC emails that have been posted online.

As the leaked emails have piled up, Assange's Internet access was mysteriously cut off last week by an unnamed "state entity." It turned out to be the government of Ecuador, Assange's hosts. Wikileaks has reported that Ecuador acted under pressure from Secretary of State John Kerry, an assertion the State Department denies. (Imagine that.)

Friday's Internet disruptions, according to Wikileaks, may have been carried out by some of Assange's supporters, and Wikileaks posted messages online urging its fans to "stop taking down the U.S. Internet. … Mr Assange is still alive and WikiLeaks is still publishing."

It then posted another message: "The Obama administration should not have attempted to misuse its instruments of state to stop criticism of its ruling party candidate."

In fact, it was after Wikileaks had posted the contents of paid Clinton speeches to bankers, in which she said she dreamed of open borders, that Assange's Internet access was cut.

After Friday's demonstration of Internet disruption, the Left and others are panicking about a potential Election Day hack attack.

It sounds like another convenient cover for Democratic election fraud that's already in the works.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #18 

Kerry appealed to Ecuador to stop Assange

Rudy Takala (WashingtonExaminer) is reporting that WikiLeaks claimed on Tuesday that Secretary of State John Kerry personally appealed to Ecuador to stop WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from publishing information damaging to Hillary Clinton.


"Multiple US sources tell us John Kerry asked Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing Clinton emails during FARC peace negotiations," WikiLeaks said in a message on Twitter. Kerry was involved with negotiations aimed at ceasing hostilities with the Marxist guerrilla group.

WikiLeaks added in a second message, "The John Kerry private meeting with Ecuador was made on the sidelines of the negotiations which took place [principally] on Sep 26 in Colombia."
State Department spokesman John Kirby said the accusation is "false."
"While our concerns about WikiLeaks are longstanding, any suggestion that Secretary Kerry or the State Department were involved in shutting down WikiLeaks is false," he said in a statement. "Reports that Secretary Kerry had conversations with Ecuadorian officials about this are simply untrue. Period."
WikiLeaks said Monday that Ecuador cut the Internet connection for Assange, who has been holed up in the country's London embassy since 2012. He is wanted in Sweden on charges of sexual assault, but has expressed fear that he could be extradited to the United States for espionage should he leave the embassy.

I'm not sure "appealed" is the correct verb -- more likely "demanded" -- and the reason given is absurd.

John Kirby has no honor.  The retired admiral has been forever tarnished by his association with Team Obama.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #19 

WikiLeaks says Assange's Internet link was severed by a "state party"

Fox News is reporting that WikiLeaks said Monday that its founder Julian Assange's internet link was severed by a "state party" and that "appropriate contingency plans" were activated.


The website's announcement came hours after it published three cryptic tweets. The messages referenced Ecuador, Secretary of State John Kerry and the United Kingdom's Foreign Commonwealth Office. Each tweet was matched with a string of numbers.

WikiLeaks hasn't tweeted anything else about Assange's internet and how it may have been "severed."

Receiving some word that it may have been the Ecuadorians who cut his internet. Apparently their agreement with him staying there involved not created issues or annoying them. Obviously the leaks are bringing down some pressure on Ecuador. That would explain why "Ecuador" is named in one of the tweets.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #20 

ISIS is using Google Maps to plan attacks

Cheryl Chumley ( is reporting that ISIS has turned to one of Tech World's biggest companies, Google, to tap into its satellite map system and carry out its terrorist mission around the world with near-pin-point accuracy.


A new report warns of the new strategy.

The Express reported:

"Spain's Centre against Terrorism and Organised Crime (Citco) warned of fresh dangers to travellers in a new report entitled 'Terrorist Threat Against Civil Aviation.'

"The report's authors identified three areas of vulnerability to aviation security: the use of drones, jihadis who have infiltrated airport personnel and use of the Google Maps.

"Citco, the main agency collating information and data from the Spanish Interior Ministry, wrote: 'ISIS, with its recent bombings in Brussels and Istanbul, has shown that any country may be targeted, including Spain, and especially those countries where tourism is important.'

"The advance in technology is enabling terrorists to flesh out their plans by enabling access to airport layouts and security systems."

The big deal with Google maps is that it allows users to take a virtual tour of the geographical scene.

