Is this depopulation bioweapon experiment?

Woman-Doctor-Sick-Whooping-Cough
“Mystery virus” spreading like wildfire across U.S. population, putting people in bed for a MONTH… is this a depopulation bioweapon experiment?

01/11/2019 / By Isabelle Z.

A cough can be rather annoying, especially when it keeps you up at night, but you can usually take comfort from knowing that it tends to run its course rather quickly and you’ll be back to normal in no time. Unfortunately, a new virus is going around that is turning what is normally a week-long nuisance into a month-long nightmare – and speculation abounds regarding its origin.

Physicians around the nation are reporting a spike in cases of people suffering from a very unusual cough. It’s caused by a virus and it’s lasting anywhere from four to six weeks – and in some cases, even longer.

One doctor, Texas Health Dallas’s Dr. Gary Gross, says he has been seeing at least a patient a day suffering from the virus, and he lamented the fact that it lasts so long without seeming to get better.

Dr. Gross told CBS DFW that the virus has no quick fix. Patients have no choice but to let it run its course, although some medications can help soothe the cough somewhat. Patients are advised to get plenty of sleep as well as lots of fluids.

Emergency medicine specialists in Cincinnati have warned the public about the virus, which they say has caused a surge in patients presenting with upper respiratory symptoms such as a cough, congestion, and shortness of breath.

Bethesda North Hospital’s Dr. Kenneth Patton describes the difficulties patients with the virus experience in breathing, saying: “They are retracting, their ribs are doing a lot of work. You can see their neck muscles, you can really see that they are having a hard time breathing.”

Patients’ biggest complaint, however, is the duration, with many people stuck in bed for weeks. Avoiding the virus is a matter of washing your hands frequently and keeping your distance from people who are sick. Once you get it, however, you’ll simply have to wait it out.
What is the source of this virus?

bill_collage

Naturally, any time a new virus like this emerges seemingly out of nowhere, it’s hard not to wonder if it could be part of a depopulation bioweapon experiment.

Plant Pathology Professor Dr. Cyril Broderick has stated his belief that the Ebola virus was manufactured and then released intentionally in Africa as a weaponized virus. Other experts agreed with his theory. Meanwhile, in the wake of the Zika outbreak, governments in Latin America urged women to avoid pregnancy because of the potential for birth defects.

The idea that depopulation efforts are underway is bolstered by the ongoing push toward reducing human populations in the name of somehow saving the planet from “global warming” and the testing of vaccines and experimental drugs in African nations. Influential names like Bill Gates have openly declared that reducing the human population could help “save” the planet, and The New York Times recently printed an editorial arguing that the end of humanity would actually be a good thing for the planet.

There’s also the fact that pharmaceutical companies have a lot to gain in the wake of such outbreaks by developing new vaccines and drugs. In fact, a team of researchers at California’s Scripps Research Institute have engineered a deadly new bird flu strain that can infect humans on the pretense of learning what such a virus could do in order to prepare for it. The mutations they’ve created allow the virus to make its way into human lung cells. What could possibly go wrong?

When you pay attention to everything that is going on in the world today, it’s not a stretch to question whether depopulation efforts are behind viruses that emerge mysteriously and suddenly affect a significant number of people.

Sources for this article include:

DFW.CBSLocal.com

KUTV.com

NaturalNews.com

Short-Term Pain, Long-Term Wonder Foreclosure.com Scholarship Program Winning Essay 2017, (Grand Prize)

You know, I just read the following article, and see that the “Millennials” are being brain washed. Goldman Sachs said back around 2008 “Only the rich should own houses, everyone else should be renting”. Sorry, I am still looking for the article wherein I quoted from. I will find it, I used that in a brief.

I knew that meant trouble. Even with foreclosure hell in the middle of its heyday, it still meant something. Not long after that, people being foreclosed upon, began being offered the chance to rent the house that they just lost.

Now, these third party entities popped up almost over night, and instead of the properties at foreclosure, reverting back to the lenders, these third parties now purchase at foreclosure auctions. Then they offer to rent you your house, or take you to magistrate court and have your thrown out, instead of the banks having to do that.

