Tag: news

Learning to read between the lines in reading MSM fake reactionary news rhetoric propaganda.

The Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) is currently at the center of several controversies, especially regarding its relationship with federal immigration authorities, like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Recent events have highlighted discrepancies between state and federal data concerning noncitizens in custody and the handling of ICE detainers.

The Minnesota Department of Corrections’ recent counter-narrative following the shooting of Alex Pretti highlights a vital discourse on misinformation and the complexities of rival narratives in media reporting. This situation mirrors broader discussions about how different institutions frame incidents to serve their own narratives. Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, was fatally shot by federal immigration enforcement agents, prompting an immediate reaction from the Minnesota DOC.

The DOC launched a website responding to what it termed “ongoing misinformation” from federal officials, particularly targeting statements made by Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino regarding a supposed suspect with a significant criminal history. In its statement, the Minnesota DOC refutes federal claims by clarifying two key aspects: The individual named by federal officials was not in Minnesota DOC custody and had a limited criminal record consisting only of misdemeanors. The DOC asserts that the DHS has repeatedly released inaccurate data about ICE detainers in Minnesota.

The federal stance, as presented by DHS, casts Pretti in a more dangerous light, describing him as armed and posing a threat during the incident. The contrasting narratives illustrate how competing institutions frame events to influence public opinion. Each organization focuses on specific details that align with their institutional goals— be it to maintain public trust or validate operational effectiveness.

Different narratives can lead to confusion and skepticism among the public, particularly when officials contradict one another. This situation can be compared to historical instances where institutions engaged in public relations battles to manipulate narratives. Similar to wartime propaganda, competing authorities often attempt to frame narratives to consolidate power, create scapegoats, or protect reputations. Historical parallels exist in various conflicts where misinformation influenced public sentiment toward enemy nations or allies. In today’s climate, competing media narratives often reflect institutional agendas, drawing attention to the critical role of verification and transparency in news reporting.

The confrontation between the Minnesota Department of Corrections and federal immigration authorities following the shooting of Alex Pretti exemplifies the dynamic nature of narrative framing in news reporting. Each institution’s efforts to assert its version of events demonstrate the complexities involved in public discourse regarding law enforcement and immigration issues. As authorities battle perceptions fueled by conflicting narratives, the importance of transparency, verification, and public trust becomes ever more critical in shaping informed societal views.

Trump leadership stands tall.

Trump strikes Greenland deal

In 2026, Donald Trump revisited his interest in Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark. Previously, in 2019, he proposed purchasing Greenland, a suggestion that was met with resistance from not just Denmark but also the global community. At the World Economic Forum in January 2026, Trump and NATO officials discussed a framework for a future deal regarding Greenland. This did not imply ownership transfer, but rather a cooperative framework addressing security and potential military bases.

The framework aims to allow the U.S. to build additional military bases on Greenland for missile defense purposes, particularly in line with Trump’s “Golden Dome” project. The U.S. seeks access to mineral rights, particularly for rare earth minerals, which are essential for technology and defense sectors. Danish sovereignty over Greenland remains intact, as emphasized by Danish officials who insist on the respect of the self-determination of Greenland’s people.

Trump has backed down from threats to impose tariffs on European countries opposing his Greenland proposal, indicating a softening of his stance to mend transatlantic relations. The framework introduced at Davos is more about strengthening cooperative security measures in the Arctic region rather than an outright sale or transfer of sovereignty over Greenland. The situation as a potential “squirrel” tactic for deflecting main stream media propaganda anti Trump rhetoric or as a maximalist demand for negotiation appears to hold merit, given the context of Trump’s approach and the complexities surrounding the territory’s status. Based upon the recent developments which reveal a diplomatic approach focusing on security collaboration and resource sharing, rather than a unilateral demand for territorial ownership.

This framework signifies a focus on enhancing security measures in the Arctic rather than asserting territorial claims. The ongoing dialogue suggests a diplomatic path centered on security collaboration and resource sharing rather than unilateral demands for ownership.

This Greenland “art of the deal” possibly linked to broader geopolitical strategies, including challenges posed by BRICS nations to the U.S. dollar’s dominance. The Greenland deal primarily revolves around security collaboration between the U.S. and Denmark, particularly concerning military bases and resource access. The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have been increasingly vocal about reducing their dependency on the U.S. dollar for international trade.

Establishing military bases in Greenland could enhance U.S. capabilities in the Arctic, potentially countering Russian influence and securing key shipping routes, which is critical amidst rising geopolitical tensions related to BRICS. Access to Greenland’s resources, including its rare earth minerals, could bolster U.S. supply chains that are crucial in maintaining technological and military superiority. Strengthening U.S. positions globally (like in Greenland) may serve as a counterweight to any moves by BRICS to establish a currency that could undermine the dollar, reinforcing U.S. economic interests.

Greenland’s strategic importance is connected to U.S. interests in Venezuela, particularly regarding oil reserves, involves several key geopolitical factors. As an autonomous territory of Denmark, Greenland’s geographic location in the Arctic is strategically vital for U.S. military operations, especially in countering rival influences from Russia and China. Venezuela is home to some of the largest oil reserves in the world, making it a significant player in global energy dynamics. The capture of Venezuelan leadership by U.S. interests could be seen as a move to secure energy supplies while simultaneously diminishing the influence of countries like Russia and China that have vested interests in Venezuela.

While the direct links between Greenland’s status and the U.S. strategy toward Venezuela may not be immediately apparent, both are part of a larger framework of U.S. geopolitical maneuvers aimed at securing strategic resources and asserting influence in key regions. The dynamics of securing energy resources from Venezuela and ensuring military readiness in Greenland illustrate the interconnected nature of global political and economic strategies. This multifaceted approach highlights how countries navigate complex international landscapes to protect their interests.

Rachel Maddow Mad-Cow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Qn6itNQkQ

Maddow’s legacy stands not as a triumph of inquiry but as a cautionary precedent: how media institutions, once guardians of accountability, can mutate into instruments of false prophet belief systems.

Rise (2016–2018): coverage drives ratings and expectations. During the height of the Russia-Gate narrative, Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC platform became the secular pulpit of the anti-Trump resistance. Her show transformed investigative speculation into moral ritual, with viewers tuning in not for evidence but for confirmation. Her detailed monologues and confident prophetic tone projected inevitability: that proof of Trump-Russia collusion was near at hand. Ratings soared; expectation became belief.

Fall (2019): Mueller Report’s anticlimax and erosion of trust. The release of the Mueller Report, which found no prosecutable collusion, exposed the gulf between Maddow’s narrative and the evidentiary record. Her defense of unelected intelligence officials—many later discredited or internally rebuked—compromised her claim to journalistic independence. When Mueller testified before Congress, that anticlimax destroyed her credibility covenant with her audience; it exposed her as being a witch rather than a prophet. Investigative journalism corrupted into partisan sermonizing: a loss of prophetic Good-Name legitimacy.