And as Citgo said, the Express reported:

"'The jihadists can make use of the tools offered by the internet to perform planning tasks with common tools such as Google Maps itself.

"'Through this application anyone can get high-quality images of airport grounds, avoiding the risk of being detected in routine surveillance prior to the crime.'"

"The rise in the use of drones is labelled as the biggest threat to planes by anti-terror organisations. …

"It said: 'The scenario that currently offers the greatest vulnerabilities is the use of unmanned devices of small dimensions to reach a plane in flight.

"'Its malicious use is a risk for both air navigation and the security of citizens and critical infrastructures.'"

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #21 

Trump opposes Obama's plan to surrender American Internet control to foreign powers


"Donald J. Trump is committed to preserving Internet freedom for the American people and citizens all over the world. The U.S. should not turn control of the Internet over to the United Nations and the international community. President Obama intends to do so on his own authority -- just 10 days from now, on October 1st, unless Congress acts quickly to stop him. The Republicans in Congress are admirably leading a fight to save the Internet this week, and need all the help the American people can give them to be successful. Hillary Clinton's Democrats are refusing to protect the American people by not protecting the Internet.

The U.S. funded, created, developed and expanded the Internet across the globe. U.S. oversight has kept the Internet free and open without government censorship -- a fundamental American value rooted in our Constitution's Free Speech clause. Internet freedom is now at risk with Barack Obama's intent to cede control to international interests, including countries like China and Russia, which have a long track record of trying to impose online censorship. Congress needs to act, or Internet freedom will be lost for good, since there will be no way to make it great again once it is lost."

Stephen Miller, National Policy Director

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #22 

Facebook, Google, Twitter, & YouTube are the "lifeblood of ISIS"


Bethany Blankley (FreedomOutpost) is reporting that the British Home Affairs Select Committee published a report assessing that Facebook, Google, Twitter, and YoutTube are "consciously failing" to prevent their sites from "being used to promote terrorism and recruit extremists." Committee members announced that these social media giants are "the vehicle of choice in spreading propaganda and the recruiting platforms for terrorism," and are demanding that they publish statistics four times a year detailing the number of terrorist-related pages and accounts they have deleted.

Committee chair, Labor MP Keith Vaz, argues that these social media sites are "the lifeblood of Daesh" (another term used for ISIS). He added:

"Huge corporations like Google, Facebook and Twitter, with their billion-dollar incomes, are consciously failing to tackle this threat and passing the buck by hiding behind their supranational legal status, despite knowing that their sites are being used by the instigators of terror.

"The companies' failure to tackle this threat has left some parts of the internet ungoverned, unregulated and lawless."

The committee learned that these companies only have "a few hundred" employees tasked with monitoring content posted on their companies' sites. Worse still, some don't actively report the extremist content to law enforcement.

The Independent reports that official figures estimate that roughly 800 UK-based Islamists have travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight with ISIS. About half returned to the UK, which officials believe helped contribute to the one third increase of terror-related incidents. Police have had to rise to the challenge; deleting nearly 300 posts per day.

In late August, Twitter announced it removed 235,000 accounts for "violating its extremism policies," the same week when British Islamist Anjem Choudhry was finally sentenced to prison, this time for publicly supporting ISIS.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #23 

How Google is steering users away from Hillary health woes

Ari Lieberman (FrontPage) says it's been a rough couple of weeks for Hillary Clinton. The pundits expected her to coast to the presidency, but it hasn't exactly turned out that way. Her scandal-ridden bid for the presidency is rapidly losing altitude while a more statesman-like Donald Trump is surging. The most recent polling data suggests that Trump is up by 3 points.

Not a day goes by without another damning revelation plaguing her campaign. The Benghazi fiasco, the email breaches and the emerging Clinton Foundation pay-for-play corruption scandal have all taken their toll on the 68-year old.

Clinton is viewed by the vast majority of the electorate as untrustworthy and for good reason. Her tendency to evade and deflect rather than directly address questions pertaining to her alleged malfeasance has not endeared her to the voters. 

Her health is another cause for concern. Up until this month, those who questioned Clinton's health were dismissively referred to as conspiracy theorists by the mainstream media. Her three blood clots, deep vein thrombosis, a concussion, fractured elbow, inexplicable falls and coughing spells were all dismissed as events which occurred in the past with no relevance to the present. 