Funny thing, if you research most of these third parties, back far enough, the banks own them too, so still the same thing, just different names. Nevertheless, I could not help but post the article. It is obvious that “they” want us all in little apartments in and around the cities, easier to control “us”. I just had not realized that they were in the progress of brain-washing the Millennials into not even wanting to own a house.

Read the article:

Short-Term Pain, Long-Term Wonder
Foreclosure.com Scholarship Program Winning Essay 2017, (Grand Prize)
https://article.foreclosure.com/short-term-pain-long-term-wonder-82f82b90ff52
Go to the profile of Foreclosure.com Staff
Foreclosure.com Staff
Feb 28, 2018
By Jack Duffley | University of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign

foreclosure-kid
(photo from https://article.foreclosure.com/short-term-pain-long-term-wonder-82f82b90ff52)

In the gleeful times of 2005, my parents decided, like so many others, that it was time to “upgrade.” They sold our smaller home on the other side of town, which had appreciated nicely, and bought a 3700 square foot behemoth in a town with already exorbitant property taxes. My younger brother and I were thrilled to finally have a basement, our own rooms, and even a concrete basketball court in our backyard! All eight-year-old me knew was that things were going to be a whole lot more comfortable from there, and my optimistic parents seemed to think the same.

Jack Duffley | University of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign
The year is 2017, and my parents have only just now reached the equity levels in the house that they started with over a decade ago, nearly one-hundred-fifty mortgage payments later. However, after being bombarded by extremely high taxes for that entire time, they are essentially underwater on the property, but see little choice but to hang on for dear life until equity recovers just a bit more before they abandon ship. A thin retirement plan, mostly resting on the house, has forced their hand.

My parents’ story is in no way unique; millions of Americans who purchased homes before the 2008 recession have faced similar dilemmas, often worse than theirs. Many had no choice but to foreclose during the worst of it. After all, the homeownership rate has declined almost 5 points nationwide since the recession.[1] If anything, they can be considered lucky, yet they are still stuck in the mud. Their children, on the other hand, are now at their own fork in the road: to be [a homeowner] or not to be.

And, all things considered, they are often choosing not to be. The census shows a stark dip in homeownership among those under the age of 35 of almost 10 percent, lowering significantly from its peak pre-recessionary levels of 43 percent to a dismal 34 percent. At the same time, rental vacancy rates nationwide fell from over 10 percent to less than 7 percent as more people turned to renting, millennials especially.[2] Why is this happening?

Aside from the obvious fear of the failure that their parents faced, millennials are renting more as they define their own unique lifestyle. Millennials, in ever increasing numbers, are focusing on “living now.” They are choosing to move into urban areas in particular. As a predominantly liberal group, and with large cities tending to lean left, this is partially due to political forces. The majority, however, is due to lifestyle conveniences that come with a city: multiple options for transportation and not needing to own a car, proximity to cultural events and nightlife, and, especially with the decline of the suburbs as retail simultaneously sinks, a more positive future economic outlook. They more readily take the loss in living space for these benefits than their previous generations did.

At the same time, a growing number of millennials are facing burdensome student loan debt. Rather than come out of college with pristine back-end ratios primed for a hefty mortgage, they are handcuffed by the debt that they have amassed in their early twenties. As the Pew Research Center has noted, 37 percent of people under the age of thirty have student loan debt. They contribute to the $1.3 trillion in student debt, leverage that could presumably be used for a mortgage or some other useful credit if it were not locked up already.[3] Millennials are trying to increase their earning power by going to school so that they have the opportunity to advance economically, but it is simultaneously holding many of them back via years of extra debt — debt that is notably not going to a physical asset.