Aftermath (2020–present): rebranded as general political commentator. In the years following, Maddow repositioned herself as a scaled-down general political commentator, widening subject matter but retaining the same partisan lens, limited to the field of Russian hostility to America. Her overt support for Democratic candidates—Hillary Clinton in 2016, Joe Biden in 2020—cemented her within the ideological establishment she once claimed to honestly interrogate. Her reactionary alignment blurred journalism with advocacy and reduced MSNBC’s role to that of an echo chamber reinforcing moral ‘burn the witch’ – certainty rather than testing factual claims. Her “journalistic” style closely resembles the racism expressed through Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter” which attempted to turn Donald Trump into Hester Prynne.

Her reporting style, “narrative-first” rather than “evidence-first,” parallels classic yellow journalism—sensational framing driven by political passion. The BBC’s later manipulation of Trump’s January 6th remarks exemplifies the same moral decay: editorial splicing presented partisan drama in place of judicial record. Rachel Maddow’s transformation from investigator to partisan commentator marks a structural decline in American journalism itself. In the covenantal sense, she violated the brit emunah between reporter and public—truth exchanged for loyalty to faction. The newsroom, once a tribunal of evidence, became a pulpit of ideology.

Her defense of unelected intelligence officials who later faced credibility crises has permanently compromised her claim to journalistic independence. MSNBC functions as a secular pulpit, and Maddow’s audience compares to congregants seeking moral confirmation rather than factual inquiry. Her journalist reputation collapsed after the Mueller testimony before Congress, as exposure of her false-prophet witchcraft legitimacy. Maddow’s “narrative-first” reporting slavishly obeys yellow journalism; comparable to the recent BBC slander against Trump on Jan 6th 2020 Nancy Pelosi scandal, where the BBC spliced two different Trump speeches which corrupted Trumps viewpoint to what later became known as the Jan 6th Democrat slander made against Trump. Where the BBC publicly declared Trump’s guilt for his an attempted coup. A Joseph Goebbels-like propaganda lead by Nancy Pelosi, and other disgraced politicians and key Federal bureaucrats.

The Russia-Gate scandal, its scandalous allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the 2016 election, significantly affected various media figures, including Rachel Maddow. It duplicated the Biden laptop denial made by 51 FBI Officials in the 2020 election cycle. During the peak of the Russia-Gate investigation, Maddow’s show on MSNBC gained immense viewership, becoming one of the most-watched programs in cable news. Her extensive coverage set high expectations among viewers for groundbreaking revelations related to the investigation.

Some critics argue that Maddow repeatedly presented speculative narratives as definitive conclusions; leading to claims of overstating evidence against Trump. Right-wing commentators and supporters of Trump have continuously criticized Maddow, accusing her of pushing a partisan agenda and failing to deliver on the explosive claims she sometimes hinted at; no different than from California Congress persons: Adam Schiff, Nadler, and Waters. While many viewers praised her detailed investigative approach, others felt betrayed when some aspects of the investigation, particularly regarding collusion, did not lead to the anticipated criminal charges against Trump or his associates. The Biden lawfare attempts to arrest Trump extended to his supporters like the former Mayor of New York, prior to the 2024 elections. This disgrace in American politics compares to the Charlie Kirk political assassination and to the two attempted assassinations of Donald Trump prior to the election.

Skeptics question Maddow’s credibility, especially as the Mueller Report concluded without definitive evidence of collusion; Maddow had promised the expectation that it would result in a forced Trump Nixon-like resignation from Office. Post-Russia-Gate, her show has dramatically reduced her public face; but has expanded to cover broader topics, positioning her as a damaged goods, yet resilient commentator, in the landscape of political partisan journalism.

Rachel Maddow’s rabid support for Democratic candidates, particularly Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election and Joe Biden in 2020, has directly impacted her reputation across the board. Maddow’s vocal support for Clinton and Biden led many to concluder her as nothing other than a partisan commentator – witch. Critics argue that her support reinforces echo chamber effects, where viewers continuously restricts repeated propaganda story lines, which the Liberal Media then continuously harps upon like a scratched repeating scratched phonograph record that resemble the talking points made by parrots.

Support for candidates like Clinton and Biden has fueled criticism from conservative commentators, who claim she lacks objectivity and promotes liberal Democratic & homosexual agendas. Maddow’s complete lack of neutrality, impacts her broader audience base. Even her supporters argue that she focuses too heavily on partisanship rather than objective analysis. This critique places her together with discredited Late Night Comedy Show and the View programs.

Her vocal support for the corrupt bureaucratic heads of the FBI, CIA, and NSA intelligence has permanently tar & feathered her homosexual reputation. She promotes a Democratic super-liberated agenda, rather than providing unbiased reporting. Her strong alignment with Democratic candidates detracts from the journalistic integrity. Maddow’s witchcraft compares to that of discredited programs like late-night comedy and The View. These platforms share a tendency to blur the lines between journalism and entertainment.

The LGBTQ+ under Biden’s Administration directly corrupted the Armed Forces. The slander made against right wing opposition very much resembles to how witches cursed their victims. The Liberal MSM produced propaganda no different than that produced by Nazi Germany; clearly with another intent but propaganda sought to destroy the enemy none the less.

Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC program became the flagship voice of the anti-Trump movement. Her nightly monologues framed investigation as moral drama; audiences came to expect definitive proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Her reliance on anonymous intelligence sources and on agencies later criticized for internal bias now defines her reputation as a journalist.

During the Biden administration, federal institutions—including the armed forces—increasingly influenced by social and ideological agendas. Policies intended to promote diversity and inclusion shifted focus from a priority for military readiness and merit, towards an He/She\It sexual confusion which directly impacted both privacy in bathrooms to men engaging in women’s sports. The resulting internal tension raised harsh questions about command discipline which the military requires, and the dignity of the sexes not invaded by the other in locker-rooms.

This moral corruption described above has a a parallel transformation in major media networks. Outlets that once emphasized investigative independence now often frame political conflict as moral drama, presenting ideological narratives as settled truth. Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC program exemplified this pattern: her use of anonymous intelligence sources and dependence on agencies later criticized for bias left her work vulnerable to charges of partisanship. The larger concern is that the American press, like state institutions, risks becoming a vehicle for political validation rather than civic accountability.

Hail to the Chief! Trump Trump Trump, Victory oh so sweet.

Supreme Court’s Decision on Section II of the Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court has effectively shut down Section II of the Voting Rights Act, a crucial provision that has protected minority voters from racial discrimination in elections. This decision arises from a recent case, Louisiana v. Callais, where the court is reviewing whether Section II remains constitutional. The implications of this ruling are significant and could reshape electoral representation across the United States.