But on Sept 5, while addressing a crowd in Cleveland, Clinton encountered an uncontrollable, lengthy coughing spasm. She then picked up a glass of water and pretended to drink but upon closer examination, coughed up what appeared to be two greenish-yellowish balls and spit them into the glass. Later that day, she encountered another debilitating coughing fit while addressing members of the press on her campaign plane. On Sept 9, she abruptly cut short a press conference and quickly departed from the podium in an attempt to hide yet another coughing spasm. And Daily Mail U.S. Political Editor David Martosko who watched the press conference noted that Clinton appeared tired, bored, half-awake and disinterested to the chagrin of Clinton acolytes. 

Questions began to surface once again about her health and fitness to lead the nation. Clinton attributed the coughing spells to "talking too much" and "seasonal allergies." The mainstream media continued to place their collective heads in the sand but the medical community took heed. 71 percent of doctors polled believed that Clinton's health was a serious issue that could be a cause for disqualification and warranted further investigation.

Then on September 11, at the 9-11 memorial in downtown Manhattan, Clinton fainted and had to be dragged into a waiting SUV. One of her shoes was later recovered at the scene. Her campaign claimed she "overheated" but weather conditions were moderate -- 77 degrees punctuated by a cool breeze – and the episode occurred in the morning. Something didn't add up. Later that day, Clinton's physician acknowledged that Clinton was suffering from Pneumonia and was taking antibiotics (that didn't stop her from endangering the health of a young child by taking advantage of a photo-op). 

Following the frightening episode, most within the mainstream media belatedly acknowledged that Clinton's health, as well as her attempts to cover-up her health problems, were real campaign issues. Those who were previously and derisively referred to as conspiracy theorists were vindicated.

But despite all the evidence, media and electoral interest, the tech giant Google hasn't gotten the memo. It has engaged in a deliberate mendacious campaign of deception by steering its users away from searches that highlight her multiple health issues and deteriorating condition.

I came across this phenomenon by reading an article in Sputnik, a pro-Russian online publication. Though the article appeared to be well-researched with graphics, I don't consider this source to be entirely reliable so decided to conduct my own searches to verify the veracity of claims alleged in the Sputnik article.

I typed four different search requests into the Google search engine – "Hillary he," "Hillary health" "Hillary health i," and Hillary health p" and then compared the findings with two rival search engines, Bing and Yahoo, and the results were both astonishing and disconcerting. 

Google's autocomplete feature steered me to obscure Clinton topics and in a direction that was nearly completely devoid of anything relating to Clinton's health woes. By contrast, Bing and Yahoo directed my searches to matters concerning her multiple health issues.

The following graphics represent screenshots of those troubling results.

pic518a.jpg    pic518b.jpg  pic518c.jpg 

The results speak for themselves. Clearly, Google is being mendacious and is deliberately trying to suppress negative coverage of Clinton. The reasons for this are quite obvious. Google and Clinton maintain close pecuniary ties. The Clinton campaign is utilizing the technology resources of a start-up company, known as Timshel, to boost Clinton's presidential prospects. Timshel is largely funded by billionaire Eric Schmidt who also happens to be the executive chairman of Google's parent-company Alphabet. From there, it's easy to connect the dots. This type of deceptive conduct, designed to manipulate the electorate is beyond disgraceful and demonstrates the corrupting influence of Clinton-connected businesses on the 2016 election.  

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #24 

The social apocalypse -- a forecast


J.M. Berger (IntelWire) says tens of thousands of foreign fighters found their way to Afghanistan during the 1980s, without benefit of the Internet. More than 900 Americans found their way to Guyana in the 1970s, to die in the Jonestown massacre. Extremists have always found ways to make contact with like-minded recruits.

For a long time, I resisted the idea that social media was a global game changer. As new companies sprouted up in the late 1990s and early 2000s, each promised its technology would change everything. They came and they went, some faster than others, some still lingering in a vegetative state. Compuserve, AIM, Napster, Friendster, Tripod, Geocities, MySpace, Digg… It was hard to take their grandiose claims seriously.

