I upload various mods to ModDB, so that they may gain some attention. If anyone needs any help with their profile pages send me a PM.
Contact Your Representative Now: House.gov...entatives
Poll, Americans appose such a move: Breitbart.com
Sensing an opening, foreign interests howled that Obama’s America had proven itself unfit to supervise Internet domain registration, and that’s not the sort of accusation Obama invests a lot of effort in challenging.
A hearty helping of flapdoodle about how the rest of the world had come of age, and it was silly for mean old America to retain control over Internet infrastructure, was served up as President Obama unilaterally declared ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) would be taken away from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), where it has been situated for about ten years, and given to some as-yet-undefined “global stakeholder community.”
Critics of the move worried that the rest of the world, including much of the Western world, has nothing close to the United States’ ideological commitment to free speech. Even though the old gray mare of free speech ain’t quite what she used to be in these parts, we still have stronger institutional, and Constitutional, resistance to government control of communications than most of the planet.
In the year and a half since ICANN handover was announced, the rest of the world has merrily gone about validating the fears of these critics by censoring and controlling the Internet every way they can. Just a few days ago, the United Nations was expressing its eagerness to turn search engines into censorship engines to battle “cyber violence against women,” which evidently includes spirited disagreement with feminists. Of course, the “global stakeholders” who don’t think women should be allowed to drive cars will want some input into Internet standards, too.
A group of Republican lawmakers is trying to stave off the lunacy of Obama’s Internet surrender by challenging the constitutionality of his actions. In a letter to the Government Accountability Office, they argued that the Internet’s “root zone file” – basically, the map that establishes where everything is located in virtual space – was developed by the U.S. Defense Department with U.S. taxpayer funding, back when the Internet began as a project to establish a military network that could survive a nuclear war. It is, therefore, a “national IT asset,” and has been officially designated as such. In fact, the Commerce Department’s contracts with the corporations that administer Internet names and addresses explicitly identify the root zone file as “property of the U.S. government.”
Under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to transfer control of such government property, so Obama’s attempt to give it away to foreign bodies without congressional consent would be unconstitutional.
The letter notes that GAO has considered the disposition of the root zone file at least once before, in 2000, and concluded it was “unclear whether such a transition would involve a transfer of government property to a private entity.” At that time, GAO decided it could not spare the staff resources to develop a firm legal opinion on the matter, but recommended clarifying the legal status of the root zone file before Congress made any decisions about transferring Internet oversight functions to any third party.
(For the benefit of younger readers, in 2000 the United States government was divided into three co-equal branches, rather than the dictator-with-a-rump-legislature model we’ve grown accustomed to nowadays, so GAO assumed Congress would be the body that decided to hand over Internet domain control.)
The letter further cites previous instances of official documents and pronouncements describing the root zone file as property of the U.S. taxpayers, including President Bill Clinton’s “Internet czar,” Ira Magaziner asserting U.S. ownership of the entire Domain Name System on the grounds that our government “paid for the Internet, the Net was created under its auspices, and most importantly everything [researchers] did was pursuant to government contracts.”
With this history in mind, the letter asks GAO to conduct a review to answer three specific questions:
1. Would the termination of the NTIA’s contract with ICANN cause Government property, of any kind, to be transferred to ICANN?
2. Is the authoritative root zone file, or other related or similar materials or information, United States government property?
3. If so, does the NTIA have the authority to transfer the root zone file or, other related materials or information to a non-federal entity?
The letter is signed by Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley, presidential candidate and Senator Ted Cruz, House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, and former House Oversight chairman Darrell Issa. Although he’s not a congressional representative and thus was not a signatory to the letter, presidential candidate Jeb Bush has also campaigned against Internet handover.
Hopefully the GAO will move quickly, because the Wall Street Journal notes that ICANN handover was supposed to happen this month, but it’s been postponed until September 2016.
That’s because it’s the usual Obama circus of incompetence, secrecy, unexpected consequences, and half-baked “America Last” ideology:
No one has found a way to keep authoritarian regimes at bay without U.S. protection. The administration originally planned to surrender U.S. control this month, but was forced to postpone to September 2016. Last week the Commerce Department admitted there is still no post-U. S. plan for the Internet. Assistant Secretary Lawrence Strickling posted an update online saying there are “many questions still to be answered, both about the substance of the overall plan as well its implementation” and “significant confusion and uncertainty.” He wants a plan “as simple as possible”—but a simple plan would have been crafted by now.
Instead, the process is frustrating the Internet stakeholders it was supposed to protect. “In an extraordinary, almost surreal three-hour teleconference,” an industry blog reported this month, “the working group drawing up plans to make Icann—wannabe masters of the Internet—more open and responsive to the public were treated to a level of Orwellian ‘double speak’ rarely seen outside the British civil service.”
The Icann board says it is willing to be held accountable but rejects the key accountability proposals developed over the past year. Icann doesn’t want to share power or let stakeholders replace its board if it misbehaves or comes under the influence of authoritarian regimes. “It may be prudent to delay the transition” from U.S. control, Icann acknowledges.
No, it would be prudent to tell President Obama and everyone else involved with this loony idea to stop being so “generous” with other peoples’ money and freedom. The authoritarian regimes of the world are positively salivating over a chance to get their claws on Internet domain registration. Every statement they’ve made since President Obama announced this stupid idea should scare the hell out of American Internet users.
Also, as the WSJ observes, absent the control of the U.S. government, ICANN “would go from being a regulated monopoly to being an unregulated monopoly,” which could “boost its coffers at the expense of Internet companies and users.” Great – we finally found a profiteering corporation Barack Obama doesn’t think the U.S. federal government should micro-manage.
“If the Obama administration wants a simple solution to the Internet-governance mess it created, it should announce that the U.S. will retain its stewardship and support more accountability from Icann to its stakeholders,” the Wall Street Journal suggests. “The open Internet is too important to be abandoned by an administration that thought surrendering the Web would be easy.”
That’s a rather amazing lapse in judgment, isn’t it? Our massive federal government, with its army of highly-paid advisers, approached the surrender of Internet control with all the gravity and forethought of drunk frat boys holding a dorm-room bull session on multiculturalism. “U.S. bad, international bodies super awesome!” appears to be the extent of the thinking that went into this plan. How could anyone, even the sort of callow teenager Obama likes to install in his foreign-policy apparatus, not foresee the eagerness of authoritarian regimes to develop a more heavily-censored Internet? How could they fail to understand that plenty of ideological organizations in the Western world would be happy to go along, provided their dogmas were also taken seriously?
And why the hell didn’t anyone bother to check if it was constitutional for Barack Obama to give away the priceless property of the U.S. taxpayer without congressional approval before this harebrained scheme was announced? That didn’t matter at all to anyone in the Administration, did it? It also didn’t matter to most of the congressional representatives whose body is once again being stripped of its powers by executive fiat, apparently.
Since we had both Hillary and Holt shill moderator lying in the debate, we gotta straight shit out.
Stop and Frisk is also known as a Terry Stop (allowed since 1968 Supreme Court decision), which allows law enforcement to conduct a cursory search based on "reasonable suspicion" instead of
"probable cause." Its accepted everywhere & the Supreme court decision has not been overruled.
What was initially found unconstitutional (the order was never appealed but may have lapsed by consent) was the Program set up the NYPD, (which not surprisingly resulted in greater numbers of young Black and Hispanic males being stopped since that was the nature of the population where crimes were being committed).
Now with that said, does it work?
90% of Suspects in Murder cases are described as Black or Hispanic by witnesses and 89% of all crime is perpetrated by Non-whites, while it is true that they constitute 54% of the population and their stops increased by 87-9% (in some preccints) and overally by 50% but they clearly are involved in much more crime than whites. The frisk rates of racial groups match up with arrestees.
One report found: "The racial distribution of stops was similar to the racial distribution of arrestees in most categories. Hispanics were stopped 5 to 10 percent more than their representation in crime-suspect descriptions would predict. Black suspects, on the other hand, were stopped substantially less than would be expected, 20 to 30 percent less than their representation in crime-suspect descriptions." [Analysis of Racial Disparities in the New York Police Department’s Stop, Question, and Frisk Practices]
To summarize its difficult to say which police innovation was reducing the crime or if it merely was a general long term decline, though there has been a reduction in murder rates, other major crimes and improvements in the incarceration rate.
Studies on Stop and Frisk-
NYC Bar Stop and Frisk Report [suggests improvements]- Www2.nycbar.org
Could Innovations in Policing have Contributed to the New York City Crime Drop even in a Period of Declining Police Strength? - Tandfonline.com
'Inverse relationship between Constitutionality and Effectiveness of New York City Stop and Frisk' - Bu.edu
Analysis of Racial Disparities in the New York Police Department’s Stop, Question, and Frisk Practices [has recommendations] - Nyc.gov
NYPD data on stop & frisk-
'Stop-and-Frisk does work': Over half of the 150,000 arrests that came from searches ended in conviction or guilty plea, say NY police
Police in New York have claimed that controversial ‘stop and search’ tactics are effective at tackling crime, after a report found that half the arrests from the measure lead to a conviction.