Background on Section II of the Voting Rights Act

Section II prohibits voting practices that result in the dilution of minority voting power. It has historically allowed voters to challenge electoral practices that discriminate against racial minorities. This section has helped ensure that voting districts are drawn in a way that provides fair representation for communities of color.

The Voting Rights Act, signed into law in 1965, marked a monumental shift in protecting voting rights, particularly for African Americans and other minorities, by eliminating discriminatory practices such as literacy tests and poll taxes.

Implications of the Ruling

The Supreme Court’s inclination to restrict or eliminate Section II poses serious concerns:

Following decades of Federal Government absolute corruption which defines Democrat and Republican regimes following the assassination of John F Kennedy … The divide is clear: the Trump administration views federal oversights as excessive and a barrier to efficiency, while Democratic leaders emphasize that federal employees are essential for governance and public service. The proposed significant layoffs create a scenario that would not only disrupt federal operations but also challenge the responsibility of state governments in managing increased bureaucratic functions. This conflict underscores deepening polarization around governance and the role of federal versus state authority in the U.S.

Trump Checkmates Dem’s Shutdown Plans – Hakeem Jeffries PANICS!

SELFISH SCHUMER: Speaker Johnson decries House Dems for causing ‘real pain’ – You

TubeYou Won’t BELIEVE How Many Federal Workers Trump Just FIRED!!!

Peter Doocy: Pelosi couldn’t believe her ears
Democrats EXPLODE into CIVIL WAR as the SCHUMER SHUTDOWN & Radical Demands BACKFIRE!

The Trump Administration starting with Doge argues for a reduction in federal bureaucracy, citing efficiency and a return to states’ rights. Democratic Leaders (e.g., AOC, Pelosi, Schiff): They oppose any drastic measures that would undermine federal authority and lead to job losses, arguing that federal employees are essential to maintaining order and services.

The latest Democrat Schumer Government budget Shutdown … threatens the jobs of some 750.000 Carpet Bagger Federal bureaucratic employees! NBC highlights panic within the government as certain federal functions cease. CNN opinion editorials focuses on the consequences of the shutdown, particularly the closure of federal services and impending layoffs.- Reports that Trump views the Schumer’s blunder shutdown, as an opportunity for budget cuts, igniting debate among lawmakers. CBS publicizes Trump’s absence in crucial meetings with Democratic leaders. This MSM yellow journalism rag opines the implications of a prolonged shutdown.

Trump quoted as seeing the shutdown as a strategic opportunity for significant budgetary changes, suggesting that the legacy media’s portrayal seeks to amplify tensions like it did with the Russia-gate hoax.

While “old” school Democratic leaders like Chuck Schumer express frustration over the lack of cooperation, framing the shutdown as detrimental to public services and government functionality, despite his refusal to support the Trump budget proposals. In the context of the ongoing government shutdown, major Democratic figures such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, and Maxine Waters have expressed various viewpoints.

AOC urges Republicans to come to her office for negotiations, emphasizing that she won’t tolerate cuts to essential services like insulin and chemotherapy. She challenged them to negotiate directly with her if they blamed her for the shutdown. Pelosi dismissed suggestions that AOC serves any leading role in negotiations; stating that Hakeem Jeffries directs the efforts to resolve the shutdown. She called the idea that AOC is orchestrating the situation “ridiculous.”

AOC has publicly extended an invitation to Republicans, framing the negotiation in a light that appeals to both urgency and accountability regarding essential services. This move positions her as a vocal advocate for citizens affected by the shutdown. While AOC has been active in public discourse, Pelosi has redirected the focus to actual party leadership. She emphasizes the collective effort under Jeffries, indicating a clear delineation of roles within Democratic ranks.

The reaction from prominent Democratic leaders like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, and Maxine Waters regarding the possibility of President Trump firing 750,000 federal employees, they realized with horror the Democratic caused budget crisis political disaster. Many Democrats argue that such mass layoffs would result in significant disruption not only for the federal workforce but also for communities that depend on federal services.

They emphasize that massive cuts in the Federal bureaucracies would harm vital public services. President Trump favors the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which validates States Rights to bureaucratically regulate all intra-State trade and commerce. Firing 750,000 Federal employees would force the States to assume the bureaucratic regulatory functions which post Civil War Washington “Carpet Bagger” bureaucrats arrogantly usurped as Washington’s Federal monopoly wherein the Central Government rules through direct management over the national economy.

Firing 750,000 federal employees would have substantial implications for how bureaucratic functions thereafter managed by Washington. States by definition would need to fill the regulatory vacuum left by the defunct federal government, leading to varied regulations across states and between States which would immediately undermine Federal established Corporate monopolies; and restore America back to a pre-Civil War States Rights agenda.

Such actions, most certainly would exacerbate tensions between state and federal governments, affecting legislative dynamics; possibly the restoration of State Legislatures Constitutional rights to appoint US Senators to Congress, which defined pre Civil War Congressional politics. Trump clearly favors a Jeffersonian/Jackson vision of State economic autonomy; rejects the Wilson Federal Reserve Central Bank together with FDR’s Keynesian Economics.

A significant policy shift aimed at balancing power between federal and state governments. The Trump Administration starting with Doge argues for a reduction in federal bureaucracy, citing efficiency and a return to states’ rights. Democratic Leaders (e.g., AOC, Pelosi, Schiff): They oppose drastic measures that would undermine post Civil War federal authority that results in mass Federal bureaucratic job losses. They argue maintaining the status quo; that federal employees are essential to maintaining order and services.

The latest Democrat Schumer Shutdown threatens the jobs of some 750.000 Carpet Bagger corrupt Federal bureaucratic employees. NBC – Describes the shutdown as a pivotal moment for Trump, who sees it as an opportunity for cuts; reports on Trump blaming Democratic senators for the funding failure. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez positions herself as a key figure in the negotiations, but emphasizes that Democratic leadership is guiding the strategy.

CNN – Coverage indicates that the shutdown is being used by Trump to advance his agenda of reducing federal bureaucracy. Its News rhetoric highlights concerns over the impact on services and the potential for job loss among federal employees.

CBS – Discusses the imminent threat of mass firings, and outlines the potential impacts on various federal agencies. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has become a focal point for Republicans trying to paint Democrats as extreme. However, she clarifies that the Democratic leadership is managing the shutdown response. Nancy Pelosi: Strongly criticizes the use of the shutdown for political leverage, emphasizing the importance of federal workers in providing essential services. Adam Schiff: Warns that mass layoffs would dramatically undermine federal capacity to address pressing issues and argues against a reduction of federal oversight. Jerry Nadler: Critiques the potential job losses, pointing out that federal employees play crucial roles in maintaining public services and upholding regulatory standards.

Maxine Waters: Likely to call for unity and a focus on getting the government running again, stressing the economic fallout from large-scale federal job losses. These Democratic leaders are concerned that Trump’s aggressive approach to reducing federal bureaucracy – threatened by mass firings would not just hurt federal employees but also disrupt essential services that many Americans rely on.