But some survived, including Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Reddit. And I have watched as they changed the global game.

Many of these changes are neutral or good -- from enabling global commerce to empowering free expression in authoritarian societies. But social media has also revolutionized the business of violent extremism, perhaps more profoundly than any other sphere.

In 2011, I wrote that terrorists use the Internet the same way that everyone else does. That is no longer true, and perhaps I should have seen it coming sooner.   

The last eight months have seen wall-to-wall chaos, with violence coming from multiple directions and diverse ideologies, capable of landing anywhere in the world, attacks that specifically target people by race, religion, gender and sexual orientation -- resulting in widespread fear and anger among people of every identity group. The list goes on and on and on… Paris, Normandy, Nice, Brussels, Munich, Ansbach, Dhaka, Würzburg, San Bernardino, Orlando, Malheur, Dallas, Baton Rouge, a wave of stabbing attacks in Israel, attacks on mosques and Muslims.

There have been many cosmetic changes to extremist recruitment and radicalization in the Internet era, but also a few fundamental shifts. Recruiting in cyberspace offers critical advantages over meatspace -- a term coined from cyberpunk novels of the 1980s and 1990s to describe the old-fashioned world of human bodies in proximity to one another. They include: 

  1. Security. Recruiters can search online for prospects without exposing themselves to scrutiny, and they enjoy better anonymity when they approach a target. Potential recruits can forge relationships with violent extremists beforeexposing themselves to physical risk in a face-to-face meeting.
  2. Discovery. Recruiters and potential recruits can now hunt through a target audience of millions to find each other. Before they were constrained by the cost of travel and the risk of exposure, and the reduced reach that comes with working in meatspace.
  3. Remote intimacy: Recruitment is ultimately about relationships. In a world of networked social media, it is easier to build intimate relationships over geographic distances, even while maintaining some veneer of anonymity.
  4. Speed of contagion: It took centuries for early Christianity to overwhelm the Roman Empire -- enough time for its early apocalyptic strain to evolve and moderate, allowing for the rise of institutions to stabilize its belief system. Today, ideas spread as fast as they change, often faster. For now, at least, the contagion can outrace the evolutionary pressures that push movements into moderation. This shift favors more extreme ideas, which propagate faster than ever before. 

None of these dynamics are exclusive to jihadism. All of them are new developments in social interactions, and all of them have consequences.

The most prolific and extreme offender on social media has been the Islamic State, known as ISIS or ISIL, whose message has been broadcast around the world on social media, with extraordinary speed and success. But the Islamic State's social media effort has peaked, and its successors are already on the rise.   

Consider white nationalism, an ideology that went through an extended period of decline, with sharp losses starting in the late 1990s and continuing through the 2000s. The movement's adherents were fragmented, factionalized and isolated in the face of a powerful social current against overt racism. Now, a mix of political factors and the rise of social networking have sparked a worrying resurgence.

One element of white nationalism's decline was its marginalization from the mainstream of society. The role of mainstream media gatekeepers was crucial in reinforcing that isolation through the second half of the 20thCentury. Overt white nationalism was rarely found on editorial pages, and its leading figures were rarely seen on the news, except in a negative light. Popular entertainment and culture reinforced messages promoting diversity.

Social media was not the only factor driving the return of white nationalism -- the election of an African-American president, economic and demographic shifts, and a new flood of refugees from the Syrian civil war all provide important political context. But the mechanics of the resurgence were swifter and more volatile because of instantaneous global networking, and some key offline factors -- including the rise of the Islamic State and Donald Trump's racially divisive presidential campaign -- have been profoundly empowered by access to social media.

Early social media, such as bulletin boards and message boards, provided rare forums where white nationalists could gather and share their views without fear of censure. But when open social media platforms emerged -- including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter -- a pressure valve burst open, releasing a scalding jet of steam.

After decades of being silenced, white nationalists could suddenly organize into significant audiences, sometimes as many as tens of thousands of people, sometimes more. Functional anonymity insulated many adherents from the professional and social consequences of professing overt racism in the real world. And they could project their message to audiences who had not sought them out -- hundreds of thousands more. 