The first ever analysis of stop and search, it also found that a quarter of cases resulted in prison sentences.
In Britain, similar tactics have provoked fury over racial profiling.
The NYPD's use of stop and frisk has been at the centre of a contentious debate since May 2012 when the New York Civil Liberties Union released a report showing use of the tactic skyrocketed under Mayor Bloomberg
A study published earlier this year found police were up to 28 per cent more likely to use stop-and-search powers against black people than white.
New York police’s use of stop-and-frisk has been a hallmark of outgoing mayor Michael Bloomberg’s battle against crime – which has fallen more than 30 per cent during his three terms in office – but has led to lawsuits and growing anger among minorities.
The report by New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman analysed 150,000 arrests resulting from 2.4million stops between 2009 and 2012, and found 51 per cent of the arrests led to convictions or guilty pleas.
However, earlier this year a US judge appointed a federal monitor to oversee reforms aimed at curbing the practice.
The analysis was billed by Schneiderman's office as the first of its kind.
'Until now, no known study has sought to assess what happens following (stop-and-frisk) arrests,' the report said.
The other half were never prosecuted, dismissed or resulted in adjournments in contemplation of dismissal - a legal term for cases in which a judge allows a case to be dismissed after a probationary period of usually six months to a year.
The report also said the stop-and-frisk arrests resulted in a 24 per cent incarceration rate.
The chief spokesman for the police, John McCarthy, called the analysis 'flawed' and said it underestimated the value of the tactic.
He said it fails to account for situations in which police action such as stop and frisk deter or prevent a crime, which does not result in arrests.
The report results appear to show that the outcomes of stop and frisk arrests are no more or less effective in nabbing criminals than are other NYPD arrests.
The conviction and incarceration rates in the Schneiderman report are nearly identical to the rates for overall city arrests last year, according to statistics from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services.
The report by New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman analyzed 150,000 arrests that resulted from 2.4 millions stops by the NYPD between 2009 and 2012
Melissa Grace, a spokeswoman for Schneiderman, said the report did not compare the conviction and incarceration rates resulting from police stops with overall citywide rates.
She declined to elaborate on the similarity of the figures.
The NYPD's use of stop and frisk has been at the center of a contentious debate since May 2012 when the New York Civil Liberties Union released a report showing use of the tactic skyrocketed under Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
The total number of police stops rose from 160,851 in 2003 - a year after Bloomberg took office - to 685,724 in 2011.
Mayor elect Bill De Blasio made reforming police use of the stop and frisk policy a key component in his campaign
Bloomberg and police Commissioner Ray Kelly have staunchly defended the tactic as the centerpiece of a crime-fighting strategy that has driven overall crime down more than 30 percent during Bloomberg's three terms in office.
In August, a federal judge ruled that the police use of stop and frisk led to 'indirect racial profiling' of mostly young, minority residents - who comprised 87 percent of all police stops last year.
The judge, U.S. District Court judge Shira Scheindlin, appointed a federal monitor to oversee a broad spectrum of reforms aimed at curbing the practice.
Last week, Scheindlin's ruling was put on hold and she was removed from the case by a three-judge appellate panel which said she 'ran afoul' of the judicial code of conduct by granting media interviews and appearing to steer the lawsuit to her courtroom.
The case has been re-assigned to another judge but is expected to be withdrawn after Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio takes office on Jan. 1.
De Blasio, a Democrat, made reforming police use of the stop and frisk policy a key component in his mayoral campaign.
He won a landslide victory over Republican Joseph Lhota, who supported the stop-and-frisk tactic.
The “Songbird” Traitor, Doing His Fake Hero Act, Begins His Rise to Power
An audio recording has surfaced proving that U.S. Senator John McCain collaborated with the North Vietnamese by recording a “Tokyo Rose”-style propaganda message that was broadcast on North Vietnamese radio in 1969.
For many years, American former P.O.W.s who were in the “Hanoi Hilton” North Vietnamese prison with John McCain called him a “Songbird” who collaborated with the enemy against his own country. They accused him of turning against them and against his own country in exchange for preferential treatment while many of the actually brave and honorable American P.O.W.s endured torture and denial of medical care and food for refusing to collaborate. The P.O.W.s branded McCain a traitor who was no hero, but nonetheless used his fake hero status to rise to political power.
But we only had their word against his – until now. Now, from the U.S. National Archives comes the proof of their allegations; McCain, by his own words, WAS in fact a traitor who collaborated with the enemy by recording a “Tokyo Rose” statement condemning his own nation by admitting “crimes” against the North Vietnamese people, stating “I, as a U.S. airman, am guilty of crimes against the Vietnamese country and people.” McCain’s recorded statement also painted a picture of humane treatment of prisoners even though he knew many of his fellow Americans were being tortured and denied medical care and adequate food. In the recording he is heard to say “I received this kind treatment and food even though I came here as an aggressor and the people who I injured have much difficulty in their living standards. I wish to express my deep gratitude for my kind treatment and I will never forget this kindness extended to me.”
Watch this, and listen to the recording yourself:
John McCain, Traitor and Songbird, sings for his masters
Las year, I (Stewart Rhodes) was attacked by the left wing media for calling McCain a traitor who deserved to be tried for treason (for his support for the use of military detention and military tribunals for Americans, rather than a jury trial as required by our Constitution), and then, once convicted, deserved to suffer the usual punishment for someone convicted of treason, which is to be hung by the neck until dead. Turns out I was right. He IS a traitor, and now there is direct evidence to back that up, in addition to his horrid voting record against the Constitution. Well, now, can we finally try him for treason and then sentence him accordingly? Or will he, like Hillary Clinton, get a pass on his crimes despite direct, smoking gun evidence, because both of them are part of the political elite? You already know the answer to that.
Truenews.com is to be commended for their work in making this recording public, after all these years. Here is what they have to say about this:
(TRUNEWS) U.S. Senator John McCain recorded a Tokyo Rose-style propaganda message that was broadcast on North Vietnamese radio in 1969.
TRUNEWS acquired the audio recording in cooperation with WeSearchR.com, a new media company founded by Charles Johnson.
The 1969 North Vietnamese radio broadcast has never been heard in the United States of America. In fact, there has never been any knowledge that such a recording existed. The audio recording was found in a misplaced file in the National Archives in Washington, D.C. The broadcast was recorded by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, a branch of the CIA that monitored international shortwave and foreign radio broadcasts.
Lt. Commander John McCain was shot down over Hanoi by a North Vietnamese missile while flying his 23rd bombing mission. Both of his arms and one leg were broken. He was pulled ashore by North Vietnamese who took him to a prison known by POWs as the “Hanoi Hilton.”
McCain was a prisoner of war for five and a half years. He was released on March 14, 1973, and returned to the United States of America as a war hero. His POW legacy propelled McCain to victory in a race for a U.S. Congressional seat in Arizona in 1982. He replaced Barry Goldwater in the Senate in 1986.
– See more at: Trunews.com
Read more here.
Here is a transcript of the recording:
To the Vietnamese people and the government of the DRVN:
From John Sidney McCain, 624787, Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy, born 29 August, 1936, Panama, home state Oregon. Shot down 26 October, 1967, A-4E aircraft.
I, as a U.S. airman, am guilty of crimes against the Vietnamese country and people. I bombed their cities, towns and villages and caused many injuries, even deaths, for the people of Vietnam.
I was captured in the capital city of Hanoi, while attacking it. After I was captured, I was taken to the hospital in Hanoi, where I received very good medical treatment. I was given an operation on my leg, which allowed me to walk again, and a cast on my right arm, which was badly broken in three places.
The doctors were very good and they knew a great deal about the practice of medicine. I remained in the hospital for some time and regained much of my health and strength. Since I arrived in the camp of detention, I received humane and lenient treatment.
I received this kind treatment and food even though I came here as an aggressor and the people who I injured have much difficulty in their living standards. I wish to express my deep gratitude for my kind treatment and I will never forget this kindness extended to me.
– See more at: Trunews.com
Note that Trunews.com reports that “the broadcast was recorded by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, a branch of the CIA that monitored international shortwave and foreign radio broadcasts.” So, the CIA, our supposed Central Intelligence Agency, knew that he was a traitor. Did they report that bit of intelligence to President Nixon? Did they inform the Joint Chief of Staff? Did they even notify McCain’s command? Again, you already know the answer to that. What they did is sit on it, and no doubt they “misfiled” it in the National Archives, and let McCain know they had it there, somewhere, and that they could have the “misfiling” corrected anytime they wanted, so he would be compliant and do as commanded throughout his career. That is how it is done. They had McCain under their control, as a “Manchurian Candidate” from that moment on, which is why it was kept an internal CIA secret all those years, till now.
I have to wonder if the CIA didn’t just now determine to throw McCain to the wolves for some reason. I’d be curious to know how Truenews.com and friends found the recording. Were they given an “anonymous tip?” Regardless, McCain’s goose is now good and cooked. If he had a shred of honor he would resign, but no doubt he will try to find a way to worm out of this. But I don’t think it will work. Not this time. And those who recently sided with him against Trump, such as Newt Gingrich, are now on the side of a confirmed Traitor. Again, perfect timing for an implosion of the corrupt GOP Old Guard. Interesting. You can bet Trump will use this to full effect.
– Stewart Rhodes
UPDATE AND ADDENDUM:
Since I am getting comments condemning me for calling McCain a traitor for collaborating with the enemy by recording that propaganda broadcast for the North Vietnamese, here is my response:
First, here is what the Code of Conduct says about this (I have highlighted in bold the most pertinent sections):
Code of Conduct for Members of the United States Armed Forces I. I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense. II. I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist. III. If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy. IV. If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way. V. When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause VI. I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
It really goes without saying that this recording shows that McCain violated that Code of Conduct. Doing so was not excusable because of the “duress” he was under. In fact, the same folks who dug this recording up also say they have his own statements to show he was not under duress: Gotnews.com
Even if he were actually under duress, that would not absolve him of his duty to “make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.” Nor does it absolve him of his duty to “accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy“ which is exactly what the other POWs accused McCain of doing.
Medal of Honor recipient James Stockdale, in contrast to McCain, was actually brutally tortured and still refused to collaborate with the enemy. Let’s compare and contrast his actions to that of McCain:
Stockdale was held as a prisoner of war in the Hoa Lo prison (the infamous “Hanoi Hilton”) for the next seven and a half years. As the senior Naval officer, he was one of the primary organizers of prisoner resistance. Tortured routinely and denied medical attention for the severely damaged leg he suffered during capture, Stockdale created and enforced a code of conduct for all prisoners which governed torture, secret communications, and behavior. In the summer of 1969, he was locked in leg irons in a bath stall and routinely tortured and beaten. When told by his captors that he was to be paraded in public, Stockdale slit his scalp with a razor to purposely disfigure himself so that his captors could not use him as propaganda. When they covered his head with a hat, he beat himself with a stool until his face was swollen beyond recognition. When Stockdale was discovered with information that could implicate his friends’ “black activities,” he slit his wrists so they could not torture him into confession.
Stockdale was one of eleven prisoners known as the “Alcatraz Gang“: George Thomas Coker; George McKnight; Jeremiah Denton; Harry Jenkins; Sam Johnson; James Mulligan; Howard Rutledge; Robert Shumaker; Ronald Storz; and Nels Tanner. These individuals had been leaders of resistance activities while in captivity and thus were separated from other captives and placed in solitary confinement. “Alcatraz” was a special facility in a courtyard behind the North Vietnamese Ministry of National Defense, located about one mile away from Hoa Lo Prison. In Alcatraz, each of the prisoners was kept in an individual windowless and concrete cell measuring 3 by 9 feet (0.9 by 2.7 m) with a light bulb kept on around the clock, and they were locked in leg irons each night. Of the eleven, Storz died in captivity there in 1970.
I never lost faith in the end of the story, I never doubted not only that I would get out, but also that I would prevail in the end and turn the experience into the defining event of my life, which, in retrospect, I would not trade.
When Collins asked who didn’t make it out of Vietnam, Stockdale replied:
Oh, that’s easy, the optimists. Oh, they were the ones who said, ‘We’re going to be out by Christmas.’ And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they’d say, ‘We’re going to be out by Easter.’ And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart.
Stockdale then added:
This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.
Stockdale was released as a prisoner of war on February 12, 1973 during Operation Homecoming. His shoulders had been wrenched from their sockets, his leg shattered by angry villagers and a torturer, and his back broken.
On March 4, 1976, Stockdale received the Medal of Honor. Stockdale filed charges against two other officers (Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Edison W. Miller and Navy Captain Walter E. “Gene” Wilber) who, he felt, had given aid and comfort to the enemy. However, the Navy Department under the leadership of then-Secretary of the Navy John Warner took no action and retired these men “in the best interests of the Navy.”
Debilitated by his captivity and mistreatment, Stockdale could not stand upright and could barely walk upon his return to the United States, which prevented his return to active flying status. In deference to his previous service, the Navy kept him on active duty, steadily promoting him over the next few years before he retired as a vice admiral. He completed his career by serving as President of the Naval War College from October 13, 1977, until August 22, 1979.
And here is Stockdale’s Medal of Honor Citation:
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while senior naval officer in the Prisoner of War camps of North Vietnam. Recognized by his captors as the leader in the Prisoners’ of War resistance to interrogation and in their refusal to participate in propaganda exploitation, Rear Adm. Stockdale was singled out for interrogation and attendant torture after he was detected in a covert communications attempt. Sensing the start of another purge, and aware that his earlier efforts at self-disfiguration to dissuade his captors from exploiting him for propaganda purposes had resulted in cruel and agonizing punishment, Rear Adm. Stockdale resolved to make himself a symbol of resistance regardless of personal sacrifice. He deliberately inflicted a near-mortal wound to his person in order to convince his captors of his willingness to give up his life rather than capitulate. He was subsequently discovered and revived by the North Vietnamese who, convinced of his indomitable spirit, abated in their employment of excessive harassment and torture toward all of the Prisoners of War. By his heroic action, at great peril to himself, he earned the everlasting gratitude of his fellow prisoners and of his country. Rear Adm. Stockdale’s valiant leadership and extraordinary courage in a hostile environment sustain and enhance the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service (emphasis added).
Now THAT is a hero. And that is also a stellar example of an officer who lead by example, and put the well being of his men first, above himself, and loyalty to his country first, above himself, and his actions directly saved his men from further torture, bolstered their morale, and likely saved lives – the exact opposite of McCain’s actions. Please do not tell me that John McCain somehow deserves a “pass” for his behavior because of supposed duress (with all evidence pointing to him singing like a bird before suffering anything approaching what Stockdale endured) and when a real man, Stockdale, endured real duress, to say the least, and refused to submit and collaborate. And please don’t try to tell me I have no right to condemn him unless I too was a POW. Stockdale tried to press charges against two other officers who were POWs, for corroborating with the enemy, and I have no doubt he would have done the same with McCain had he known the full truth. And many of the men who did know the truth did their best to expose it, but were brushed aside and ignored because McCain’s daddy was an admiral and Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet. Many of those men are now gone, and can no longer speak out. So we will speak for them.
Here is what John McCain himself had to say about the Code of Conduct and the harm caused by prisoners that collaborated with the enemy:
If he were just some poor Joe who endured hardship as a prisoner, I could understand and by sympathetic to him breaking under pressure and collaborating. But he was not just some average Joe. He was an Admiral’s son, and he rode a wave of propaganda of him being some kind of hero into Congress, and he has been there ever since, and because of his status as a “war hero” he has received deference, forgiveness for his repeated sins against the Constitution, and repeated reelection so he can violate it yet again, term after term. He was no war hero. A collaborator simply is not a hero. He is, in fact, the opposite. Maybe someone like that can be forgiven, or considered with sympathy, but he sure as hell should not be hailed as some kind of hero, or “national treasure” like Newt Gingrich just called McCain. Stockdale was a real hero. Calling McCain a hero cheapens that term. And while for years people asserted that he made this recording (which he denied), the public never heard it, until now. – Stewart Rhodes
COMMENT BY NAVY JACK:
The Silver Star was awarded to John McCain for resisting extreme mental and physical cruelties inflicted upon him by his captors in an attempt to obtain a false confession for propaganda purposes. McCain later admitted to signing a confession during his captivity that read “I am a black criminal and I have performed deeds of an air pirate.” McCain denied having made the taped confession you have just heard.
All pilots during the Vietnam War received the following general order:
If you are captured and tortured, you must resist, avoid, or evade, to the best of your ability, all enemy efforts to obtain statements or actions that will help the enemy. Examples of statements or actions to resist that are harmful to the US, its allies, or other prisoners, include:
• Oral or written confessions.
• Questionnaires or personal history statements.
• Propaganda recordings and broadcasts.
• Appeals to other PWs and appeals for surrender or peace.
• Engagement in self-criticism.
• Oral or written statements or communications on behalf of the enemy.
The enemy might use any confession or statement to convict you as a war criminal. It prolongs your right to repatriation until you serve a prison sentence.
Article V of the Code of Conduct:
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country or its allies or harmful to their cause.
John McCain has received his status and position as a Senator with false claims and false valor. It’s one thing to break down under torture, if he actually was tortured. It is another thing altogether to accept decorations, political advancement and public acclaim based on these lies.
Al-Nusra is basically the same ISIS, Al Qaeda but re-branded, the radical Sunni Wahhabists from Saudi Arabia.
Top U.S. General: We Are On The Brink Of War With Russia - Youtube.com
Rebranded Al Qaeda Group In Syria Receiving US Weapons - Shadowproof.com
Russia says US failing to deliver on Syria ceasefire deal, wants details declassified - Rt.com
Pentagon Demands No-Fly Zone For Russia Over Syria - Infowars.com
Hillary Clinton Sponsored Secretive Arab Spring Program that Destabilized Middle East - Breitbart.com
The Al-Nusra Front in Aleppo keeps receiving tanks and heavy weapons shipped by their Western backers as the US turns a blind eye, Russia’s envoy to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, told the Security Council. He added that securing peace "is almost an impossible task now."
Al-Nusra Front is currently the most powerful group fighting against the government in Aleppo, with 2,000 out of 3,500 militants in the city the group’s members.
“They are armed by tanks, APCs, field artillery, multiple rocket launchers… dozens and dozens of units, including heavy weaponry… Of course, they couldn’t have made this equipment themselves. All of this has been received by them and is still being shipped to them by generous Western backers, with the US, presumably, turning a blind eye,” Churkin said.
According to the Russian envoy, the Al-Nusra Front militants use the civilian population of Aleppo as human shields while indiscriminately attacking residential areas in the city controlled by the Syrian government.
“Over 200,000 residents of Aleppo are hostages of the Al-Nusra Front and groups allied with it,” Churkin said.
The terrorists are the main reason why attempts to deliver humanitarian aid to Aleppo have failed, contradicting accusations by the US, which blames Russia and Damascus, he said.
Moscow’s experience of giving concessions to the Syrian rebels following requests from the US, in the hope of it culminating in a ceasefire has not worked, Churkin told the Security Council adding that Moscow will no longer be following these steps.
Vitaly Churkin said that Russia has pressured Damascus on several occasions to meet the demands of its opponents, in the hope that this would lead to a ceasefire. However, this has not had the desired result and has seen constant violations by some rebel groups despite Washington's promise to keep them under control.
“The American side de facto signed that it was unable to influence the groups it sponsors and to deliver on the deal as it promised. First of all, to separate those groups from terrorists and mark their positions on the ground accordingly,” he said.
He added that the actions of the US-led coalition, which killed 62 Syrian government soldiers in a miscalculated airstrike near Deir ez-Zor and exposed them to an offensive by the terrorist group Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) damaged relations with Damascus.
He dismissed criticism of the Syrian army, expressed at the Security Council meeting by the US, France and the UK, over the latest offensive in eastern Aleppo.
Churkin also turned down statements made by his US counterpart Samantha Power, who said Russia had to prove that it genuinely has intentions of bringing peace to Syria, saying the other parties also have to prove they are willing to take steps towards achieving a ceasefire.
“The ceasefire can only be salvaged now on a collective basis. It's not us that have to prove something to somebody unilaterally. We have to see proof that there is a genuine desire to separate US-allied rebel groups from the Al-Nusra Front, then destroy the Al-Nusra Front and bring the opposition into a political process. Otherwise our suspicions that this was only meant to shield the Al-Nusra Front would only grow stronger.”
The UN Security Council meeting was convened at the request of the US, the UK and France to discuss the escalation of violence in Syria, after a ceasefire agreement, which was negotiated by Russia and the US had expired. The three countries accused Russia and Syria of causing civilian suffering in Aleppo, but did not mention the role played by armed groups opposing Damascus, which control large portions of the city.
China took a neutral stance and called on the revival of the ceasefire and facilitation of humanitarian aid to Aleppo, without accusing any party for the violence. The Chinese envoy stressed that counter-terrorism effort is an essential part for resolving the Syrian conflict.
The Syrian envoy said Damascus was determined to take the whole of Aleppo under its control and dismissed accusations of indiscriminate attacks against civilians and the use of incendiary weapons, which the US voiced against the Syrian army.
UN's special envoy for Syria reported to the Council that the conditions in the contested city are deteriorating and that it needs relief as soon as possible.
After the UN Security Council meeting, Churkin was asked by the press if the Syrian peace talks between Moscow and Washington were “dead” after recent developments.
“I don’t think so,” he replied, but added: “The situation is very difficult.”
“We made our position clear. We need a serious process without trickery, without people changing their demands every two days. We had an agreement and the only thing required was fulfilling it without changing stances,” the envoy said.
If Washington “continues acting in the same manner, it will be difficult to have a serious peace process,” he warned.
The US and its allies aren’t paying enough attention to the violations by the Syrian opposition because in that case “we would find that there aren’t really any moderates” among them, former US diplomat Jim Jatras told RT.
“You have group like al-Zenki that cut the head of a Palestinian kid two weeks ago and was accused of using chlorine gas; Ahrar al-Sham, which is another jihadist group that chased the Americans out of northern Syria,” he said.
According to Jatras, Washington is failing to keep its promise to persuade the opposition to obide with the ceasefire because “frankly, I don’t think [the US] have that much influence.”
“It’s part of a problem that the US has had in repeated wars where we have supported Wahhabist terrorist groups,” including Libya and Afghanistan, where previously backed militants eventually turned against the Americans, Jatras said.
One of the key problems that makes the current situation in Syria particularly difficult is the fact that there are actually no moderate opposition groups, as various rebel groups are in fact controlled by several powerful terrorist organizations, Willy van Damme, a Belgian journalist who has closely followed the Syrian crisis, told RT.
“The problem is that Al Qaeda controls the rebels together with some other terrorist groups. As long as it continues, it is useless to talk about the ceasefire, it is useless to talk about a political solution – it will not happen,” van Damme said.
He also added that even “Col. Steve Warren, the spokesman for the US Army fighting Islamic State in Baghdad, said on April 26 that the eastern part of Aleppo is controlled by Al Qaeda.” At the same time, van Damme stressed that “Western governments and western media do not pay any attention in reality to what the so called rebels… do.”
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg meets China propaganda chief in Beijing - Theguardian.com
By Simon Denyer
Commuters using smartphones stand in line at a bus station in Beijing on March 2. (Qilai Shen/Bloomberg)
BEIJING — First there was the Berlin Wall. Now there is the Great Firewall of China, not a physical barrier preventing people from leaving, but a virtual one, preventing information harmful to the Communist Party from entering the country.
Just as one fell, so will the other be eventually dismantled, because information, like people, cannot be held back forever.
Or so the argument goes.
But try telling that to Beijing. Far from knocking down the world’s largest system of censorship, China in fact is moving ever more confidently in the opposite direction, strengthening the wall’s legal foundations, closing breaches and reinforcing its control of the Web behind the wall.
Defensive no more about its censorship record, China is trumpeting its vision of “Internet sovereignty” as a model for the world and is moving to make it a legal reality at home. At the same time — confounding Western skeptics — the Internet is nonetheless thriving in China, with nearly 700 million users, putting almost 1 in 4 of the world’s online population behind the Great Firewall.
China is the world’s leader in e-commerce, with digital retail sales volume double that of the United States and accounting for a staggering 40 percent of the global total, according to digital business research company eMarketer. Last year, it also boasted four of the top 10 Internet companies in the world ranked by market capitalization, according to the data website Statista, including e-commerce giant Alibaba, social-media and gaming company Tencent and search specialists Baidu.
“This path is the choice of history, and the choice of the people, and we walk the path ever more firmly and full of confidence,” China’s Internet czar, Lu Wei, boasted in January.
After two decades of Internet development under the Communist Party’s firm leadership, he said, his country had struck the correct balance between “freedom and order” and between “openness and autonomy.” It is traveling, he said, on a path of “cyber-governance with Chinese characteristics.”
What China calls the “Golden Shield” is a giant mechanism of censorship and surveillance that blocks tens of thousands of websites deemed inimical to the Communist Party’s narrative and control, including Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Instagram.
In April, the U.S. government officially classified it as a barrier to trade, noting that eight of the 25 most trafficked sites globally were now blocked here. The American Chamber of Commerce in China says that 4 out of 5 of its member companies report a negative impact on their business from Internet censorship.
Yet there is to be no turning back. Later this year, China is expected to approve a new law on cybersecurity that would codify, organize and strengthen its control of the Internet.
It has introduced new rules restricting foreign companies from publishing online content and proposed tighter rules requiring websites to register domain names with the government.
Apple was an early victim, announcing in April that its iTunes Movies and iBooks services were no longer available in China, six months after their launch here (though shortly after it announced a $1 billion investment in a Chinese car service).
As it pursues a broad crackdown on free speech and civil society, China has tightened the screws on virtual private network (VPN) providers that allow people to tunnel under the Firewall.
The changes are not, as some initially feared, a move to cut off access to the outside world and establish a Chinese intranet but are instead an attempt to extend legal control and supervision over what is posted online within the country, experts say.
Indeed, China’s Firewall is far more sophisticated and multi-tiered than a simple on-off switch: It is an attempt to bridge one of the country’s most fundamental contradictions — to have an economy intricately connected to the outside world but a political culture closed off from such “Western values” as free speech and democracy.
The Internet arrived in China in January 1996, and China first started systematically blocking some foreign websites in August 1996. (The nickname the Great Firewall was first coined by Wired magazine in 1997.)
But the system as it stands now really only began to be developed and implemented in the early 2000s. Google was first blocked, for nine days, in September 2002. YouTube was blocked after unrest in Tibet in 2008, and Facebook and Twitter followed after riots in Xinjiang in 2009.
Still, there have always been deliberate loopholes.
Take VPNs, tools that allow users in China to tunnel into the Internet via a different country. Virtual private networks enable users to encrypt traffic, circumvent censorship and experience the Internet exactly as if they were in the United States, for example, albeit at a cost in terms of browsing speed.
The Chinese government has long known and accepted the fact that a small percentage of its population circumvents the Firewall using VPNs. It is, after all, essential that domestic and foreign businesses be able to access information across borders, and it keeps the English-speaking elite happy to allow them a small window on the world.
“They are willing to tolerate a certain amount of porousness in the Great Firewall, as long as they feel that ultimately, if they need to exert control, they can,” said Jeremy Goldkorn, director of a media and Internet consulting firm called Danwei.
The annual meeting in March of China’s parliament, the National People’s Congress, was just such a time, when security concerns trumped every other consideration. Internet browsing speeds slowed and some VPN services struggled.
“VPN technology is pretty simple,” said Nathan Freitas, a leading developer of open-source software aimed at helping overcome online surveillance and censorship. “VPNs exist at the pleasure of the Chinese Communist Party.”
Rachel Orr/The Washington Post
The Communist Party is more concerned with what ordinary people read than what the globally mobile elite might encounter on the Web.
Google is still blocked in China, and local search engine Baidu has its results heavily censored. But the difference between Baidu searches in Chinese and in English for the word “Tiananmen,” or the phrase “Tiananmen tank man,” is revealing: The Chinese searches yield no links to the pro-democracy protests in 1989 or the lone man who tried to prevent the tanks’ advance into the square — just to the vast square’s virtues as a tourist attraction.
“According to relevant laws, regulations and policies, some results are not displayed,” Baidu informs its readers if the words “tank man” are entered.
But searches in English are quite different, throwing up several websites, including a BBC photo gallery, a Wikipedia entry and several other Western sources of information.
Rogier Creemers, a professor of law and governance at Leiden University in the Netherlands, said that is the same for most systems of censorship, recalling the prosecution lawyer’s famous comment at the 1960 obscenity trial of Penguin Books over D.H. Lawrence’s novel “Lady Chatterley’s Lover.”
“Is it a book,” the lawyer asked the jury, “that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?”
Creemers, an authority on China’s Internet, said a similar question might be asked in Beijing.
“Is it the sort of website you’d like the laobaixing [ordinary people] to read? Perhaps not, but we can be trusted to read it.”
Similarly, the degree of censorship is not the same throughout China, according to Vasyl Diakonov, chief technology officer at KeepSolid VPN in Odessa, Ukraine.
Some IT hubs in the east of the country have relatively minor restrictions, while remote regions in western China — where ethnic discontent runs highest — have nearly all the well-known VPN protocols blocked, he says. Indeed, just using a VPN to access blocked websites can earn you a trip to the local police station in the troubled, Muslim-majority province of Xinjiang, residents say.
In December, Beijing promoted its vision at a glitzy World Internet Conference in the historic eastern town of Wuzhen, the second such annual meeting, attended by leaders from Russia, Pakistan and several other nations that don’t score highly on global indices of Internet freedom.
Although it has failed to convince the West, China’s latest moves to legalize and bolster its digital barrier bring “Internet sovereignty” a step closer to reality.
“One of the things the Chinese government is trying to do is to gradually change the facts on the ground,” Creemers said. “If it can’t get agreement in the international sphere about Internet sovereignty, it will just present people with a fait accompli.”
Visitors gather at a Google booth during this year’s China International Electronic Commerce Expo in Yiwu, about 200 miles south of Shanghai. (AFP/Getty Images)
At the same time, Edward Snowden’s revelations about the scale of global surveillance conducted over the Internet by U.S. intelligence agencies has been “the gift that keeps on giving” for China, Creemers said, undermining any pretense that anyone else was really playing by the rules or any Western claims to the moral high ground.
Even as Western firms here complain about Beijing’s restrictions on the Internet, the impact on China’s domestic economy is less clear-cut.
“The consequences for China in what we might call the creative economy will be substantial, the consequences in terms of China’s soft power will be substantial, but for the economy as a whole, it isn’t necessarily decisive,” said Lester Ross, partner in charge at the Beijing office of WilmerHale, a leading global international law firm, and a senior member of the American Chamber of Commerce in China.
In any case, for China’s current leadership, other policy objectives — national security and keeping the party in power — trump concerns about the deleterious effects of the government’s heavy hand on the Internet, Ross said.
For two brief hours in March, Google was temporarily accessible in China. The news provoked a brief flurry of excitement on social media and a plea from an unlikely source.
Hu Xijin, editor of the nationalist state-owned Global Times newspaper, used the occasion to argue that the Firewall, though useful in its day, should be seen as a temporary emergency structure.
“We don’t need to keep strengthening the Firewall, but should allow it to have loopholes and even allow it to slowly ‘exist in name only,’ ” he wrote.
Hu found himself in unlikely alignment with Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, who argued two years ago that the Great Firewall would one day be gradually dismantled, just as the Berlin Wall eventually fell. But the influential Chinese editor was out of step with official opinion.
On the Sina Weibo microblogging site, his post was deleted by censors, and his newspaper soon afterward published an opinion piece defending the barrier and attacking Western media for hating it so much.
It requires “a sophisticated capability” to keep out harmful ideas without damaging the nation’s global connectivity, the newspaper wrote. “China has achieved this. It can communicate with the outside world, meanwhile Western opinion cannot easily penetrate as ideological tools.”
Creemers argues that predictions of the Firewall’s imminent demise are a product of a mistaken post-Cold War consensus that Western freedom and democracy were inevitable and that the free flow of information over the Internet would help usher in a new era.
“The Internet,” he said, “is as much a tool for control, surveillance and commercial considerations as it is for empowerment.”
September 18, 2013
I prepaid for this movie, to help production costs. I don't care if I ever get my money back, but I do want the truth to come out. Someone needs to get this to Alex and see if he can get Jonathan Elinoff on as a guest. This is a must read, and links to the early post I made in this section.
Core Of Corruption 2: Echoes of Treason trailer: Vimeo.com
According to a friend oF Elinoff on Facebook, he said this could be re-posted:
bbc_standard_quote wrote: "I did have my life threatened and I was extorted over $10,000."
You can read the following posts on this forum:
bbc_standard_quote wrote: Jonathan Elinoff has cancelled his Core of Corruption 9/11 investigative series and shelved the long awaited sequel, Echoes of Treason. He reportedly finished the sequel back in March this year, and an arresting trailer did the rounds for a little while. He's pulled the Facebook page for it, deleted the website, is refunding people's money, and is evidently throwing away 3 years of completed work. Elinoff mentioned on the Kevin Barrett show months back that he travelled to Florida and newly interviewed Atta's girlfriend, and had dug up much new information regarding the stock trades and other aspects of the attacks. He mentioned to me privately some eyebrow-raising lines of investigation that were reportedly going to feature in the new film, but I'm too nauseated by this turn of events to dwell on it for the moment. You win some, you lose some.
bbc_standard_quote wrote: All good and thoughtful suggestions Magda but I should probably make clearer what I maybe didn't make clear enough in my earlier post - the entire film is - I could be wrong, but this is the impression I have - apparently already finished and doesn't need any further funds or technical assistance for completion. Jonathan (if his Facebook comments can be believed) finished the entire film (including final cut, audio and graphics) in mid to late March of this year and was preparing to upload it. He was excited about it and posted links to the trailer on various friend's pages, including Peter Dale Scott's. Then - after some three years of work - something happened to change Jonathan's mind about releasing it, and to convince him to throw all that work away. What is being abandoned is not just three years of documentary work, but three years of investigative work into the event. Jonathan also mentioned in an interview a year or two ago that various whistleblowers were present in the film - I don't know if he was referring here to folks already on the record like Sibel Edmonds, William Rodriguez etc or new folk that hadn't yet been made public, but he mentioned there were over a dozen that were to be featured in ECHOES OF TREASON and further sequels.
Digging around, some materials for the film are still online. This is the 2009 era trailer for the sequel, ECHOES OF TREASON, which offered the first hints about its content. Jonathan made reference to the audio transcript featured in this clip in a later interview as being of notable importance. I agree but would have liked to have seen where he was going with it.
Jonathan has also been training in motion graphics (he mentioned he was going to do graphics for the new film himself) and this Vimeo clip is a collection of four or more different promotional pieces he designed to promote the film, and also promote his own skills as a video designer to other companies. Most of this clip is just flashy graphics (much slicker than those from the first film, and you'll feel the repetition when you watch it) but in a couple of spots references are made to chapters of content from the movie itself. He also mentions a release date during this clip. These type of motion graphics showreels usually have upbeat music and are perhaps geared more towards viewing by production companies than the general public, and this one is no exception. The 'missing' trailer was quite different though.
The 'missing trailer taken offline was composed entirely of clips from the movie. It was sombre, enticing, and quite gripping. A link to that 'missing' trailer is still present at the bottom of the following link (it's the Youtube clip with a listed running time of 15 minutes, and features a shot of a religious ceremony at Ground Zero) but clicking on it marks it as private and unwatchable.
One major contributing factor towards Jonathan's decision to abandon his documentary seems to be his role in the arrest and conviction of Arapahoe Sheriff Pat Sullivan. Jonathan Elinoff played a major part in Sullivan's arrest, and briefly uploaded a detailed, transcript and Youtube video testimony-heavy page of data regarding the background of Sullivan's crimes and what it may have been linked to. The pages - at NewWorldOrderReport.com - have now been taken down, and I really regret not copying all the text and data from it while it was still online. Elinoff was granted interviews with (or interviewed himself) various witnesses, and his info page had a great deal of disturbing data that never appeared in mainstream media reports (what a surprise). If you search Youtube for general mainstream stories about the Pat Sullivan arrest, Jonathan Elinoff is featured in more than one interview giving details about his role in the saga. (Elinoff's role in the story was surreal to watch at the time, as he had 'privately' broken some of the details on the Kevin Barrett show - in a tense interview where he sounded incredibly stressed - weeks before the story broke widely, or before Sullivan was even arrested.) Some of the events, and Jonathan's now removed info page, are discussed at the following link -
Jonathan mentioned that Sullivan had placed a former male prostitute and drug abuser in a role as security guard at a local school, and that he'd also seen video footage of Sullivan raping underage children. Some victims, now adults, appeared in the Youtube clips on the removed info page. Elinoff also mentioned by name various witnesses and Sullivan accomplices that had turned up dead, floating in a river, murdered etc at various points, and also that various authorities had deliberately avoided going after Sullivan. There was a suggestion that Sullivan had placed the aforementioned crim in charge of security at a local school both for drug-dealing, and for an unmentioned role in steering 'troubled' youths into the hands of particular authorities, or worse. The above 'Holy Hexes' site mentions child trafficking, and Elinoff mentioned this on his info page, plus in some Facebook posts, and in private conversation. If Sullivan was running child trafficking, or protecting it and allowing it to occur, it could explain his own 'protected' status (care of his superiors who condoned the practice for reasons awful to contemplate). Jonathan mentioned the Franklin Scandal as a reference in private conversation.
Circa this period (and just prior to the completion of the documentary) Jonathan mentioned his server had been hacked, though he didn't specify what was lost, and it's unclear to me whether the hack was likely related to his film, to the Sullivan investigation, or both. Also around this time, (and Jonathan never gave additional details), a gun was pulled on him in one encounter, (possibly by an edgy witness, or an accomplice to same - that's a guess though and I could be wrong about who it was). Elinoff was pulled into the Sullivan story when some Sullivan victims approached him after hearing Elinoff help talk - live on air - an armed fugitive to give himself in at a police station, when Jonathan was working on the Tom Martino(?) show in Colorado. Martino also briefly featured at the beginning of the withdrawn ECHOES OF TREASON trailer, giving his endorsement to the film and asserting that he found Elinoff's belief in a conspiracy to be credible.
On the Kevin Barrett show, Elinoff mentioned that part of his film discussed the story of Delmart Vreeland, the oddball figure profiled earlier in Ruppert's CROSSING THE RUBICON and the Sander Hicks THE BIG WEDDING volume. With the above Pat Sullivan story in mind, I note on Vreeland's Wikipedia page that Vreeland was sentenced in 2008 to life in prison for inducement of child prostitution, luring boys to have sex on camera and distributing cocaine. Quite a coincidence. Elinoff was investigating the Vreeland story, or had already investigated it and possibly gathered new evidence (Elinoff had spoken to whistleblowers in various locations and travelled to Florida to dig up dirt) when - by a coincidence of events - he was pulled into the Pat Sullivan saga and became a major figure in Sullivan's arrest. Sullivan served 30 days in jail, not exactly the hoped for result after Jonathan had gone on the record as the main figure responsible for his arrest.
Around this time Jonathan mentioned how unhappy he was that the mainstream media had neglected to follow up the links and testimony and evidence he had collected, at great personal risk, concerning Sullivan's activities as a potential murderer and child trafficker. Why would the above pursuade Jonathan to pull his documentary on 9/11? Some of the answers are speculation, but I speculate simply as Jonathan told me some additional details in private, and the details he gave me suggest that the two, very seperate investigations listed above may have eventually converged. I'll post some final details shortly.
bbc_standard_quote wrote: I've been short on time and haven't yet put up all the remaining details about this story. As a loose update though, Jonathan posted some comments (old and new) on his Facebook page.
"The whole story is like a Hollywood movie. There were bath houses, sex brothels and drug distribution networks, there was alleged human trafficking, there were crooked sheriff deputies and abuse of the system targeting at risk school children while parading around acting like they are getting them off Meth, but secretly feeding it to them to get them to do sex acts, you have your conspiracy blogger, you have cartels and date rape drugs, I dealt with gangs and white supremacists threatening a lot of peoples lives, including mine, believe it or not, the FBI and DPD worked closely on this and members of the Department of Homeland Security came out because of this investigation.
There were "handler" like suspicious characters attempting to set people up all the time, then there was FBI safe streets task force which I worked undercover with at their classified location in the warehouse district up North. Like literally right out of a movie type scene. I didn't sleep for weeks.
The FBI Safe Streets Task Force was the same FBI task unit that was used to investigate the Penn State scandal, there were other people of influence and wealth involved, then there were all the bodies being found floating in rivers and a young boy's body found decomposing in a suitcase buried in a field.
Sean Moss was an ex-gay porn star who Sullivan hired as a security guard at Cherry Creek Schools while Sullivan was head of security. Moss was found dead, floating in the Platte river the morning after he was last seen with Sullivan.
Sullivan's family babysitter was found dead, floating in the Platte River 20 years ago. She was, from what I had discovered from people's statements, a sweet girl. Sullivan had involved himself in the investigation of the death, even though it was outside his jurisdiction. It was a clear conflict of interest investigation. All I know is that the girl's alleged boyfriend said that Sullivan had made sexual advances on her at the time before she was found dead.
To have 2 bodies that are "dumped" and naked in a river, similar circumstances and the exact same river, investigators refer to this as a frame of pattern. It suggests a common person is the killer, and there is a common person between the two deaths. The case of Sullivan's dead babysitter was unsolved and remains so to this day. Just like Sean Moss, who was last seen with Sullivan, found dead, floating in the Platte River, with a date rape drug in him.
All I know is this, the courts tried their hardest. There isn't anything more that I could do. I did my part, and I did more than anyone before me. I was asked to investigate the story because of my skill-set and the fact that I didn't have the same "Red tape" that police officers and FBI had investigating this. As a private investigator and investigative journalist, I had certain advantages. The experience will forever be with me, it changed my life. I don’t have any of the same opinions or beliefs that I once had. I am just glad to be moved on to new things now.
Most of the nights I was working the case, I was dealing with 3 and 4 man teams, usually unidentified, all on a first name basis, and we were all issued bullet proof vests.
Believe it or not, this whole investigation started because I was used in a negotiation coordinated by the ATF and Denver PD one night before all this started just to get one of Colorado's most wanted criminals to turn himself into police after he ran from cops on foot and was chased with helicopters. And, yet again, believe it or not, the accused perp said he was framed for armed robbery and manslaughter, as well as all kinds of other very serious charges, and there may have been a case for that. [NOTE - Jon posted the audio link to this onetime on his Facebook page, and it's pretty much as he describes it].
It goes on and on and on. It was literally like a Hollywood movie, and I was at the center of it from the beginning. I was diagnosed with a slight form of PTSD and I suffered anxiety attacks after all this, which was quite a new experience.
The non-disclosure agreements I was asked to sign, the political impact the story could have inflamed, the whole thing, it was a lot. I don't know what to make of it.
It is very weird to digest. I am asked about the video tape all the time. This video tape:
I will say this again, as I have said it before: "Sullivan could not be positively identified on the tape." That is my statement.
I think the weirdest thing about the whole Sullivan story is that most people don't really know he was a close personal friend of both Clinton and Bush Sr., not to mention that he was in the Clinton Administration and was pivotal in passing the Brady Bill. He was a famed sheriff who campaigned on his solid career helping kids get off drugs and that won him "Sheriff of the Year" as well as Colorado giving his name placed on a jail. And, on the exact same jail I got him sent to. I literally put a sheriff in his own multi-million dollar county jail named after him. He was not just some ordinary sheriff. He led a meth task force and tried to present himself as a person leading a program getting kids off meth, when in reality everything was a lie.
My life was threatened multiple times while working the story, and I still wake up in the middle of the night in cold sweats remembering the victims he gave HIV to and the young men he molested:
I did everything I could to help these people, I did. Almost no journalists in town wanted to touch this story except Julie Hayden at FOX, Jeremy Jojola at NBC, and Brian Moss at CBS, and I. We all worked closely to get info and interviews. I wouldn't be carrying the torch by myself...
CBS covered the story and my interviews with victims –
FOX covered a detailed story about my work and interviewed me –
NOTE - I asked Jon yesterday if his lengthy article on the matter would be re-uploaded to the web at some point –
“Anthony, to answer your question, nope, sorry. I took everything off the net. EVERYTHING. I am not ever going to be associated with conspiracy theory pop culture again and I will never have an interest in discussing the story. I put everything I think I need to in the statement before your comment here, and it is all that needs to be said for people to understand what I went through and still, from time to time, go through echoes of. I really don't care about the story. Sullivan was not found guilty, so that is the end of the story. That is all that matters. I have better things to do and move on to. I was in the middle of something much bigger than me, and something that I involved so many other factors that were never mentioned. Most people don't know the Department of Homeland Security came out here as apart of the 22 person task force. All I know is it isn't my battle. It never was. But some people don't always have an easy choice and I was put in very testing situations that pushed me to the extremes of my mental abilities. I have no interest in doing work like that again, in all honesty”
As I mentioned, Jon was at the tail end of a 2 year (or greater) investigation into the deep background of the 9/11 attacks when he was pulled into the Sullivan saga above. There is still even more to this story though and I'll try and post the remaining details soon. The story - and I have not yet posted the most-hair-raising details Jon gave me in private - gets very tangled from here, and it does involve 9/11. More soon, hopefully.
bbc_standard_quote wrote: I returned to this story in the comments section of a recent article at 911Blogger today. I've reprinted the pertinent info below.
"As an additional note (and the full details are way too complicated to get into here right now - this is really the tip of the iceberg ) CORE OF CORRUPTION director Jonathan Elinoff mentioned to me a few months back that he had uncovered links between the Colorado sheriff Pat Sullivan scandal and 9/11. Elinoff mentioned some things in private, others publically on his Facebook page, and other parts of the story through news links that he cryptically posted on Facebook before deciding to pull the plug on his long-in-the-works sequel ECHOES OF TREASON. The story involved Sullivan (who Elinoff accused of being a protected figure involved in child sex trafficking), Offutt Air Force Base (which 9/11 Blogger regulars should be aware off for its role on the day), the Franklin Scandal (which John De Camp, in his book on the subject, notes was heavily linked to, again, Offutt Air Force Base - De Camp also notes in his book that Offutt at the time had a bigger contingent of CIA personnel on the premises than Langley, making Offutt a key candidate for the base of 'shadow' CIA activities) and Delmart Vreeland, the much derided figure who features in both Ruppert's CROSSING THE RUBICON and Sander Hicks' THE BIG WEDDING, and who in recent years went to prison in Colorado for alleged child sex offences. Vreeland, you will recall, ostensibly knew of the 9/11 plot prior to the attack and allegedly wrote a Richard Case Nagell-style note warning officials of what was to come. Hicks (and others) would later link Vreeland to the Franklin scandal.
Elinoff (and this is really the tip of the iceberg of the story he alluded to) mentioned that the ongoing Franklin blackmail scheme - which Sullivan was likely a part of - had been used by the CIA to implicate 'Iran Contra figures', so that the agency (he didn't elaborate why) could use those very figures to initiate COG. Elinoff also reminded me of Offutt's role on the day in launching the E4B planes that were seen at all locations of attack on the day. Sullivan was likely acting as a 'procurer' of abused children, young drug addicts and the like. Vreeland (who seemed to be on the periphery of such a circle - read through the Sullivan case and Vreeland's own to note similarities between the crimes of the former and the alleged offences of the latter, right down to both of them being regular crystal meth addicts) may have heard of the 9/11 plot through those very same circles. Indira Singh made mention of child trafficking in an interview some years back. Elinoff mentioned that it was when he started reinvestigating the Vreeland story - at the same time that he was neck-deep in the Sullivan story - that he started receiving threats, had his server hacked, and read the writing on the wall - possibly, I would assume, when links between the two separate investigations became clear to him, and he contemplated expanding the material covered in ECHOES OF TREASON.
Jonathan posted numerous links on Facebook - mainstream news stories - that depicted numerous authority figures (and some celebrities) in Colorado being arrested on child sex charges just when the Sullivan story began to break, with a general 'get out of town' vibe being shown by the retirement of certain law enforcement personnel that he named. The Sullivan story was the tip of the iceberg, and Sullivan spent less than a month in jail despite a lot of damning evidence and testimony. Certain people wanted the mainstream investigation into Sullivan to go so far, and no further."
Looks like the poster boy ain't such a saint.
by PATRICK HOWLEY
10 Sep 2016
These concerns focus on millions of dollars that Comey accepted from a Clinton Foundation defense contractor, Comey’s former membership on a Clinton Foundation corporate partner’s board, and his surprising financial relationship with his brother Peter Comey, who works at the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes.
When President Obama nominated Comey to become FBI director in 2013, Comey promised the United States Senate that he would recuse himself on all cases involving former employers.
But Comey earned $6 million in one year alone from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin became a Clinton Foundation donor that very year.
Comey served as deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft for two years of the Bush administration. When he left the Bush administration, he went directly to Lockheed Martin and became vice president, acting as a general counsel.
How much money did James Comey make from Lockheed Martin in his last year with the company, which he left in 2010? More than $6 million in compensation.
Lockheed Martin is a Clinton Foundation donor. The company admitted to becoming a Clinton Global Initiative member in 2010.
In 2010, Lockheed Martin won 17 approvals for private contracts from the Hillary Clinton State Department.
In 2013, Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings.
“Mr. Comey’s appointment will be for an initial three-year term which, subject to re-election by shareholders, will expire at the conclusion of the 2016 Annual General Meeting,” according to HSBC company records.
HSBC Holdings and its various philanthropic branches routinely partner with the Clinton Foundation. For instance, HSBC Holdings has partnered with Deutsche Bank through the Clinton Foundation to “retrofit 1,500 to 2,500 housing units, primarily in the low- to moderate-income sector” in “New York City.”
“Retrofitting” refers to a Green initiative to conserve energy in commercial housing units. Clinton Foundation records show that the Foundation projected “$1 billion in financing” for this Green initiative to conserve people’s energy in low-income housing units.
Who Is Peter Comey?
When our source called the Chinatown offices of D.C. law firm DLA Piper and asked for “Peter Comey,” a receptionist immediately put him through to Comey’s direct line. But Peter Comey is not featured on the DLA Piper website.
Peter Comey serves as “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas” for DLA Piper. James Comey was not questioned about his relationship with Peter Comey in his confirmation hearing.
DLA Piper is the firm that performed the independent audit of the Clinton Foundation in November during Clinton-World’s first big push to put the email scandal behind them. DLA Piper’s employees taken as a whole represent a major Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign donation bloc and Clinton Foundation donation base.
DLA Piper ranks #5 on Hillary Clinton’s all-time career Top Contributors list, just ahead of Goldman Sachs.
And here is another thing: Peter Comey has a mortgage on his house that is owned by his brother James Comey, the FBI director.
Peter Comey’s financial records, obtained by Breitbart News, show that he bought a $950,000 house in Vienna, Virginia, in June 2008. He needed a $712,500 mortgage from First Savings Mortgage Corporation.
But on January 31, 2011, James Comey and his wife stepped in to become Private Party lenders. They granted a mortgage on the house for $711,000. Financial records suggest that Peter Comey took out two such mortgages from his brother that day.
This financial relationship between the Comey brothers began prior to James Comey’s nomination to become director of the FBI.
DLA Piper did not answer Breitbart News’ question as to whether James Comey and Peter Comey spoke at any point about this mortgage or anything else during the Clinton email investigation.
Peter Comey Re-Designed the FBI Building
FBI Director James Comey grew up in the New Jersey suburbs with his brother Peter. Both Comeys were briefly taken captive in 1977 by the “Ramsey rapist,” but the boys managed to escape through a window in their home, and neither boy was harmed.
James Comey became a prosecutor who worked on the Gambino crime family case. He went on to the Bush administration, a handful of private sector jobs, and then the Obama administration in 2013.
Peter Comey, meanwhile, went into construction.
After getting an MBA in real estate and urban development from George Washington University in 1998, Peter Comey became an executive at a company that re-designed George Washington University between 2004 and 2007 while his brother was in town working for the Bush administration.
In January 2009, at the beginning of the Obama administration, Peter Comey became “a real estate and construction consultant” for Procon Consulting.
Procon Consulting’s client list includes “FBI Headquarters Washington, DC.”
So what did Procon Consulting do for FBI Headquarters? Quite a bit, apparently. According to the firm’s records:
Procon provided strategic project management for the consolidation of over 11,000 FBI personnel into one, high security, facility.
Since 1972 the Federal Bureau of Investigation has had its headquarters in a purpose built 2.1 million square foot building on Pennsylvania Avenue. Having become functionally obsolete and in need of major repairs, GSA and the FBI were considering ways to meet the space needs required to maintain the Bureau’s mission and consolidate over 11,000 personnel.
Procon assisted GSA in assessing the FBI’s space needs and options for fulfilling those needs. Services provided included project management related to site evaluations, budgeting, due diligence, and the development of procurement and funding strategies.
Those “funding strategies” included talking to “stakeholders”: “Worked with stakeholders and key leadership to identify strategic objectives, goals and long range plans for capital and real estate projects.”
Procon Consulting obtained its contract for FBI Headquarters prior to James Comey’s nomination to serve as director of the FBI.
In June 2011, Peter Comey left Procon Consulting to become “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas” for DLA Piper.
Two real estate services businesses filed a $10 million suit against the law firm Monday alleging it stiffed them on as much as $760,000 of work done at DLA Piper’s Chicago office and improperly gave proprietary information to a competitor.
The plaintiffs take particular aim at Peter Comey, DLA Piper’s senior director of real estate operations. Leasecorp and SpaceLogik include several emails in the complaint that are purportedly from DLA Piper senior real estate partners Jay Epstein and Rich Klawiter and are sharply critical of Comey’s handling of the matter. In one email, Epstein wrote that “it’s an embarrassment for the firm to be treating someone who we are working with like this.”
In another email allegedly from Klawiter on Feb. 20, the DLA Piper partner informed Leasecorp President Michael Walker, a principal for both plaintiffs, that Comey had sent him and Epstein an email claiming that the real estate services firms were behind on their contractual obligations.
“I just received an email from Peter (Jay was also a recipient) that is so inflammatory I can’t even send it or you’ll hit the roof,” Klawiter said in the email, according to the complaint. “This is not going to end well.”
A Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers - Moddb.com
The following text is the transcript of the
9/11 A Conspiracy Theory You Tube Corbett Report
On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with box-cutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.
These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corkscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.
Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.
That investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is ultimately of “little practical significance“. [Little = Huge] Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying air-planes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.
The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.
The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.
NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7′s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety“.
The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.
This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him, him, him, and her. (and her and her and him).
Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for a decade, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the entire planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.
This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies and mobile production facilities and the rescue of Jessica Lynch.
If you have any questions about this story…you are a bat-shit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.
This has been a public service announcement by: the Friends of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, SEC, MSM, White House, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission.
Because Ignorance is Strength.
Can the 2016 Election be rigged? You bet. - Moddb.com
Sanders Delegates - You're not the Boss of Me [faking unity] - Moddb.com
 Bernie Actually Won, Protests Rock DNC & more - Moddb.com
From the same people who released the study showing the extraordinarily high probability that Hillary Clinton exceeded exit polling results in states that had no paper trail to use to audit the vote, we now get some even more "interesting" developments.
It seems that Hillary did especially well in which states where the owners of two of the three companies that make and support e-voting machines, donated to the Clinton Fund.
Interestingly, much information has recently come to light about the Clinton candidacy. Notably, the hacker Guccifer 2.0 released documents which he took from the computer network of the Democratic National Committee. Among these files, one tabulated a list of big-money donors to the Clinton Foundation. One fact has gone unreported in the media: Two of the three companies that control the electronic voting market, namely Dominion Voting and H.I.G. Capital (i.e. Hart Intercivic), are in this list of big-money donors.
To examine the possibility that the products linked to these companies had been used to commit electoral fraud, we borrowed the methodology of a paper by Francois Choquette and James Johnson (C&J). Their paper is based on one of the basic principles in the biological and social sciences: As the amount of data increases, the measurement of the average approaches the ‘true’ average. In other words, as more data is added, the average fluctuates less and less. [...]
You see, these same voting irregularities had been shown to occur in the 2008 and 2012 elections in favor of McCain and Romney, respectively, by the researchers, Choquette and Johnson. In 2008 and 2012, McCain and Romney" were "financially interconnected with two of the major electronic voting companies." Both the companies who donated to the Clinton Foundation share a history of past election controversies and conviction for white collar crimes.
So, Rodolpho Cortes Barragan, Standford and Axel Geijsel, Tilburg University, used the same methodology Choquette and Johnson to examine the primary results in 2016. Here's what they found just in Louisana:
When we looked at the results of the Republican primaries, we did not observe that any candidate kept gaining a larger and larger share of the vote at larger precincts (meaning the lines were relatively stable as precinct size increased). However, when we looked at the Democratic primaries, we observed severe abnormalities. Namely, the share of votes that Hillary Clinton received kept increasing (leading to a whopping 25%). This type of statistical abnormality is seen in almost every parish (county). It does not appear in any parish for the Republican primary ...
Funny how no "funny business" ever occurred this year in the Republican primaries, only the Democratic ones. But I digress ...
In their new study, Barragan and Geijsel didn't look at the exit polling, which was immediately attacked by many Clinton supporters attacked the use of exit polls (often with little or no knowledge of statistics) as vaild, such as Ari Bermin in an attack piece he wrote for The Nation. This time Barragan and Geijsel looked at pre-election polls of likely voters, to see what effect the election results varied from those polls in states with and without a paper trail, on a county by county basis. Here's what they had to say:
[We uncovered] new information that suggests to a concerted effort to swing the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.
Specifically, we move beyond comparing the official results to the controversial exit polls. Instead, we examine a relatively neglected set of numbers: The expected result based on pre-election polls of likely voters. 337 such polls are listed on the database provided by Real Clear Politics, representing 139,231 voters across 34 primary states.
We found that while the polls were quite successful at predicting Clinton’s numbers in states with paper trails (just a statistically inconsequential 1% difference), Clinton over-performed by an average of 9% in the states that use electronic voting machines but fail to provide paper evidence of this vote
Heer's that result as expressed in a bar graph. The blue bars show what the pre-election polls predicted the percentage of votes Hillary would receive versus the red bars, which show the actual election result for Clinton.
As you can see, in states with no paper trail because the votes were counted on untraceable e-voting machines, Hillary improved by a whopping nine (9) percent increase over pre-election polling results for likely voters, whereas in states where paper trails existed, she only exceeded the pre-election polls by one (1) percent. Ironic eh, one percent? It's as if someone with a black comedic sensibility was writing this year's election "script."
In an ironic twist of fate, the basis if electronic voting machines being used to steal an election was actually reported in this 2004 article in The Nation, when they feared the Democratic Presidential nominee, John Kerry, would lose because of Republican manipulation of our votes. Now, however, that the Democratic Party Establishment candidate stands accused of benefiting from the same electronic voting machine that cannot be audited, they sing a different tune. No rigged election this time, despite numerous studies that have demonstrated votes have likely been manipulated by these exact same machines, whether comparing final voting results to exit polls or pre-election polls.
Here's Baragan & Geigsel's understated response to this result:
Thus, pollsters were quite accurate in predicting the outcome, but only in states where fraud is hardest to hide. This situation is completely flipped in the states where the placed vote cannot be verified, as the vote only ever existed in the machines. [...]
Why would voters in larger precincts favor one candidate over the other by such a wide margin? We have been unable to come up with a reasonable psychological or sociological reason that would apply only to voters voting in the Democratic primary.
In conclusion, the data suggests that Clinton won in counties and in states where Clinton Foundation donors are responsible for the voting machines. Thus, we strongly believe that the risk posed by unverifiable electronic voting should not be taken. Our country should go back to verifiable voting. An honest election is more important than a day of labor.
Hillary release Health Records - Look what a famouns Doctor Immediately Found Wrong -
Not the first time shes lied about her Health - Moddb.com
"Hillary would not be having fever dreams about swinging from a noose ... if she didn’t know, deep inside, that her actions, and the actions of those monied interests whom she serves, are noose-worthy."
(Chateau Heartiste) Mon, Sep 12, 2016
Famous for her temper and foul mouth
Originally appeared at Chateau Heartiste
An insider source at NBC reported that Hillary Clinton (you may know her as the c*nt) had an epic meltdown off-stage of her recent debate with Matt Lauer (who is currently being criticized for asking her normal journalistic questions that enraged Leftoid Hivemind authorities in charge of preapproving fluff talking points for Hillary’s benefit).
Here is the transcript:
“will have us swinging from nooses”…whew, that’s an oddly descriptive choice of phrase from America’s Sociopath Schoolmarm. A couple thoughts about her noose reference:
My best guess is that, due to a degenerative neurological disease, Hillary Clinton, like her misfit SJW supporters, is experiencing increasingly frequent and severe detachments from reality, leading her to imagine scenarios like DOTR (Day of the Rope) that, while eminently justified, are extremely unlikely to occur… unless she keeps pressing her anti-White pro-globalist agenda, at which time the noose may swing for traitors in real world places outside of their martyrdom fantasies.
Comrade Obama Has Proclaimed Trump an Enemy of the People 26 1,471The WADA World: Bye-bye, Olympic Spirit58 2,852US Is Still Resisting Russian Demands Its Syrian Proxies Separate From al-Qaeda 621,310Turkish PM Rips US: 'Your Ambassadors Are Not Governors in Turkey' 80 2,851Russia's New Armored Bomber Will Revolutionize the Battlefield 23 7,371US-Russia Relations: It Could Be Worse 111,055Obama Compares Russian President to Saddam Hussein (Video) 112 1,730DoD Openly Challenges US-Russia Ceasefire Deal in Syria 23 1,660
All our headlines, in one daily email
No blogs were found matching the criteria specified. We suggest you try the blog list with no filter applied, to browse all available. Join now to share your own content, we welcome creators and consumers alike and look forward to your comments.