The term “Carpet Bagger” in this context refers to historical figures, reflecting a sentiment against corrupt centralized federal control monopoly of power over the post Civil War Confederat State governments stripped of these essential regulatory roles. The current situation, reflects significant polarization, with Democrats focusing on the necessity for federal employment and maintaining the bankrupt status quo order. While Trump’s administration views the current government shutdown as a vehicle for promoting their agenda of reduced governmental oversight and greater state autonomy which could expand the role of Doge placed upon steroids.

Time to place the feet of the looney Left upon the hang-man’s noose trap door.

The normalization of violence as a political tool poses a significant threat to democratic discourse and civil society. The Never Trump loon rhetoric surrounding Kirk’s assassination may encourage further acts of violence against political opponents. When political figures\demoCRAPS use violent language or frame their opponents as existential threats, like calling Trump supporters Nazis or Fascists – this slander creates an environment where DemoCRAP loons individuals feel justified in resorting to violence, which resulted in the political assassination of Charlie Kirk.

This not only endangers those targeted but also contributes to a culture of fear and intimidation. The increasing acceptance of aggressive rhetoric by the looney tune Liberal Left diminishes the quality of political dialogue. Instead of engaging in constructive debate, individuals resort to personal attacks or threats, like as communicated by California Loon Congress Women Waters, Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler – making it difficult to address complex issues like the Russia-Gate hoax foisted upon America by the criminals of Obama & Clinton and the corrupt FBI, CIA, and NSA bureaucrats.

Media coverage by the Lame stream media Pravda Press significantly amplified and expressed extreme rhetoric. These tools of the Corporate/bureaucrat government behind the government foisted the election of a mentally impaired Joe Biden and contributed to the electoral fraud of the 2020 Presidential elections by concealing the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and promoting the lawfare and two assassination attempts upon the life of Trump prior to the 2024 elections. MSM media focused on sensational News presentations, rather than fostering nuanced discussions. This guilt directly contributed to a distorted perception of political realities and exacerbate divisions.

Post Charlie Kirk, citizens and organizations should hold political leaders accountable for their rhetoric, demanding that they promote peace and civility rather than division and hostility. Raising awareness about the real-world consequences of violent rhetoric can help individuals understand the gravity of their words and actions.

MSNBC Changes Its Name to MS NOW

As of August 18, 2025, MSNBC will officially change its name to My Source News Opinion World, abbreviated as MS NOW. This significant rebranding is part of a broader corporate restructuring following NBC Universal’s decision to spin off several cable networks, including MSNBC, into a new company called Versant.

The rebranding of MSNBC to MS NOW is not directly attributed to the Russia-Gate controversy, but it does reflect broader shifts in the media landscape and the network’s evolving identity. While the name change to MS NOW is part of a corporate restructuring and an effort to establish a distinct identity, it also signals a desire to move beyond past controversies and focus on future content and audience engagement. The network aims to redefine itself in a rapidly changing media environment, rather than being solely defined by its past coverage of Trump and Russia-Gate.

While the Russia-Gate saga played a role in shaping MSNBC’s identity and audience during Trump’s first term, the decision to rebrand is more about the network’s strategic direction and independence following its spin-off from NBC Universal. The Russia-Gate controversy has been a contentious topic, particularly regarding how various media outlets, including MSNBC and its prominent host Rachel Maddow, covered the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. During the Russia-Gate saga, she focused on various aspects of the investigation, including connections between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

The Mueller Report, released in 2019, concluded that while there were numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, the investigation did not establish that the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference efforts. The characterization of Rachel Maddow’s promotion of the Russia-Gate narrative as a “hoax” reflects a polarized political landscape where interpretations of media coverage can vary widely. Media overreach, Trump 2.0 has exposed. Political journalism promoted by a Pravda press corporate established monopoly – that ship has sailed.

The characterization of media outlets, including MSNBC and figures like Rachel Maddow, as part of a “Pravda press” reflects a growing sentiment among some groups that mainstream media serves specific political agendas rather than providing unbiased reporting. This perception contributes to the polarization of public opinion and distrust in traditional news sources. The consolidation of media ownership has raised concerns about the diversity of viewpoints presented in the news. Critics argue that corporate interests can shape narratives, leading to a lack of accountability and a focus on sensationalism over substantive reporting. This has led to calls for more independent journalism that prioritizes transparency and integrity.

The Lame Stream Legacy Media – Fake News – dead in the water. The rise of alternative media platforms and independent journalists presents opportunities for diverse perspectives but also challenges regarding credibility and reliability. The call for a more balanced and accountable media is increasingly relevant in this context.

Streaming media outlets like Google You Tube attract far larger News viewing audience than does Cable Television. Streaming platforms like YouTube have attracted a larger and more diverse audience compared to traditional cable news channels. This is largely due to the accessibility of online content, allowing viewers to watch news on-demand and from various sources. YouTube and similar platforms enable greater interaction between content creators and viewers. Users can comment, share, and engage with news stories in real-time, fostering a sense of community and participation that traditional cable news often lacks.

Streaming platforms offer a wide range of news content, from professional journalism to independent reporting and commentary. This diversity allows viewers to choose sources that align with their interests and perspectives, contributing to a more personalized news experience. Many viewers are moving away from cable subscriptions due to high costs. Streaming services often provide free or lower-cost options, making news more accessible to a broader audience. Younger generations, in particular, are more inclined to consume news through digital platforms rather than traditional cable. This trend is reshaping how news organizations approach content delivery, often prioritizing online engagement and social media presence.

While streaming platforms provide diverse viewpoints, they also face challenges related to misinformation and the spread of unverified content. News organizations must navigate these issues to maintain credibility and trust with their audiences. Face Book, once the biggest player has seen its market share collapse after it together with Twitter threw the 2020 elections by censoring the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and Hillery Clinton’s treason.

The platforms’ decisions to limit the spread of this Hunter Biden laptop story constituted censorship and influenced public perception of both Biden and President Trump as Presidential candidates. Following the election and the controversies surrounding content moderation, Facebook has experienced fluctuations in user engagement and market share. Some users have expressed dissatisfaction with perceived biases in content moderation, leading to calls for alternatives and contributing to a decline in trust. The actions taken by social media platforms during the election have contributed to increased polarization among users. Supporters of former President Donald Trump and other critics argue that the platforms unfairly targeted conservative viewpoints.

The controversies surrounding social media’s role in the election have led to increased scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators. Discussions about potential regulations to address issues of censorship, misinformation, and the power of tech companies have gained momentum. As trust in traditional social media platforms has waned, some users have migrated to alternative platforms that promote themselves as free speech advocates. This shift reflects a broader trend of users.

The narrative surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop story has had a profound impact on public perception, influencing how voters viewed both Joe Biden and Donald Trump as presidential candidates. The narrative surrounding this story became a focal point for discussions about media bias and the role of social media in shaping political narratives.

Following the election, platforms like Facebook have seen fluctuations in user engagement and market share. Many users have voiced their dissatisfaction with perceived biases in content moderation, which has led to a decline in trust. This dissatisfaction has prompted some users to seek alternatives, contributing to a shift in the social media landscape. The actions taken by social media platforms during the election have exacerbated polarization among users. Supporters of Donald Trump and other critics argue that conservative viewpoints were unfairly targeted, leading to a perception of bias that further divides users along political lines.

In response to these controversies, lawmakers and regulators have increased their scrutiny of social media’s role in elections. There is a growing discussion about potential regulations aimed at addressing issues of censorship, misinformation, and the significant power held by tech companies. This scrutiny reflects a broader concern about the influence of social media on democratic processes. As trust in traditional social media platforms declines, many users are migrating to alternative platforms that advocate for free speech. This trend indicates a significant shift in user behavior, as individuals vote with their feet and seek spaces that align more closely with their contempt for content moderation and censorship which rapes Free Speech.

The Lame Stream Media concealment of the mental health of President Biden and the flavor of ice cream he likes soft ball questions has aroused a strong sense among the American people that the Corporate Government established monopolies have betrayed American Constitutional Rights.

Critics argue that the Lame-stream media often downplays or conceals information that could influence public perception. This has led to a growing sentiment among some Americans that the media is not fulfilling its role as an independent watchdog, but rather acting in alignment with corporate interests. The perception that corporate entities, including media organizations, have employed their lobbies to have the government to establish protected monopolies – far from limited to Obama-care corruption – raises concerns about the integrity of democratic processes. Many individuals feel that these government established & protected government monopolies prioritize profits over the public good, leading to a betrayal of American Constitutional Rights. This sentiment, particularly strong among those who believe that the media should provide unbiased information and hold public figures accountable.

As a result of these perceptions, there is a growing erosion of trust in both the media and government institutions e.g. corporate protected monopolies, first and foremost Wilson’s 1913 Federal Reserve. Many Americans feel that their rights to access truthful information and engage in open discourse are being compromised. This distrust results in increased polarization which rips the fabric of our society as a nation. A sense of disconnection from the political process, makes Americans distrust the bought and paid for political process that “styles” itself as a “Democracy”.

In light of these concerns, there are calls for greater accountability from both media organizations and government Corporate protected monopoly entities. Advocates argue for the need to ensure that media coverage is fair, transparent, and representative of diverse viewpoints. Rather than a propaganda vomit of emotional opinions and superficial over reactions.

Additionally, there is a push for regulations that address the influence of corporate interests on public discourse and democratic processes. The ongoing discussions about media representation, corporate influence, and the protection of constitutional rights will continue to shape the political landscape and public sentiment in the United States. Addressing these issues is crucial for restoring trust and ensuring a healthy Republic, wherein the State Legislatures determine what Federal Senators and Congress-persons present as bills before Congress.

The Time has come to shutter the UN. Wilson’s Pie in the Sky notions of Peace not just rejected by London and Paris after WWI, but also by Senator Long and the US Senate which rejected that the US join the League of Nations.

PA Pundits - International

PA Pundits International

PA Pundits – International·papundits.wordpress.com·

UN Plastics Treaty Collapses

From the team at CFACT ~
The United Nations adjourned its plastics summit in Geneva, Switzerland, with no …
____________________________________
____________________________________
The UN a tits on a boar hog utterly useless nonsense institution. Both the League of Nations and the UN failed from day one because neither “World government” has accountability of its corrupt bureaucraps.

In situations where there are significant conflicts of interest among stakeholders, achieving compliance with environmental agreements, such as those aimed at reducing plastic pollution, becomes exceedingly difficult. Without the ability to impose penalties or sanctions, compliance relies heavily on voluntary participation and goodwill among nations. Only have to examine UN Human Rights Commissions to see how it become a perverted joke on matters of Human Rights.

The comparison to the UN Human Rights Commissions highlights a broader issue in international governance where enforcement mechanisms are often weak or nonexistent. Without robust enforcement mechanisms, such as penalties or sanctions, there is little incentive for countries to comply with agreements. This can lead to a lack of accountability and a perception that violations will go unpunished.

The inability to enforce compliance can erode trust among nations, making future negotiations more challenging. If countries perceive that others are not held accountable, they may be less likely to commit to new agreements. The perception that international bodies are ineffective can lead to public disillusionment with global governance. This can diminish support for international cooperation on critical issues like climate change and plastic pollution.

The absence of strong accountability mechanisms within organizations like the UN can lead to perceptions of ineffectiveness. When member states can act without fear of repercussions, it undermines the credibility of international agreements. Concerns about bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption can further erode trust in these institutions. When stakeholders believe that decisions are influenced by self-interest rather than collective good, it diminishes the legitimacy of the organization. Without enforceable penalties, countries may prioritize their national interests over global commitments, leading to inconsistent adherence to agreements.

Countries, like Israel, feel that others are not held accountable for their actions, they may be less inclined to engage in future negotiations or agreements. Nation states should all together not rely upon the international market place of international diplomacy to conduct their alliance interests with other nation states. Only face to face alliances, following the model of the Rome Treaty which established the International Court of the Hague should merit nation state respect and honor.

International diplomacy stands upon cutting alliances and shared interests between nation states. Public forums which permit nations to air their propaganda accomplishes absolutely nothing. International diplomacy compares to a Man and woman building a family together. Whereas UN propaganda forums compare to a public whore house.

Effective international diplomacy relies on building strong, trust-based relationships between nations. Just as a successful family requires communication, understanding, and shared goals, so too does international diplomacy thrive on mutual respect and collaboration. Alliances formed on shared interests and values can lead to more effective cooperation. When nations work together towards common goals, they can address global challenges more effectively, whether in security, trade, or environmental issues.

Public forums, such as the UN, invarably devolve into platforms of propaganda rather than constructive dialogue. This leads to a perception that these gatherings exist more about posturing than genuine problem-solving. Nation States who do not share diplomatic relations with other countries “international law” should directly bar them from using the UN as a public forum to vent their spleen of hatred toward enemy states. To reform the UN requires that only states sharing embassies and ambassadors have the right to publicly criticize other nation state governments through the medium of UN Resolutions. Diplomacy simply not a popularity contest and how much more so a beauty contest where contestants strut around in bikinis – like chickens with their heads cut off.

The UN international whore-house promotes political venereal diseases and mental insanity – like as suffered by George III during the American Revolution. States with established embassies and ambassadors should have the right to publicly criticize other nation states. This would clearly lead to a more accountable and respectful UN environment. This approach forces nations to engage in diplomacy rather than resorting to public UN denunciations and Resolutions of condemnation. Implementing accountability measures for nations that misuse public forums for propaganda an absolute basic fundamental which the UN currently publicly prostitutes.

Banning Chapter VI UN General Assembly or even Security Council Resolutions of Condemnation: this worthless destructive condition within the UN Charter – merits immediate erasure. The UN simply not in the business of determining the international borders of member nation states, and how much more so the Capital Cities of their country. UN member states have no authority to promote revolution or Civil War in the domestic affairs of other UN member states. The Korean War an international disgrace and disaster. The UN Charter of Chapter VII dictates and direct threats of war has no place in the UN founding Charter.

This decision made by President Trump to seize Federal control over Washington DC compares to Putin’s seizure of Cremea and parts of Eastern Ukraine.

Mohenjo

James’ World 2

Mohenjo·jtm71.com

Trump Administration Backs Off New Attempt to Widen Control of D.C. Police

Click the link below the picture . Facing a lawsuit and pointed questions from a federal judge, the Trump administration agreed on Friday to pull back its attempt to take direct control over the District of Columbia police department by installing a Trump administration official to run the agency. The legal fight, which prompted an […]

_______________________________________
________________________________________
The situation in Washington, D.C. illustrates the intricate challenges of navigating federal and local governance in a politically diverse environment. The Trump administration’s attempts to exert control over local law enforcement and influence policy reflect ongoing tensions that complicate the prospect of transforming D.C. into a GOP-controlled city. The dynamics of local governance, electoral demographics, and congressional oversight will play crucial roles in shaping the future political landscape of the capital.
________________________________________
________________________________________

Initially, President Trump had placed the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) under federal control and ordered the deployment of National Guard troops, citing a surge in crime. However, after negotiations with local officials and a federal judge’s intervention, the administration agreed to allow the current police chief, Pamela Smith, to remain in charge. A federal judge indicated that the administration’s move would be blocked unless it complied with local governance laws, leading to a negotiated deal. While Smith will maintain day-to-day control, the administration will still exert influence, particularly regarding immigration enforcement policies. The situation reflects ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and local D.C. governance, particularly in a predominantly Democratic city.

Transforming Washington, D.C. into a GOP-controlled city would be a complex and challenging process. Congress retains ultimate oversight, something like Russia has seized control over Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. The Trump Administration clearly seeks to exert influence, particularly regarding immigration enforcement policies, in Washington DC.

The Trump administration’s initial move to place the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) under federal control and deploy National Guard troops was a response to rising crime rates. Transforming Washington, D.C. into a GOP-controlled city is complicated by its predominantly Democratic electorate. The local government, including the mayor and city council, is largely Democratic, making it difficult for the GOP to gain significant traction.

Congress retains ultimate oversight over D.C., which complicates any efforts to shift the political balance. This oversight can be likened to the way Russia has exerted control over Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine, where external influence overrides local governance.

The situation in Washington, D.C. illustrates the challenges of navigating federal and local governance, particularly in a politically diverse environment. The Trump administration’s attempts to exert control over local law enforcement and influence policy reflect ongoing tensions that complicate the prospect of transforming D.C. into a GOP-controlled city. The dynamics of local governance, electoral demographics, and congressional oversight will play crucial roles in shaping the future political landscape of the capital.

The comparison between the GOP’s strategic interests in Washington, D.C., and Russia’s actions in Ukraine indeed illustrates the intricate nature of political power dynamics and control. This desire is rooted in the need to shape national policies that align with Republican values. The GOP aims to implement policies that reflect conservative principles, such as lower taxes and reduced government regulation. This includes advocating for law enforcement practices that resonate with conservative values.

Both the GOP and Russia are engaged in efforts to consolidate power and influence, albeit in very different contexts. The GOP’s focus is on domestic policy and governance, while Russia’s actions are rooted in international relations and territorial control. The complexities of political power dynamics are evident in both the GOP’s strategic interests in Washington, D.C., and Russia’s actions in Ukraine. While the contexts differ significantly, the underlying themes of influence, control, and the pursuit of strategic interests are common to both scenarios. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for analyzing contemporary political landscapes and the interactions between domestic and international actors.

Russia’s actions in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are rooted in territorial control and international relations, showcasing a different but parallel pursuit of influence. Both the GOP and Russia are engaged in efforts to shape their respective political landscapes, driven by the underlying themes of influence, control, and the pursuit of strategic interests. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for analyzing contemporary political landscapes and the interactions between domestic and international actors.

The intricate challenges of navigating federal and local governance in Washington, D.C. reflect broader themes in political power dynamics, making it a significant case study in the complexities of governance and influence.

Based upon the dead body count, did Obama or Clinton order the two assassination attempts made on the life of President Trump? Given the pattern of abuse and suppression, including fake intelligence and media manipulation, we must ask: Have efforts escalated beyond political warfare? Have Trump or Gabbard been targeted physically? These questions merit serious investigation, not blind dismissal. While the ‘Clinton body count’ is not proven, its persistence in public discourse reflects deep mistrust in a system that has failed to hold elites accountable.

The complexity of the current Obama Trump political struggle forced me to amplify my original critique? Did Obama order the two assassination attempts on Trump? The Trump-Russia collusion narrative in 2016 was fabricated to politically “assassinate” Trump. Tulsi Gabbard, if empowered, might investigate this fabrication. Therefore, Obama or Clinton might have had motive to physically assassinate Trump in 2024 to stop that investigation. The historical “Clinton Body Count” theory adds circumstantial weight to this suspicion.

1. The Russiagate Hoax and Media Collusion

2. Weaponized Intelligence Against Trump and Gabbard

3. The Need for Investigation into Political Violence in 2024

Documented Facts:

Steele Dossier: Clinton-funded; FBI misuse of FISA; NSA metadata abuse; DNC server never forensically examined; Tulsi Gabbard slandered as foreign asset. Media and Intelligence Collusion; Mueller exoneration; Media deception; Twitter, censorship, and the laptop

The Trump-Russia narrative was built on false, politically-funded intelligence (Steele Dossier). Intelligence agencies and media figures weaponized unverified claims to delegitimize the 2016 election. Gabbard and others have been critical of this Deep State manipulation. The Clintons have a long and deeply entangled political history with mysterious deaths, which—whether true or not—has fed legitimate public suspicion.

Preventing a Gabbard-led investigation into the two assassination attempts upon the life of candidate Trump: Based upon the Kennedy assassination clearly corrupt US intelligence bureaucracies merit deep suspicion.

If the Deep State was willing to fabricate evidence to frame Trump as a Russian agent in 2016, spy on his campaign, and leak lies to the media for years… then we must ask: What wouldn’t they do to preserve their grip on power in 2024? The Clintons and Obama presided over an intelligence apparatus that was weaponized for political purposes. Given the stakes of a second Trump term—and the potential for real investigations into 2016—it’s no wonder patriots like Tulsi Gabbard attacked and slandered. Whether you believe in the so-called ‘Clinton body count’ or not, the pattern of political suppression, unexplained deaths, and destroyed reputations leaves a trail of fear, not transparency. Americans have every reason to distrust the security state and demand full accountability.

The Real Election Interference Wasn’t Russian — It Was American

In 2016, the political establishment and intelligence bureaucracy launched a coordinated operation to destroy the legitimacy of a democratically elected president. The now-discredited Steele Dossier—funded by the Clinton campaign and trafficked through partisan FBI actors—the backbone of a fabricated narrative that Donald J. Trump, a Russian asset betrayed America. The Mueller investigation, after years of headlines and hysteria, found no evidence of conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

What began as a smear campaign escalated into full-blown intelligence abuse. FISA courts – misled. Americans – surveilled. The media parroted lies without scrutiny. And anyone who questioned the narrative—especially figures like Tulsi Gabbard—labeled a traitor or a Russian pawn, no less by Clinton personally herself! This serves as strong evidence for the charge of intentional subversion of democracy from within.

Its extremely important to publish opposition within the GOP, concerning our President Trump’s well deserved and rejoiced 2nd Administration. Personally, for me, I emotionally support President Trump. Non-the-less, its extremely important to publish GOP and even democratic party opposition. Tulsi Gabbard has dared to question the machinery of this political manipulation. Her calls for accountability have drawn fire from both neoconservatives like John Bolton and Democratic operatives like Mark Warner. That alone speaks volumes.

Tulsi Gabbard has ‘exaggerated’ and ‘imagined evidence’: John Bolton | On Balance

Bolten personally expresses opinions hostile toward President Trump. His ignorance revealed during the 12 Day War against Iran. Honestly, I do not respect John Bolton’s criticism.
John Bolton says Donald Trump can’t come up with ‘coherent’ view on Israel | LBC

Given the scope of institutional corruption—from surveillance abuse to slander campaigns—the question must be asked: What wouldn’t these actors do to stop Trump from returning to power in 2024? If the Steele Dossier was a political hit job, and if surveillance was weaponized to undermine a candidate, is it truly unthinkable that more extreme methods would be considered?

Jason Crow of Colorado, a Democrat Congressman, has voiced opposition to Tulsi Gabbards Russia-Gate Hoax charges.
Colorado’s Jason Crow comments on being selected to be impeachment manager

Senator Mark Warner, despises Tulsi Gabbard. He despises the service made by Edward Snowden, and supports his arrest. The threat of the Ukraine joining NATO caused Russia to invade Ukraine. Russia twice invaded by Napoleon and Hitler through the flat plains of the Ukraine. Twice burned Russia very wary of ever permitting a foreign invasion of Russia through the Ukrainian plains ever again.
Sh*t That Ain’t True – Mark Warner on Tulsi Gabbard

The Russian Hoax allegations and the Epstein sex scandal – disjointed & separate issues, each with its own context and implications. The Russian Hoax allegations primarily revolve around the integrity of the electoral process and potential foreign interference, while the Epstein scandal deals with serious criminal behavior related to sexual exploitation. Attempts to link Trump to Epstein stinks of the Russia Hoax slander renewed in 2025 through a dead Epstein.

We know how intelligence agencies operated during COINTELPRO. We know what whistleblowers like Edward Snowden exposed. We know that the Clinton political machine is haunted by a long shadow of mysterious deaths, unexplained suicides, and sudden disappearances.

No, we don’t have direct evidence that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton ordered any attempt on Trump’s life. But given the documented pattern of lawlessness, suppression, and institutional abuse, the question deserves scrutiny—not mockery.

Investigations into the Russian allegations led by Democrat Mueller. His Report sought to determine the extent of Russian interference and any collusion with the Trump campaign. The Epstein scandal has led to multiple investigations and legal actions against those involved in his network, focusing on accountability for sexual abuse.

Mark Kelly, a Democratic Senator from Arizona, attempts to equate the Russia-Gate Hoax with the Epstein files. Kelly opposed Gabbard from the get-go.

Sen. Mark Kelly Raises Red Flags on Tulsi Gabbard’s Nomination: National Security Concerns

On July 2019 Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on federal charges of sex trafficking minors. His arrest and subsequent “suicide” caused an ongoing scrutiny of the Trump Administration’s ties to Epstein, though not directly linked to Russia-Gate.

The Trump Administration faced no direct legal pressure related to Epstein until after the Russia-Gate allegations began to unfold! Therefore Mark Kelly employs the Epstein files as a red herring to deflect away from the Russia-gate Hoax scandal – the ultimate disgrace of the Obama Administration. Meanwhile, the DNC has consistently blocked any independent forensic investigation of the server breach—raising questions about totally unethical tactics employed during the Clinton-Trump Presidential debates.

This Red Herring tactic of linking various scandals, a common denominator employed in political rhetoric, aimed at reactionary uneducated television audiences. Where these post ’24 Democrats arguably seek to shift skewed narratives, to focus public attention away from embarrassing political disgraces – such as the Russia-Gate Hoax Scandal.

Jim Himes, another Democrat calls the Russia Hoax accusations – “baseless”. Its important to remember the CNN Fake News reporting 8 years ago. The hysteria reactions which tried President Trump in the courts of popular opinion through biased Fake news and late night non comedic programs.

Jake Tapper: Trump’s world untethered to facts
Jake Tapper, in his post Biden collapse, new book, “Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,” co-authored with Alex Thompson.

That book explores the alleged concealment of President Biden’s cognitive decline by his inner circle and the MSM Pravda press, and its implications of this for his 2024 re-election campaign. Tapper argues that Biden’s aides and family members concealed Biden’s declining health from both the media and the American people. This argument so pathetically weak, it qualifies as a real Late Night joke.

CNN has, since the Fake News Trump condemnations moved Tapper’s show to a later, less popular time-slot; it removed other anchors from their positions, consequent to its loss of credibility. Tapper survived the purge made by the network. Jake Tapper remains with CNN and continues to host a downsized show, despite the network’s demotion of the importance of his shows.

CNN ratings, never recovered from its rabid hostility and biased news coverage of the first Trump Administration. The MSM socialist Pravda-like propaganda, lead by NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN Fake News, has witnessed serious declines in both earnings and influence.

The Fake News MSM legacy media promotes to this day a Yellow Journalism that prioritizes copy selling sensationalism over hard copy objective journalism. No different than Arab State rhetoric propaganda which continually besmirches Israel. The expulsion of President Trump from Twitter prior to the 2020 elections inspired Elon Musk to acquire X and fire the vast majority of Twitter anti-Trump employees. Concealing of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, by both the FBI and the MSM press significantly influenced the 2020 Presidential elections.