While estimates of the total population of white nationalist supporters online are less concrete than those for the Islamic State, my preliminary research shows substantial increases in activist social media accounts since 2012, congruent with the rise of nationalist political movements in the United States and Europe. The total, at the least, runs into six figures. (These gains are detailed in my new paper for GWU's Program on Extremism.) 

None of this comes as a surprise to anyone active on social media. Journalists, experts, celebrities and ordinary people are now routinely exposed to torrents of racist, anti-Semitic, homophobicand misogynisticabuse. Efforts to highlight this activity and shame the perpetrators often simply encourages the abusers and exposes more people to their message of hate, a paradox familiar to anyone working on jihadist social media.

Much of this abuse is organized, rather than spontaneous, and white nationalists are only part of the picture. From "Trumpkins" to "Bernie Bros," antisocial content surrounding contentious online personalities has skyrocketed, carried out by users for whom trolling has become a consuming vocation, in some cases literally.  

Online culture has also led to convergence between those who sincerely believe in an extremist ideology, such as Nazism, and those who instrumentalize that ideology as an outlet for less defined antisocial impulses such as harassment and bullying. Some users eventually become true believers after starting out simply as antisocial harassers. Author Jesse Walker called this the "Mother Night" phenomenon, referring to a Kurt Vonnegut novel whose theme is summed up in the quote: "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."

Some pranksters and professional trolls now routinely skip among ideologies, and state-sponsored trolls are often on hand to pour fuel on the fire. One Jewish-American arrested for supporting the Islamic State turned out to be a full-time troll posing as everything from a jihadist to a neo-Nazi to radical feminist. Sometimes he argued with himself using his various accounts. His jihadi persona was virtually indistinguishable from the real thing, and sincere or not, he played a real part in supporting the Islamic State and encouraging terrorist attacks. He will not be the last such chimera we see.

The truly bad news in all of this is that the Islamic State was the easy problem.

The hyperactivity and hyperviolence of the Islamic State's social media is prone to break most social media platforms' terms of service, the rules that users agree to when they sign up. The Islamic State is also a discrete organization, an entity with a geographic locus. And it is the ultimate outsider, so incredibly marginalized that virtually no one will advocate on its behalf as its social media accounts are suspended -- not even al Qaeda.

Consider then the much greater challenge that lies ahead. White nationalism is not an outsider in Western civilization, by any reasonable measure. We are scant decades past its overt domination of Western politics, and it is enjoying a resurgence today in the form of nationalist political parties and candidates throughout the Western world. While some white nationalist adherents are careless about the terms of service, many color within the lines, if only barely. While many people are repulsed by white nationalists and their principles, others are busy electing them to public office.

The blurred lines create new challenges. Even with Islamic State social networks, a handful of people have objected to disruption and suppression on the basis of free speech concerns, while not defending the group itself. For extremist movements that are less brazen and more integrated into host societies, the difficulties multiply.

For instance, sovereign citizen propaganda almost certainly leads some adherents to violence, but sovereign content does not typically cross the line with explicit calls to violence, as defined by most social media companies' terms of service. Race hate without a threat of violence is not consistently suspended despite pertinent rules in social media platforms' terms of service.

These problems cannot be easily solved. There is no central authority to litigate social media conflicts, which cross lines between private companies and public discourse, and must accommodate multiple jurisdictions around the globe. Few would favor such an approach even if the many practical obstacles could be surmounted.

It is possible that some sort of social or technological solution to these challenges will evolve organically, whether through the restructuring of online social platforms, the emergence of truly positive viral movements with real staying power (as opposed to the current paradigm of surge and fade).

But as of now, there is little visible reason for optimism.

While not everyone uses social media, those who do play an increasingly dominant role driving public policy and mainstream media coverage. What happens on social media matters, although it does not always provide a straight line from intention to result.

And although social media is a key facilitator of extremist sprawl, there is also a spillover effect. Public spectacle violence -- more and more often inspired by social media -- dominates the mainstream media, which takes cues about what to cover from social media, resulting in more coverage that reaches more people, inspiring copycatsand creating more curiosity about extremist groups, which can then be satisfied online.

I believe we are seeing the start of a massive social reorganization with serious implications for global and national security.