What does this mean for real estate? For the single family home market, it spells disaster, at least in the short term. Grant Cardone, one of the premier real estate investors in the world, calls homeownership a “scam,” and emphasizes that renting over homeownership among young people is becoming more and more popular. He notes that there is a huge need for affordable rentals as millennials deviate away from single family homes. Cardone is always one to advocate renting as a more advantageous and flexible lifestyle choice, and, as it has been mentioned, millennials increasingly value the flexibility that comes with renting instead of buying a home. Many, like Cardone, now see homeownership as a solely negative ordeal.

While it may not be up to the level of a “scam,” there are significant drawbacks with owning a home. For one, it locks up a significant amount of capital, money that could be used for a number of different projects or investments. In sum, homeownership is very expensive, at least in the short term when people make their initial down payment and any potential renovations. This makes it very hard to own a home for people of all ages. Additionally, owning a home can financially lock someone to a particular location, one which they might not want to be in after a while. Finally, for those hoping for appreciation when they purchase their home, as with any investment, there is a chance that it does not pan out. A poorly timed crash can wipe out an owner’s equity in seconds just as it did to my parents and so many others.

While there are drawbacks, the Great Recession and its subsequent lifestyle shift suggest the lack of education about the benefits of owning real estate. Even my parents are constantly warning me of the dangers of homeownership; the shift is not totally driven by millennials themselves. They too are still shaken by their mistakes and the sledgehammer that was the crash. They ignore the value of building equity over the long term, the typical tax benefits that come with a primary residence, and the relative stability of the real estate market because they mistakenly overpaid for a house that, in hindsight, they cannot comfortably afford in a downturn. They just hope that I do not do the same, and rightfully so. However, what millennials should have learned from the recession is not that real estate is bad, but that they simply must be careful and reasonable with what they assume when purchasing it.
3310-Harrison-Rd-east-point
Unfortunately, the average consumer purchases on emotion. With the tremendous amounts of emotional trauma from the recession, millennials are increasingly refusing to buy a home as their parents might have desired at the same age. But what are they purchasing in its place? Many take on higher rents, consistent with the “living now” mentality. Many more use their money to buy a wealth of products online. Some are even speculating on cryptocurrency, something far more unknown than real estate, expecting to make a lot of money. Why do they do that? Because the average consumer purchases on emotion, not on something systematic. Real estate has already been proven to be a relatively safe and a potentially very powerful asset. Instead, the negatives have been, and continue to be, emphasized. This masks the positives of owning a home, or even a simple condo. Millennials in some cases are mistakenly ignoring all real estate and not just the kind of overleveraging or speculating that got their parents into trouble.

Does this spell the end to America? Will the country burst into flames as millennials move to urban areas? Of course not. It must be noted that the current trend does not own the future; millennials could very well begin to purchase homes in huge numbers, especially as prices drop over the next few years. While it is likely that this will not be the case, it is impossible for anyone but millennials themselves to determine that.

What is certain is that, in the short run, there will be pain. The single family housing market is going to suffer as millennials make lifestyle choices contrary to their parents. The market will be oversupplied with single family homes. However, millennials will still need a place to live, just like anyone else. Their increasing demand for urban locations and conveniences will push rent up in cities, as it already has in places like San Francisco and Seattle. This will open a new, and huge, opportunity for real estate investors and developers alike to profit in the cities as millennials develop their own American Dream. After all, a dream is only what a person makes of it, not what someone else defines it as.

References:
[1] U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Homeownership Rates for the United States and Regions: 1968–2016, (accessed Dec 10, 2010), https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/charts/fig05.pdf

[2] U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Rental Vacancy Rates for the United States and Regions: 1968–2016, (accessed Dec 10, 2010), https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/charts/fig03.pdf

[3] Anthony Cilluffo, “5 facts about U.S. student loans,” Pew Research Center, last modified August 24, 2017. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/24/5-facts-about-student-loans/

The winning essay above was submitted to Foreclosure.com’s scholarship program.

The 2017 essay topic:
IS THE “AMERICAN DREAM” OF ONE DAY OWNING A HOME ALIVE AND WELL AMONG MILLENNIALS?
Millennials having experienced the “Great Recession,” which was the traumatic housing crisis that triggered the financial crisis a decade ago. As a result, data suggests that Millennials (those born between 1981 to 1997) have been slow to adopt homeownership. Discuss the pros and cons of homeownership for Millennials, as well as which factors could increase or decrease homeownership among the generation. Will their collective hesitation and apprehension hurt them in the long run or are Millennials simply in the process of re-defining the “American Dream?”

2nd Circuit Upholds Insider Trading Conviction of Ex-Goldman Sachs Director The panel’s decision represented the latest retreat from the appellate court’s holding in 2014’s “U.S. v. Newman,” which narrowed prosecutors’ ability to prove insider trading.

Gupta-m1114755-web2
Rajat Gupta, right, with his attorney Gary Naftalis, following his sentencing in 2012. Photo: Louis Lanzano/ Bloomberg
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/01/07/2nd-circuit-upholds-insider-trading-conviction-of-ex-goldman-sachs-director/
By Colby Hamilton | January 07, 2019 at 04:12 PM

For the second time in as many months the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has declined to reverse an insider trading secured by federal prosecutors before the circuit court’s ruling in United States v. Newman and the sequence of decisions it spawned.

On Monday, the panel, composed of Circuit Judges Amalya Kearse, Richard Wesley and Christopher Droney, denied former Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta’s second attempt to have his insider trading conviction overturned. The Second Circuit had previously in 2014 denied Gupta’s argument that the trial court erred in admitting some evidence, while excluding other evidence offered by the defense ahead of his 2012 conviction. He ultimately served 19 months in prison, and was released in 2016.

The current appeal came after U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York denied Gupta’s motion to vacate his conviction in the wake of the Second Circuit’s 2014 decision in Newman, which substantially narrowed the “personal benefit” requirements of an insider trading relationship. Gupta argued before Rakoff that the jury instructions in his case were legally invalid under Newman.

On appeal, the panel reviewed Gupta’s challenge based on a cause-and-prejudice standard. It agreed with Rakoff’s argument that nothing stopped Gupta from arguing that the jury instructions were faulty on direct appeal from his conviction, since they were made during trial.

The panel observed that its November 2018 decision in Whitman v. United States tracks closely with the dynamics of Gupta’s case, as jury instructions were objected to at trial but weren’t pursued on appeal. Other insider trading cases pursued the line on appeal before Newman, the panel noted, making the claims in Whitman—and therefore Gupta’s case—insufficient to show cause.

Defendants in other insider trading prosecutions were contending that juries should be given narrower definitions of the personal benefit needed to find culpable insider trading,” the panel wrote. “We conclude that [Gupta] presents no viable claim that the personal benefit challenge was unavailable to his counsel on appeal.”

While the panel, having found Gupta failing the cause standard, could arguably have ended its findings there, it proceeded to address the issue of prejudice, and, in doing so, waded directly back in to the circuit’s muddied law on insider trading.

The panel first found that Gupta failed to show the personal benefit instructions were so flawed as to deny him due process, noting that the actual language provided to the jury in question spoke of “maintaining a good relationship with a frequent business partner.”

That last clause proved critical for the panel, who argued it squared with requirements under precedent, but not the Second Circuit’s most recent double take in United States v. Martoma, which is mentioned briefly later. Instead, the panel opted to return to the insider trading Ur-precedent from the Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in Dirks v. SEC.

The Dirks court set out a “varying sets of circumstances…which would warrant a finding of the tipper’s illegal purpose,” the panel noted. Despite the fact the specific language required by Newman for a tangible or pecuniary benefit was not present in Gupta’s jury instructions, the language was satisfactory under Dirks’ seemingly broader “circumstances.”

In fact, the panel’s acknowledgment that Dirks highlighting the ability for a quid pro quo relationship despite “the lack of need for proof of the tipper’s financial or tangible gain” appeared to potentially undercut a portion of the court’s holding in Newman, continuing the erosion that began with the Supreme Court’s findings in Salman v. United States and continued through the two versions of the Second Circuit’s Martoma decision.

The fact that Newman‘s requirement for proof of a tipper’s pecuniary or other tangible gain has been rejected by the Supreme Court disposes of Gupta’s contention that Newman meant the trial court’s instruction that proof of pecuniary or tangible benefit was not necessary caused him to be convicted of a crime for ‘conduct that is not criminal,’” the panel said, quoting from Gupta’s brief on appeal.

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, which secured Gupta’s original conviction and handled the appeal, declined to comment.

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel name attorney Gary Naftalis handled Gupta’s appeal. He did not respond to a request for comment.

Related:

NY State Senator dies of sepsis after receiving flu vaccine

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

flu-vaccine-death(NaturalHealth365) New York State Senator José Peralta (D-East Elmhurst) was not feeling well for about two weeks, later developed a fever, became disoriented and had difficulty breathing.

He was eventually taken to the hospital and died.  An autopsy is scheduled, we can only wonder – at this point – what will be discovered.

But, what’s even more disturbing is how government health officials report on the ‘mystery’ behind all these symptoms.  They simply can’t seem to figure out what triggered the problem.

According to Chris Sosa, Peralta’s director of communications, “he just thought he was having symptoms related to getting the flu shot.”  Yet, mainstream media outlets do not seem to make any meaningful connection between the vaccination and his death.

Fair WARNING: Flu vaccine side effects are often a signal to take lifesaving action – before it’s too late

The cause of Peralta’s death was determined to be sepsis – a severe infection that overstimulates the nervous system.

This causes the body to go into shock and the organs to shut down.  Simply put: the body’s inflammatory response goes into overdrive, causing overwhelming systemic inflammation. In effect, the body poisons itself.

Editor’s note: We, at NaturalHealth365, have written quite a bit about how to naturally (and effectively) respond to a bacterial or viral infection.  Here’s just one example of how to minimize the threat of sepsis.

Just days before he died, Senator Peralta sponsored an event related to the death of eight-year-old Amely Baez of LeFrank City, New York.  She passed away on Feb. 5 of “flu-related” symptoms, according to health authorities.

In addition, ironically, Peralta helped organize an event with NYC Health and Hospitals/Elmhurst sponsoring free influenza vaccinations in Amely’s home city on Nov. 17.  Little did he know what would happen to him – after receiving a flu shot.

Around 90 residents from the area were vaccinated. At the time, Peralta stated, “The influenza vaccine can be the difference between life and death.”  No doubt, Peralta urged his fellow New Yorkers to get the flu vaccine.

Educate yourself: Flu vaccine dangers include systemic inflammation – which can lead to GBS, MS and sepsis

The most common documented side effects of the flu vaccine include soreness, swelling and/or redness at the injection site, fever, headache, muscle aches and nausea.  But, let’s not forget that fainting and Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), are also possible.

By the way, in case you’re not familiar, GBS is an inflammation of the peripheral nervous system.

In addition, severe allergic reactions have been reported and, in many cases, can be fatal.  These reactions can include difficulty breathing, dizziness, wheezing, hoarseness, swelling, hives, weakness, paleness and accelerated heartbeat.

There have even been reports of blindness and the onset of multiple sclerosis following a flu shot.

Sadly, most people still don’t realize that vaccine ‘side effects’ – related to the flu vaccine – are actually triggered by the toxic ingredients within each shot.  For example, the flu vaccine has substances like thimerosol (mercury) and aluminum – which are both known neurotoxins.

There is also evidence that receiving the flu vaccine weakens the immune system, increasing the chances of getting the flu in subsequent years.

Keep your immune system strong year-round

To avoid vaccine dangers, natural flu remedies are always the best course of action during flu season.

Eat a diet rich in organic fruits and vegetables plus take vitamin C and D to keep the immune system strong – all year round.  In addition, consume probiotics to help promote an ideal balance of gut bacteria – which is essential to immune system health.

And, of course, maintain a physically active lifestyle – which is so important to maintain healthy immune function.

Sources for this article include:

NYTimes.com
TheVaccineReaction.org
Collective-Evolution.com
NaturalHealth365.com

Forbidden Knowledge – This is Great, Must See Video!

GROPEFEST from
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/remy-the-longest-time-tsa-version/

We’ve Entered Full Clownworld


We’ve Entered Full Clownworld
October 27, 2018
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/weve-entered-full-clownworld/

My friend John Barnwell recently described the news media of our times as akin to “being in a wind tunnel”. This was true until the FBI’s arrest on Friday of the “MAGABomber”, Cesar Altieri Sayoc Jr., a homeless retired male stripper living out of a van that’s elaborately festooned with Trump stickers. Now, we’ve entered full Clownworld.

A few grains of ricin the size of table salt can kill an adult human. On October 2nd, envelopes that tested positive for ricin were mailed to President Trump, Defense Secretary James Mattis and to Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John Richardson. Two days later, police arrested former US Navy sailor, William Clyde Allen III of Logan, Utah in connection with those mailings. This story received next to no media coverage.

What has received wall-to-wall coverage on the Mainstream Media is a so-called “mail-bombing spree”, in which 13 packages containing prop pipe bombs were allegedly sent through the US Mail from Sunrise, Florida, without any of them being postmarked and all apparently having been hand-delivered to each targeted location, from NYC to California and in between.

(image from https://www.rt.com/usa/442176-cnn-pipe-bomb-photos/)

Bomb squads would have been called in to extract and to safely detonate the bombs. However, none of these “bombs” were detonated, likely because they couldn’t be. Some were even officially reported to be “incapable of exploding”. Nevertheless, FBI Director, Christopher Wray took great pains during a press conference to stress that the IEDs were “not hoax devices”.

A fingerprint and a DNA match on the scotch tape used to seal the packages and on file with the FBI allowed the case to be solved at breakneck speed. Sayoc was initially cooperating with investigators, telling them that the pipe bombs wouldn’t have hurt anyone and that he didn’t want to hurt anyone.

Sayoc has been charged with 5 Federal Crimes: 1) interstate transport of explosives, 2) illegal mailing of explosives, 3) threats against former presidents and other persons, 4) threatening interstate commerce and 5) assaulting current and former Federal officers. He is looking at 48 years in Federal Prison if convicted. At least he’ll have a roof over his head.

Joe M, the creator of some viral videos about QAnon has expressed his skepticism of the official story and the details which make him suspect that this story is a Clownworld False Flag in these additional points:

1) The MSM seemed to be on message with this story from the outset, with their coordinating headlines, which immediately referred to “bombs”, when these so-called bombs had no activator, no trigger and weren’t composed of any explosive substances.

2) The package sent to John Brennan at CNN had its contents taken out and photographed extensively, without any concern for safety.

3) The media has lead us all to believe that these packages actually arrived at the residences of Obama and the Clintons. The USPS does not deliver mail to anyone under Secret Service protection. All of their mail gets delivered to a Secret Service field office. If these packages were delivered to their private homes, they were not delivered by the US Postal Service.

4) Sayoc’s profile showed that he was a Democratic voter but shortly after everyone began posting about this, his profile was updated to Republican – but now, all of his social media accounts have been taken down.

5) Pictures of the “Trump stickers” on Sayoc’s rear window are totally mismatched from one picture to the next. Is this why the FBI put a tarp over the van, when they took it away to their lab? Additionally, as many have noted and as anyone who has ever lived in Florida will tell you, the extreme heat and humidity there are absolute murder on a car. Yet, all of Sayoc’s Trump stickers are totally pristine.

(pix from https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-suspected-bombers-van-needs-to-be-seen-to-be-believed/)

6) An odd detail which may or may not mean anything is that the stamps affixed to the packages are 2016 “Forever” stamps, not 2018.

7) Cesar Sayoc Jr. had multiple aliases, including Cesar Altieri Randazzo and Cesar Anthony Altieri.

8) The corrupt Broward County Sheriff, Scott Israel is in charge of this investigation…the same Scott Israel in charge of the Parkland shooting.

9) Sayoc was a mailroom clerk at Parkland High School!

10) His social media accounts were still up early Friday and someone took a screenshot of one of his characteristically semi-literate posts, which Sayoc made back in 2016: “I would like to wish my great friend from Academy 9 yrs military school Ricki a happy birthday and lifetime from CIA. Congrats on your invention and many successes my brother.”

The person who he was congratulating was Enrique “Ric” Prado, then a 25-year veteran of the CIA, serving six overseas posts, including Station Chief in a deliberately unspecified Muslim country. Domestically, he was Chairman of Operations for the DCI’s Counterterrorist Center for Ambassador Cofer Black during 9/11 attacks and subsequent war on terrorism and as a Deputy on the original Bin Laden Task Force as well as a recipient of the Distinguished Career Central Intelligence (the highest award given to senior officers), as well as CTC’s George HW Bush Award for Excellence in Counterterrorism, among others.

11) This is pretty crazy. On October 26th, 2012, Trump tweeted a warning of an “Obama bomb” that would throw the 2012 election. On October 26th, 2018, he tweeted again about “bomb” stuff that could throw the 2018 election!

There are many unanswered questions and Dave from the X22 Report does a good job of asking them in this video.

Maybe they should have looked at those who have threatened to bomb the Whitehouse, Madonna. Along with the numerous threats made against Trump’s life, I would think those people should have been on the list of suspects. But then, it’s Ok to threaten the US President and send ricin to him and his family, and most of us never hear about it. Everytime someone does something against the Democrats, it is big news, even if the bomb could have never exploded. What a world we live in! I guess money buys everything.

Speaking of money, I was checking out the sponsors of the different political entities here in GA. All of the anti-gunners accepted donations from George Soros, Alexander Soros, or both. WTF? Soros don’t have anything to do with GA. I bet they give to all of the anti-gun legislators in your state too!

Censorship in America??? Chilling precedent? InfoWars block exposes Big Tech as no friend of free speech. Alex had been warning us of this for months, it is of no surprise, the only surprise is if we are going to take it!


HomeUS News
Chilling precedent? InfoWars block exposes Big Tech as no friend of free speech
Published time: 6 Aug, 2018 23:19
Edited time: 7 Aug, 2018 07:13
https://www.rt.com/usa/435271-alex-jones-inforwars-censorship/

Chilling precedent? InfoWars block exposes Big Tech as no friend of free speech
Alex Jones at a rally during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, July 18, 2016 © Lucas Jackson / Reuters

The US Constitution explicitly forbids government censorship. So Silicon Valley big-tech companies made themselves the gatekeepers of ‘goodthink,’ de-platforming anyone who runs afoul of their arbitrary ‘community standards.’

Alex Jones, the host of InfoWars, has often been derided by establishment media as a conspiracy theorist. Yet on Monday, Apple, Spotify, YouTube and Facebook proved right the motto of his show – “There’s a war on for your mind!” – by blocking or deleting InfoWars accounts from their platforms, saying he allegedly engaged in “hate speech” and violated their “community standards.”

Simply put, these corporations appointed themselves arbiters of acceptable political thought, and censored Jones for failing to comply with arbitrary political standards set in Silicon Valley boardrooms, not at the ballot box.

Whether you like @RealAlexJones and Infowars or not, he is undeniably the victim today of collusion by the big tech giants. What price free speech? https://t.co/DWroGYaWvk
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) August 6, 2018

The First Amendment to the US Constitution says that Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” There is no “hate speech” exemption, either. In fact, hate speech is not even a legal category in the US. However, a chorus of voices all too glad Jones was purged immediately chimed up to argue that Apple, Alphabet, Facebook and Spotify are private companies and this does not apply to them.

There is a wrinkle in that argument, though: civil rights outfits such as the ACLU have argued that social media amount to a “designated public forum” in cases where government officials tried to avail themselves of blocking, muting and other functions put forth by Big Tech as a way to police “toxicity” on their platforms.

“When the government designates social media a public forum, the First Amendment prohibits it from limiting the discourse based on viewpoint,” the ACLU said in a brief submitted last year in a case before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia. “When a government actor bans critics from speaking in a forum, it silences and chills dissent, warps the public conversation, and skews public perception,” the ACLU brief went on.
Read more


© Adrees Latif Censorship or justice? Twitter debate rages over tech giants’ simultaneous InfoWars ban

In a separate but obviously related case, a federal judge used the “designated public forum” definition to demand that President Donald Trump allow critics access to his personal Twitter account – not the official @POTUS one – because he is a public official.

However, if social media platforms are a “designated public forum” that government is not allowed to exclude people from on First Amendment grounds, how is it OK for corporations that operate these platforms to do so? Or is chilling dissent, warping conversation and skewing perception only bad when a government actor does it, thereby creating a legal system in which the what is irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is who/whom?

There is something deeply cynical about people who until yesterday denounced discrimination and evil corporatism – and will do so again tomorrow – suddenly defending private property and freedom to discriminate against political viewpoints. That’s because this isn’t about principles, but about power.

Liberals were once all for free speech, starting a movement by that name at Berkeley in the 1960s. Now that the media and academia overwhelmingly march in lockstep with the Democratic Party, however, they’re all about “no-platforming” opposing views and calling them “hate speech,” all in an effort to limit the range of permissible thought and expression in America.

Alex Jones’ Warning To The World On Internet Censorship pic.twitter.com/DNdiR6goHb

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) August 6, 2018

This has manifested in many forms, from literal riots in Berkeley to “shadowbanning” of several Republican lawmakers on Twitter. That platform, which has so far refrained from banning InfoWars, didn’t hesitate to block conservative African-American activist Candace Owens after she pointedly echoed the hateful tweets of a liberal journalist hired by the New York Times. Needless to say, the same people up in arms about Alex Jones argued that Sarah Jeong’s tweets were fine, because one “cannot be racist against white people.”

If Infowars has been removed for pushing conspiracy theories and “glorifying violence and hate speech…”

Then what’s the plan for outlets who still push ‘Russian collusion’ and promote violent ANTIFA protests/harassing Trump admin officials?
— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) August 6, 2018

This ideological conflict in American society actually goes back years, maybe even decades. However, the victory of Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election, even though most of the media and all of the Silicon Valley were #WithHer, flushed it out in the open. Democrats quickly latched onto a claim of “Russian meddling,” intended to delegitimize Trump’s presidency but also, as it turns out, create an excuse for corporate censorship.

Consider the November 1, 2017 hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, where lawyers for Google, Facebook and Twitter were subjected to a barrage of demands to regulate their platforms against “Russians” – or else.

“You have to be the ones to do something about it, or we will,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California). She also pressed for the removal of RT from YouTube, only to have a Google representative say that despite looking very hard, the company hasn’t found any policy violations that would justify such a move.

“I’m not really satisfied with that,” said Feinstein.
Read more
YouTube is also banning channels unrelated to the InfoWars brand, but have livestreamed Jone’s show daily. © Dado Ruvic/Reuters War on InfoWars? YouTube shuts down Alex Jones’ channel with 2.5mn subscribers

Now, imagine how much more chilling this would be if Feinstein represented the ruling party, rather than the opposition. It isn’t that far-fetched: during the 2016 election, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg told Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta that she “badly” wanted Clinton to win, while Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google’s parent company Alphabet, actually spent election night at Clinton HQ with a “staff” badge. More recently, this April actually, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey described as a “great read” an article describing how Democrats should fight and win the “civil war” currently being waged in the US.

This isn’t about how much one likes or dislikes Alex Jones or InfoWars. This is about corporations deciding for you what you should be allowed to hear, read, say or think – and the people normally criticizing such behavior cheering it on, because it suits their political agenda.

As Jones’s colleague Paul Joseph Watson put it, “The great censorship purge has truly begun.”

Ask not for whom the censorship bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Nebojsa Malic, RT