The Intelligence Machine Didn’t Just Lie — It Spied, Suppressed, and Silenced

While the media saturated the airwaves with lies about Russian “pee tapes” and puppet masters, the real surveillance state was quietly expanding. Under Obama, the NSA constructed the Utah Data Center—a facility designed to collect, store, and search every American’s metadata in real time. This was no longer about foreign threats. This was about political control.

And when Edward Snowden blew the whistle, what happened? He wasn’t celebrated. He wasn’t protected. He was hunted. Labeled a traitor for exposing domestic spying. The very same system now silences dissenters like Tulsi Gabbard with accusations of being “Putin’s puppet”—simply for questioning this abuse.

Even the DNC server hack in 2016 raises questions. Why did the FBI never forensically inspect the DNC servers? Why was the narrative of “Russian interference” built entirely on CrowdStrike’s word—a private firm contracted by the DNC? Former NSA insiders like Bill Binney argue the data transfer speeds point to a local leak, not a remote hack. Yet the press buried that possibility. This exposed digital regime warfare employed against the American people by the Obama government itself.

The FBI’s involvement in the investigation of the laptop raised concerns about the intersection of law enforcement and political narratives, directly contributed to a lack of accountability in media reporting. The lack of integrity in journalism, and calls for greater MSM accountability, forcing the fourth Branch of Government to return unto objective reporting standards.

Was the Russia Hoax a coordinated intelligence operation? Should Trump 2 investigate the Bureaucratic/Corporate Monopoly shadow government as a un-Constitutional government which compares to the “Occupied Territories propaganda”, only in this case, Samaria exists as the 3 Branches of the Constitutional Federal Government.

Did Obama and Hillery use false intelligence, the Steele report, to discredit Trump’s election victory? Did senior officials from the FBI and CIA support the Russia interference false alligations? The Epstein scandal has nothing to do with the Russian hoax of 2016. This Democrat Red Herring conceals the Russia-Gate Hoax. What “multiple investigations have confirmed Russian interference in the 2016 election? What information has Gabbard “cherry-picked”?

The Steele Dossier came from the Clinton’s election team. The Democrats employed the false Steele Dossier to open investigations on the Trump team. No question the Steele dossier served as a Democratic attack point used to challenge the Trump ’16 victory.

The Mueller Report exonerated Trump. You cannot accuse Gabbard of cherry picking information and not bring any evidence of “cherry picked” evidence. This absurd democrat argument, just another Red Herring.

Whether the Kremlin sought to influence the ’16 election has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with the Trump election campaign. Cherry-Picking accusations post the 3 plus years of the Russia Hoax, does not amount squat. Name the evidence. Put up or shut up.

Fusion GPS supports the Gabbard allegations made against both Obama and Clinton. The Mueller Report based its investigations upon Fusion GPS lies. How does Gabbard “selectively interpret” evidence. Name the evidence. No evidence exists that the Trump election team worked in collusion with Russia.

The Steele Dossier – corrupt from the start. Regardless if various unnamed sources implicated in the Clinton hoax scandal. Russian interference in the ’16 elections a Red Herring by which Pelosi could impeach the President. It has nothing to do with the Trump team in ’16. Emphasizing A vs. downplaying or ignoring B, absolutely requires naming both A and B.

Vague declarations of how different parties emphasize or downplay aspects of the investigations absolutely require specifics, not broad general statements unsupported by factual evidence. This democratic propaganda, serves as evidence concerning the suspicions laid upon Obama. The Mueller Report did not establish a conspiracy or coordination between the Trump Team and the Russian Government. Did Obama or Clinton or both seek to assassinate candidate Trump? This alligation virtually no different than the Russia-Gate Hoax made after the ’16 election.

Candidate Clinton utterly disgraced and humiliated. Documented Russian interference efforts has absolutely nothing to do with the Trump team anymore than with the Clinton team. Russia operates independent of both Trump and Clinton. The accusation the Democrats made against Trump following the ’16 elections – a simple Red Herring.

The Mueller Report with its conclusions that no evidence of conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia starkly contrasts with the political slander which the MSM press lead by Rachel Maddow and Late Night “comedy” shows. That Russia employed social media and hacking, no different than the US doing the exact same thing against Russia and virtually all other countries across the Planet.

Both Obama and Clinton sought to make a coup against President Trump’s election victory. US spy agencies sow discord in the political systems of Foreign governments. Especially hostile Foreign governments! Social media directly caused the Arab Spring revolutions which caused the Middle East to go into political anarchy and Civil Wars!

Because the Mueller Report found no evidence of conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, then the “baseless” declarations made by Obama and his supporters which seeks to minimize the damage to the reputations of these treason traitor criminals – the only thing “baseless”.

Rachel Maddow and other rabid vocal supporters of Obama and Clinton, openly employed slander to politically assassinate the Good Name of President Trump and his election team. The Mueller Report conclusions utterly refutes the ’25 Obama and his supporters slander and political assassination attempts.

Did Obama cross the line and order the two assassination attempts made on Candidate Trump prior to the ’24 elections? Does US intelligence spy on the America people through FaceBook and other social media platforms? Obviously, its an undisputed reality that the FBI and CIA and NSA, post the 9/11 Chaney/Bush Patriot Act have operated outside the bounds established by the US Constitution. Bush himself referred to the Constitution as just a GD piece of paper! Just as his father directly involved in the revolution in Chili which imposed dictator Pinochet by Bush and Kissenger as did the CIA overthrew the government of Iran in 1953.

Obama and his allies engaged in slander to undermine Trump’s legitimacy. The narrative that figures like Rachel Maddow and others have engaged in slander against Trump. These subversive media figures have perpetuated a narrative of collusion which contributed to a broader campaign to first discredit Trump and then twice impeach him.

The revelations by whistleblowers, such as Edward Snowden, highlighted the extent of surveillance programs that collect data from social media and other platforms. This has raised significant debates about privacy rights and government overreach. The quote attributed to George W. Bush regarding the Constitution reflects a sentiment among some critics that national security concerns he and Cheney prioritized over civil liberties.

Obama and his allies engaged in slander to undermine Trump’s legitimacy. Rachel Maddow & Late Night TV likewise engaged in slander campaigns to undermine Trump’s legitimacy.

Whistleblowers like Edward Snowden revealed extensive surveillance programs, that collects data from social media. The debate over the balance between civil liberties and national security, particularly post-9/11, the Obama-Clinton, accused by Trump of treason merits a strong Spring Cleaning of the Washington swamp.

The disgraced legacy media with its False News merits total and absolute closure of their News government established monopoly; they do not fairly and equally report the News. The revelations by Edward Snowden brought to light the extent of government surveillance, raising concerns about privacy rights. The collection of data from social media by the FBI, CIA, NSA etc., demands much stronger restrictions, which radically curtail these utterly corrupt bureaucracies which have no accountability to the voting American people.