Salafists and white nationalists already excel at creating online echo chambers, flocking to follow social media accounts focused on grievances related to Muslim prisoners and black violence, respectively. Both white nationalists and jihadists have been hobbled by the lone wolf model for years, but the rise of super-empowered super-minorities -- such as the Islamic State -- has created a new path toward the successful mobilization of fractional percentages of global demographic groups.

Russia, Iran, Syria and other state actors have carefully and strategically built their own echo chambers. Anarchists, socialists, sovereign citizens and black nationalists are not far behind, although various factors have slowed the crystallization of their social networks.

While there is no consistent estimate of the Islamic State's foreign fighter base, no one believes it is greater than tens of thousands of fighters. Yet combined with its other assets, the Islamic State has thrown the world into a frenzy of activity, both productive and counterproductive.

Ten thousand people are a drop in the bucket compared to the population of the world or even most nations. But ten thousand people acting in concert can disrupt events on a global scale.

One million people comprise less than two one-thousandths of 1 percent of the world's population. But one million people acting in concert can wreak unimaginable havoc. We are marching toward an event of that magnitude, whether next year, or in ten years.

We are not ready.

Turbulence, at least in the near-term, is almost assured. In the worst-case scenario, governments, social media companies and civil society will completely fail to agree on how to implement solutions. Without meaningful controls, we will see millions of people organize themselves according to racial, class or religious identity in defiance of a generation of progress toward pluralism. We will see migration driven by social media ties -- as we have already seen with the Islamic State.

In the United States, white separatist movements have already staked out territories for a racially pure homeland, and travel to those territories is far simpler than making hijra to Syria from the West. We will see weaker movements attempt to implement the same sort of headline-grabbing broadcast violence that the Islamic State has perpetrated, along with ultraviolent splinters from larger mainstream radical currents. The current mainstreaming of white nationalism likely poses the most imminent threat of expanded broadcast violence, which the current political cycle is likely to aggravate. 

In a best-case scenario, the forces of tolerance and pluralism will organically evolve social media tools and dynamics that we cannot yet foresee, which will restore the status quo of a strong and resilient social center. While this is possible, maybe even likely, it seems certain that many years will pass before such tools and dynamics emerge and become widely adopted.

To reach this steady state will require great patience and a lot of luck. We will have to avoid hazards such as escalating sectarian and identity violence, moves toward segregation, and the potential for planet-destroying wars. Success is not assured, and we could experience serious violence and upheaval in the meantime.

Between these two poles is the middle road, with frequent viral outbursts of social instability amid only sporadic progress. If we're lucky, these eruptions will take place consecutively, rather than concurrently, but that ship has arguably sailed.

This scenario still leads to a massive social reorganization, but more slowly, with slower transmission times for radical ideologies, which allow moderating influences to creep into extremist social networks.

Under this scenario, interim steps, such as the European Commission's social media Code of Conduct announced in May, will provide some relief, while emerging behaviors and the inconsistent application of standards by different and new social media platforms will still allow surges through shifting loopholes. Progress will be stymied by new and unforeseen problems -- such as when Twitter suspended a number of prominent accounts parodying the Russian government on the same day that the Code of Conduct was announced.

Freewheeling social media platforms, such as Twitter, may give way to more controlled environments such as Sidewireor adopt policies similar to Facebook, where users are (at least theoretically) required to provide real names and content is policed more aggressively. But there are many tradeoffs in such a transition, including limits on socially positive virality and the diminishment of value for OSINT and breaking news. Such a homogenization of social network models might not be ideal, but it may be a necessary stage on the way to a solution.

On the technical side, there are opportunities for innovation. The simplified structure and more-open data access offered by platforms like Twitter is ripe for exploitation to detect and address social trends before problems fully materialize. For instance, the extent of the the ideological and popular challenge that the Islamic State presented to al Qaeda was clearly visible online before it became visible in the news, as was the rise of Donald Trump and the fall of Jeb Bush. Currently, we have only scraped the surface of social media's potential for early detection and forecasting of social trends.

On this middle road, the challenge from violent extremists and hate groups will persist, but slowly shift from large, drawn-out battles with extremists and harassers into a series of skirmishes that flare up and die down relatively quickly. As new ideologies and actors employ an ever-evolving array of techniques, fringe movements will establish beachheads on larger platforms -- such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube -- then take their adherents to smaller platforms where policing is less strict or less structurally feasible, as Islamic State supporters have done on Telegram

No matter which road we take, one intrinsic problem will remain. Social media has rapidly become the public square of the 21stCentury. For many users, especially in countries with strict limits on speech and assembly, social media feels like a venue for free speech. But it is not.

Social media operates on a global stage made up of multiple overlapping jurisdictions. At the top of the hierarchy are the social media companies themselves. For all intents and purposes, these companies represent a genuine corporatocracy with near-absolute and -- as of today -- completely unaccountable control over who enjoys the benefits of speech and assembly.

Every large social media company suspends thousands of users per day for harassment, abuse, obscenity, pornography. They do not disclose the details of this activity. We do not know whether workers who police content reflect racial and religious diversity, or whether they are trained in those issues, and we do not know whether the demographics of users who are suspended reflect racial or religious biases.

While Twitter, Facebook and Google may have good intentions, they have very different and constantly evolving interpretations of their obligations and the boundaries of acceptable speech.

To date, social media companies have shown an admirable commitment to defying suppression of the Internet by authoritarian regimes, but these efforts will come under increasing pressure as markets like China beckon and political situations around the world grow more complex. While we may applaud social media companies' efforts to promote free speech in these settings, we did not elect the executives of these companies in a democratic process to be the arbiters of acceptable speech on a global scale, nor do they have any particular qualifications for this job. Yet there is no immediate or obvious solution to the problem presented by the distribution of power and responsibility in this arena.

While we can hope for the best, we should prepare for the worst. For the foreseeable future, the advantage lies with the extremists. The coming era of radical change will likely be violent and unstable, and governments need to start preparing, by building resilience and innovating where they can, particularly in the area of early trend detection.

Instability can be survived, if we are prepared for it. What we cannot afford to repeat is the institutional response to the Islamic State, as a phenomenon that "came out of nowhere" in the eyes of many policy makers and news organizations, using tactics no one had foreseen. In a complex world, we must anticipate complex problems, not let them sweep us off our feet, over and over again.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #25 

Facebook fascists ban journalist for mentioning the threat of Islam

pic232.jpg is reporting that Facebook recently banned the profile of respected journalist and academic Jonathan Spyer for mentioning the threat radical Islam poses to Europe, then later reinstated his account without explanation.

The Middle East analyst and senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center had written a brief post mentioning specific keywords such as "Islamist" and "insurgency" that apparently triggered Facebook's post review mechanisms and caused his account to be banned. Spyer noted the ban on his account in an August 12 post on his blog, which is connected to about 5,000 people and which he uses frequently to conduct research.

"The Islamist insurgency in Europe continues. Here are some preliminary thoughts from yours truly regarding the inability of mainstream western elites to process what is occurring," Spyer wrote in the original post provided to The Daily Caller News Foundation, along with a link to a post on his blog.

Several hours later, Facebook notified Spyer that his account had been "disabled" for noting that the recent terror attacks in Germany and France essentially constitute a "low-level Islamist insurgency."

Spyer quickly shot off an email to Facebook to get an explanation for the decision.

An employee from Facebook named Justin responded with the following statement on July 29:

"We have reviewed your account, and have determined that it is contrary to the Declaration of Rights and Responsibilities of Facebook. Due to the violation of these terms, we have permanently deleted your account. One of the main priorities of Facebook is the safety of Facebook users. Credible threats to harm others, support for violent organizations or extreme graphic content are not allowed on Facebook."

Spyer tells TheDCNF he has never supported any violent organizations whatsoever, except for support for the Israeli military and the Kurds. Spyer wrote"

"Facebook apparently considers that support for either of these, or expressing the view that a still relatively small-scale Islamist insurgency is taking place in Europe, constitutes a threat to the ‘safety of Facebook users. This is, I think, a point of some significance."

He added.

"[T]he process by which the profile was destroyed is interesting and may be informative regarding the practices of Facebook with regard to the issue of freedom of expression on the site."

Facebook reinstated Spyer's account Tuesday, apparently out of the blue, but likely because of the attention drawn to Facebook's decision by Spyer's blog post.

This is bad.

If Internet providers decide they can decide what is and what is not allowed on the Internet, it will be the end of the 1st Amendment.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved