If Obama committed peccadillos, the media covered for him, but what’s certain is that even the media couldn’t cover for how corrupt his administration was, culminating in the Russia Hoax.
ANDREA WIDBURG
DID JOE BIDEN’S MINISTER OF PROPAGANDA AND OPEN BORDERS CAUSE TO ELECT THE MOST CORRUPT GAMER LAWYER JOE BIDEN TO THE WHITE HOUSE???
How Zuckerberg Used a Tax-Exempt Foundation to Help Biden Fix the 2020 Election
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-billionaire-class-how-neo-fascist.html
Harsh as these words may sound, they fail to do justice to today’s elites’ depths of corruption. The exhibit number one would be Joe Biden – currently the most powerful elitist in the world – who has sold out his country in a series of outrageous influence peddling schemes involving Ukraine, China and other places around the globe. Biden used his venal son Hunter as a point man who travelled the planet raking in millions for what Rudy Giuliani aptly described as “the Biden crime family.”
By failures of border security, a lack of the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and huge numbers of visas for high tech workers, the lives and livelihoods of Americans and their children, are being stolen by America’s corrupt political elite who are doing the bidding of those who provide them with huge “Campaign Contributions” (Orwellian euphemism for bribes) pursue legislation that is diametrically opposed to the best interests of America and America MICHAEL CUTLER
Yet the same Democrats who obsess over “multiculturalism” and “diversity” and actively encourage foreign nationals to cross our borders illegally were also making the spectacular claim that free speech somehow belonged to American citizens alone during election season.
"Along with Obama, Pelosi and Schumer are responsible for incalculable damage done to this country over the eight years of that administration (JOE WAS BUSY DURING THE OBOMB YEARS SUCKING OFF BRIBES FOR THE ‘BIG GUY’)." PATRICIA McCARTHY
AMERICAN HOAXER - THE CASE AGAINST BARACK OBAMA - MAN WHO WOULD BE DICTATOR
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2022/04/gamer-lawyers-michelle-and-barack-obama.html
Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses
“Of course, one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful and angry” is because race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein Obama was president for eight long years." MATTHEW VADUM
Obama Supercharged the Left's Embrace of Censorship
It seems every day some notable Democrat is pushing for censorship. After the horrific Buffalo mass murder on May 14, New York Governor Hochul threatened social media companies for not purging “hate speech,” that dangerously elusive term that has the potential to cover anything Democrats don’t like. Former New York mayor Bill de Blasio demanded that Congress pass legislation to “reign in the spread of hate” on the Internet. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer had the audacity to send a formal letter to Fox News ordering the network to “immediately cease the reckless amplification” of ideas he blamed for the Buffalo shooting. MSNBC’s Carl Cameron insisted that “it’s time to actually start doing things” to control speech, such as “maybe taking some names and putting people in jail.” And all of these attacks on free speech are occurring while President Biden is flirting with the creation of a “Ministry of Truth” and the Democratic National Committee is “working with” Big Tech to “enforce a comprehensive political misinformation policy.” How did we get to this perilous moment in the United States when prominent public figures so carelessly demand the regulation, punishment, and even criminalization of free speech?
Where is the journalistic outrage over threats to the First Amendment? Remember when reporters pretended President Trump’s habit of slapping the “fake news” moniker on their work was nothing short of a threat against their lives? Before Chris Cuomo found other ways to sink his career, CNN’s primetime spinmeister even claimed that being called “fake news” was a vile insult “equivalent of the N-word for journalists.” America’s marquee news peddlers frequently excoriated President Trump for the insults he slung toward reporters and news outlets, even though he never once called for the censorship or punishment of a single journalist. On the other hand, the Biden administration is planning the formation of its own “Disinformation Board” equipped to target any speech the government judges as not worthy of First Amendment protection, and the same reporters and outlets once up in arms for finding themselves on the receiving end of Trump’s barbs are now quiet as church mice. Should that rather jarring hypocrisy be seen as evidence of obtuseness or duplicity?
Of course, it is easy to forget that it was President Obama, not President Trump, who originally bemoaned the rise of “fake news.” Both before and after the 2016 election, he frequently mentioned the issue during news conferences and in interviews. It bothered me at the time because his repeated insistence that speech (whether false or not) should be seen as a threat to the United States seemed very un-American to my ears.
Unlike President Trump’s later derogatory use of “fake news” as an insult to belittle CNN or Meet the Press, Obama’s discussion of “fake news” always carried the implication that what is “fake” must be excised, if not punished. After President Trump’s election, Obama immediately pointed to “fake news” as the principal culprit for his success, and in the weeks leading up to the Electoral College vote confirming Trump’s victory, news media ran many stories alleging that “fake news” had thrown the election to the underdog. As I listened to pundits exercise their First Amendment rights by calling for the punishment of other voices allegedly spreading “fake news,” it was clear that too many Americans were champing at the bit to strike a blow against freedom of speech.
Many stories alleged that “fake news” helpful to Trump had been planted and pushed by foreign sources, in particular Russia. There were even some pundits claiming that the use of Russian “fake news” to influence an American election constituted an “act of war.” I found this hysteria shocking. Having watched President Obama seek to influence the Brexit vote in the U.K., as well as election votes in Canada, France, Israel, and elsewhere, I couldn’t believe that commentators in the U.S. seemed surprised, if not outraged, that other nations might try to influence American politics. Even worse, though, I was dumbfounded that so many Americans would claim that certain political speech should be censored simply because that speech arose from non-Americans. The United States, after all, is home to millions of foreigners, many of whom own real estate and operate businesses. Yet the same Democrats who obsess over “multiculturalism” and “diversity” and actively encourage foreign nationals to cross our borders illegally were also making the spectacular claim that free speech somehow belonged to American citizens alone during election season.
The whole spectacle was horrifying not only because freedom of speech provides the bedrock for our other unalienable freedoms but also because defending that right has historically been deeply bipartisan. The idea that Americans would call for physical war over speech they disdained was antithetical to America’s past unequivocal defense of free expression. In the United States, I had always believed, most Americans embraced two salutary principles when dealing with speech they found abhorrent. First, as with shopping in any street market, caveat emptor, or rather, be weary of buying into everything you hear. Second, in all instances, the best remedy for incorrect, misleading, or repulsive speech is more speech directed against the offending speakers, never the strangulation of speech, itself. If Russia or any other foreign nation were propagating what Democrats alleged was “fake news,” choosing to undermine the First Amendment in response was like responding to a foreign missile attack by tossing grenades at your neighbors.
However, because President Trump quickly appropriated “fake news” as a sparring instrument against his critics (a clear exercise of the president’s own free speech, even though the journalist class failed to recognize it as such), Obama’s initial efforts to claim that government must have a hand in deciding “what’s true and what’s not” were obscured by the larger-than-life personality who had just entered the White House. I breathed a sigh of relief and hoped that Obama’s incipient campaign against free speech had been put out of its misery before it could become our misery, too.
Alas, it appears that President Obama and other like-minded opponents of free speech have had little trouble refocusing their efforts on rebranding their animus for “fake news” as some sort of national security imperative for fighting dreaded “misinformation.” To their everlasting discredit, the same press corps that denounced President Trump as a threat to their vocation for his penchant to call out certain news media as purveyors of “fake news” now giddily follow Leftist politicians down the censorship rabbit hole in their burn-and-pillage efforts to root out any “mis-,” “mal-,” or “dis-” information threatening official State narratives.
First, the censors came for anybody who questioned the origin stories or officially-sanctioned medical treatments for COVID-19. Then they came for anyone who spoke out against the numerous voting irregularities during the 2020 election. Then they purged anybody reasonable enough to state factually that biological men cannot be women. Finally, they squashed any voice that questioned why the U.S. or NATO should intervene against Russia in Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. And in the background of these major censorship campaigns, social media platforms and search engines continue years’ of work in their organized efforts to marginalize the voices of conservatives and others who still insist on preserving their rights to dissent from official government narratives. The anti-American reign of censorship Obama tried to kick off in 2016 is now back with a vengeance.
We are in a war for the survival of free speech today, and any government official who refuses to recognize that truth is either weak-minded, weak-willed, or already complicit. Choose your allies accordingly.
Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.
You can learn more about this groundbreaking documentary and watch Rigged in its entirety here.
Mark Zuckerberg Attempts to Dismiss Documentary Exposing His $400 Million Effort to Elect Biden
Hannah McKay-Pool/Getty Images
1 Apr 20220
7:21
Tech billionaire Mark Zuckerberg is denying any wrongdoing following the announcement of an upcoming documentary film from Citizens United Productions, Rigged: The Zuckerberg-Funded Plot to Defeat Donald Trump, which details the leftist’s $400 million effort to bolster then-candidate Joe Biden in the 2020 election.
Citizens United President David N. Bossie, who narrates the upcoming documentary, announced its release Thursday night during an appearance on Fox News’s Hannity. The documentary itself explains just how Zuckerberg and left-wing operatives dumped $400 million in election efforts to elect Biden over former President Donald Trump under the guise of assisting with elections in the midst of the Chinese coronavirus pandemic.
During the election year, operatives dumped “Zuck Bucks” in key areas of the country through the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR). The documentary zeroes in on Zuckerberg’s dollars spent in three key swing states, specifically — Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia. What particularly differentiates the information in this documentary from other election narratives is the fact that this is all traceable and proven via 990 forms non-profit groups file with the IRS.
On Thursday night, Brian Baker, a spokesperson for Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla, released a response to Fox News concerning Rigged, attempting to dismiss the documentary as irrelevant.
“When our nation’s election infrastructure faced unprecedented challenges in 2020 due to the pandemic, and the federal government failed to provide adequate funds to allow states and localities to conduct elections, Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan stepped up to close that funding gap with two independent, non-profit organizations to help the American people vote,” Baker began, asserting that both Zuckerberg and his wife “announced their support for this effort well in advance of the election, so this documentary is neither new nor newsworthy.”
Residents wait in line to vote at a shuttered Sears store in the Janesville Mall on November 03, 2020, in Janesville, Wisconsin. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
“They also did not participate in the process to determine which jurisdictions received funds,” he continued.
“The facts are clear: nearly 2,500 election jurisdictions from 49 states applied and each jurisdiction that applied received funds, no matter whether they were historically Republican, Democratic or swing districts. More jurisdictions that relied funding historically voted Republican than Democratic, and the majority of funds went to areas that either Trump or Biden won by clear margins,” he continued before admitting that they were basing this statement off of a two-minute preview of the film.
“This film, of which we’ve only seen two minutes so far, appears to feature the same people advancing the same claims that have been debunked by multiple federal and state courts and respected news organizations, only this time, set to dramatic music,” Baker added.
The final denial from Zuckerberg’s team is of particular interest, as the film has nothing to do with any of the other assertions, theories, or lawsuits surrounding the election. The cash flow is verifiable, suggesting that Zuckerberg’s team is hoping to distract from the revelations detailed in the documentary.
Additionally, while Zuckerberg’s team continues to claim that Trump areas were awarded more money than Biden areas, “the documentary explains how that assertion is ‘enormously, and perhaps purposely, misleading, because of the approximately 160 grants of $400,000 or more – totaling some $270 million – an incredible 92 percent of those funds went to jurisdictions carried by Joe Biden in 2020,'” as Breitbart News detailed:
“This is all about the great intention of, hey, we’re gonna make it more secure,” Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry says in the documentary, as hardly any of the money went toward Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
“We’re gonna make it more safe. We want to make sure that people feel comfortable coming to the poll, but that’s not what they ended up doing,” Landry added, as these jurisdictions used the money to push Democrat objectives such as universal mail-in voting and ballot drop boxes, just as two examples. In other words, the money was used to create an artificial buzz benefiting Joe Biden. The money itself went to nearly every state– 48/50, including Democrat strongholds. According to the documentary, this strategy — dumping money in areas that Biden was sure to win (California) and sure to lose (Texas) “reveals that a secondary aim of the plan was to score a public relations victory by padding Biden’s popular vote tally, in the event that he lost narrowly in the Electoral College.”
Essentially, “Zuck Bucks” ultimately “pressured” governmental entities to adopt these radical Democrat ideas to transform the election, pushing mail-in ballots and increasing the number of ballot drop boxes, both of which stand as a “rampant invitation” for fraud, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) notes in the documentary. Ultimately, the film notes that the coronavirus provided the “perfect cover” for Zuckerberg’s money to go to work in crucial battleground states, fulfilling the Democrat mantra of never letting a crisis go to waste.
However, Zuckerberg was given the opportunity to respond during the production of the film but failed to do so, according to Bossie.
“We attempted to contact Mark Zuckerberg for a response to the facts laid out in our documentary while we were shooting it, and we never received a reply. That fact is noted in the film,” Bossie said in a statement.
“It’s interesting that the statement again claims that the funds were for COVID-19 safety, but as our film proves, that was only cover. As we show, only a tiny percentage of the money was used for COVID precautions, while the vast majority was spent on voter turnout operations in localities carried by Joe Biden in 2020,” he continued, noting that Zuckerberg’s protested claims were not even made in the film.
Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg attend the 2020 Breakthrough Prize Red Carpet at NASA Ames Research Center on November 03, 2019, in Mountain View, California. (Ian Tuttle/Getty Images for Breakthrough Prize )
“Zuckerberg protests that he didn’t participate in the process to determine which jurisdictions received funding, which is not something we alleged in the movie,” Bossie said, adding that the tech billionaire is trying to “hide behind the claim that more Republican areas received money than Democrat areas, but that is purposely misleading.”
“When you look a the actual dollar amounts – not the number of grants awarded – the vast majority of the money was spent in localities that were carried by Biden,” he explained, as detailed in the film.
“Finally, Zuckerberg admits that he hasn’t seen the film, but denies its contents anyway. He then claims that the facts as laid out in the film have been ‘debunked’ in court, although the points made in the movie were not the subject of any of the lawsuits surrounding the 2020 election that he’s referencing,” he continued, concluding that Zuckerberg’s statement “does nothing to counter the many facts – supported by official IRS tax forms filed by the non-profit groups Zuckerberg funded – we spell out in Rigged.”
The documentary will premiere at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach on April 5, 2022. Viewers can watch the film after the premiere at www.Rigged2020.com.
Amazon, Facebook Spend Millions Lobbying Congress for More Legal Immigration, Amnesty for Illegal Aliens
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2022/05/joe-bidens-crony-modern-slaver-jeff.html
Refugee resettlement costs taxpayers nearly $9 billion every five years. Over the course of a lifetime, taxpayers pay about $133,000 per refugee and within five years of resettlement, roughly 16 percen will need taxpayer-funded housing assistance.
Ralph Nader: Biden's First Year Proves He Is Still a "Corporate Socialist" Beholden to Big Business
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jTIUtjkDss
A FEW HUNDRED REASONS WHY LAWYER-POLITICIANS SHOULD BE BANNED FROM SEEKING ELECTIVE OFFICE:
MOST ARE SOCIOPATHS AND BRIBES SUCKING GAMERS OF THE LAW ALL ARE DESPERATE PARASITES EAGER TO GET AT THE MONEY NO MATTER ANYTHING!
WHO RUNS THE NATION? THE GLOBALIST DEMOCRAT PARTY AND THEIR BANKSTERS AND BILLIONAIRES FOR OPEN BORDERS…. or George Soros, their paymaster?
“Obama would declare himself president for life with Soros really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.”
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2022/01/democrat-party-billionaires-for-open.html
George Soros Donates $125 Million to Democrats Before November Midterms
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S OPEN BORDERS FOR CHEAP LABOR
Those are the subliterate, low-skill, non-English-speaking indigents whose own societies are unable or unwilling to usefully educate and employ them. Bring these people here and they not only need a lot of services, they are putty in the hands of leftist demogogues as Hugo Chavez demonstrated - and they are very useful as leftist voters who will support the Soros agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment