Thursday, May 7, 2020

1177 Antifa NGOs campaign to have David Icke thrown off social media for Covid-19 comments; YouTube deletes his account

Antifa NGOs campaign to have David Icke thrown off social media for
Covid-19 comments; YouTube deletes his account

Newsletter published on May 5, 2020

(1) David Icke interview on Covid-19 - takes a line like Global Research
(2) Event 201 Pandemic Simulation Official Videos - watch the Highlights
(12 min)
(3) Antifa NGOs campaign to have David Icke thrown off all social media
platforms
(4) Who are the "Center For Countering Digital Hate"?
(5) Who engineered Katie Hopkins's cancellation? - James Delingpole
(6) Hope not Hate vs Nigel Farage
(7) YouTube deletes David Icke's account for his comments on coronavirus
(8) Ofcom 'protects the public from harmful or offensive material'
(9) Ofcom rules David Icke's coronavirus comments could have done
'significant harm'
(10) Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite, by Samuel
P. Huntington

I agree with Icke that the Global elite are trying to manage the outcome
of the Covid-19 pandemic, but disagree about other matters; I will
explain why in the next few days. Despite my disagreement, I believe
that Icke puts an impressive case, and deserves to be heard. The attempt
to de-platform him is alarming, a tactic  of the Ministry of Truth. Who
funds these Antifa NGOs? - Peter M.

(1) David Icke interview on Covid-19 - takes a line like Global Research

From: Richard Krege <r_krege@iimetro.com.au>

I listened to this talk today which covers the big picture regarding the
"Pandemic". Now I'm not a fan of David Icke and his Lizard nonsense but
I found in this interview he gave an exceptionally good insight as to
what's happening and why, suggest you might like to see it too.

You can see the first 45mins here:

The rest of the 2hrs can  be seen here:


(2) Event 201 Pandemic Simulation Official Videos - watch the Highlights
(12 min)


Event 201 >  Event 201 Videos

Statement about nCoV and our pandemic exercise

Highlights Reel
Selected moments from the October 18th Event 201 Exercise (Length: ~12
minutes)


Videos of Event 201
These five segments include discussions among high-level leaders of
global businesses, governments, policy and public health. (Length ~3 hours)

Segment 1 - Intro and Medical Countermeasures (MCM) Discussion

Segment 2 - Trade & Travel Discussion

Segment 3 - Finance Discussion

Segment 4 - Communications Discussion and Epilogue Video

Segment 5 - Hotwash and Conclusion

Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security logo

World Economic Forum logo

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation logo

(3) Antifa NGOs campaign to have David Icke thrown off all social media
platforms


This Week in the Guardian #6 This week sees more boosting of censorship,
a collection of cognitive dissonance and the return of our old Russian
friends.

#DEPLATFORMICKE

The Guardian has a story covering the campaign from two NGOs to have
David Icke thrown off all social media platforms. While the article is
very long on the various claims made by Icke and the D-list celebrities
who agree with censoring the man, it goes into decidedly less detail on
who funds the NGOs involved.

It also disregards entirely the potential ethical problems posed by
large well-funded institutions campaigning for the censorship of an
individual. And avoids any questioning of the idea of giant tech
companies cooperating with the government to decide which opinions are
allowed.

This isn't about David Icke, it's about setting a precedent – censorship
for the public good. The Center for Countering Digital Hate and Hope
Note Hate are the terrifying face of modern authoritarianism. Fascism in
the name of friendliness and safety.

"First they came for the conspiracy theorists…"

THE LOCKDOWN AND DOUBLETHINK

This is just a nice display of how modern journalism requires an
editorial line that totally disregards internal logic.

In this article, Simon Tisdall documents all the ways in which the
lockdown-generated economic crash could destroy the lives of people in
the third world. And in this one Polly Toynbee goes into great detail
about all the unemployed young people we're about to create…because of
the lockdown. Neither of them argues the lockdown should be ended.

Whilst here, Robert Reich says that Trump ending the lockdown would be
terrible and dangerous and kill people, and Lloyd Green blames Trump for
surging unemployment in the US, without mentioning the lockdown at all.

You see, ending the Lockdown is bad, because Trump wants to do it. But
also, the lockdown is causing massive unemployment – both here and
abroad – which could kill millions of people thanks to poverty, famine,
and non-Covid diseases.

Keeping the meat-packing plants open is dangerous and irresponsible, but
there are fears of panic buying or food shortages if they're closed.
There's no word on the potential deaths caused by starvation and food
shortages, which are discussed at length in other articles.

In summary, we're told he lockdown's effect will kill literally 10x more
people than the disease has done so far, but if you want to end it
you're a pro-Trump anti-science virus-denier.

Mind-boggling.

RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA!

Perhaps a sign that the Covid19 narrative is waning is The Guardian's
abandonment of it's happy-clappy Coke-advert approach to globalism, and
return to what it does best – vilify Russia based on flimsy evidence and
to very little purpose.

Firstly, by repeating the totally unsubstantiated claims that Putin is
planning to assassinate the mayor of Prague. Apparently the motive is
the removal of a statue of a Soviet war hero. At least, according to the
"anonymous sources in Czech intelligence", whose assertions (and
existence) remain unquestioned throughout the article.

Secondly, by claiming that the aid Russia delivered Coronavirus aid to
Italy was donae partly for "political purposes" – to which the response
"No shit Sherlock" comes to mind.

Maybe The Guardian genuinely thinks that when NATO countries deliver aid
they do it out of the kindness of their hearts, anonymously, without
even a thought to geo-politics or public relations. Or maybe they'll say
any rubbish they're told to say.

It is interesting that this story appears this week, though, and not a
month ago when the aid was delivered. A sign that narrative cohesion is
collapsing? Or that some people (namely Russia) won't be welcome at the
globalist party? Or maybe that they plan to abandon the "we're all in
this together" aspect of the Coronavirus panic?

Who knows. It's reassuring to see Russophobic nonsense back on the
Guardian's front page though.

(4) Who are the "Center For Countering Digital Hate"?


Katie Hopkins Ban | Who Are The "Center For Countering Digital Hate"?

Any group with the word 'hate' in their title are normally everything
they claim to be against. So when Katie Hopkins had her Twitter account
suspended on Wednesday 29th January 2020, an account with over 1 million
followers, we decided to take a look at the 'Center for Countering
Digital Hate'.

But first, the background.

Katie Hopkins is known for her provocative statements, and
uncompromising views on issues that dominate the news cycle. She is
never PC, or worried about sensitivities. This has made her a hated
figure among the far left, and as we know, the closer to the target you
are, the more flak you receive. We looked for any evidence of any
incitement to hate & violence, the charge levelled against her by
Twitter as justification, but could find nothing.

However, as the day of the suspension progressed, the reality of what
happened started to reveal itself. A recently formed organisation called
Center for Countering Digital Hate (@CCDHate on Twitter) claimed
responsibility for the censorship, stating that along with Rachel Riley,
they had met Twitter UK and presented a case for Hopkins to be banned.
CCDH have been endorsed by London Mayor Sadiq Khan and pundit Gary
Lineker. This meeting took place without Katie in attendance to provide
context to whatever was raised, or to defend herself and the tweets in
question. The group had also not seen fit to engage with Katie prior to
the meeting. Action was swift (the day following the meeting) and the
gloating from the left wing press followed almost instantly (The
Independent managed to publish an article within moments of the ban,
suggesting they may have been briefed). Riley also revelled in what she
saw as a victory, though a read through her twitter feed reveals she has
a minority view that this is a good thing. Riley and CCDH also called
for George Galloway to be banned, citing anti-Semitism, but Twitter
failed to act on this.

The alarm expressed by many was that yet again, Twitter had met with
left wing activists and acted on their bidding. The political
discrimination against the right has been proven by Project Veritas and
others, with many accounts falling victim to mass reporting by trolls
and activists (itself a violation of Twitter ToS). At time of writing,
the account Zero Hedge with over 600,000 followers has also been
suspended. Many have predicted that 2020 would see a Conservative and
pro Trump crack down, and it is clear that political interference isn't
a problem for Twitter. UK political party "For Britain" had both the
party account and the leader banned from the platform. A perfectly
legitimate political party registered with the Electoral Commission,
banned for (justifiably) criticising the police over grooming gangs. The
police have since apologised for their handling of grooming gang cases,
but this hasn't brought back the banned accounts. At time of writing,
the Iranian regime, responsible for murdering 1500 citizens also can
happily tweet away. Far left Account Rachel Swindon was re-instated by a
Twitter exec after mass complaints from left wing activists following a
ban. The exec tweeted 'he would sort it' prior to the account coming
back online. Swindon is currently accused of antisemitism and many
Jewish activists have called for her account to again be banned.

Other accounts still live include Nish Kumar who stated "I want you
white people in the audience to do something for me….. I want you to go
home and kill your racist Brexit-voting parents".

If Katie Hopkins had said the above about muslims she would likely be in
prison, not just banned from social media. But anti white racism and
incitement doesn't appear to trouble the CCDH or Twitter.

Worse was to come for Katie, as a fake award 'hit job' was posted online
the same day. She was mocking a muslim couple sent to prison for
plotting a terror offence and hatching plan to behead her. All this was
(badly) edited out to make her speech look as damning as possible, no
context around who she was mocking or why. Katie had of course lost the
right to reply by this point, so figures such as Piers Morgan then
amplified the message that Hopkins is clearly 'racist'. Her fate was
being sealed in a similar manner to Tommy Robinson and others before
her. The Stasi would be proud.

See how this works yet?

So, who are the new fascists of our age, dictating to Twitter what
statements are acceptable and who should be allowed to express an
opinion? Remember, in the UK we have a right to freedom of expression
and that includes a right to offend. The left crave a totalitarian world
where all these liberties are taken away.

Let's look at the CCDH.

The news was broken by CEO Imran Ahmed (@imi_ahmed), fronting up the
message for the CCDH. Ahmed is political advisor to Hilary Benn, Labour
MP, a position taken after a number of years as a Labour activist, which
included working on Andy Slaughter's 2010 election campaign with
communications and targeting.

AltNewsMedia can reveal the email sent to Twitter after the meeting with
both the CCDH and Riley, stating the follow up action expected of them.

CCDH was previously registered as Brixton Endeavours Ltd, before
re-registering as Center For Countering Digital Hate in November 2019.
The company is British (trading address in East Finchley London), with
the mis-spelling of Centre presumably trying to provide the appearance
of an American organisation.

Directors include:

Siobhan Marie McAndrew – University Lecturer at Bristol University.
McAndrew lectures on Politics. One of her papers, published in 2015 was
entitled 'Mosques and Political Engagement in Britain'. Her work has
been commissioned by the Home Office.

Kirsty Jean McNeill – Executive at 'Save The Children' and 3 years as a
'special advisor' to Number 10.

Morgan James McSweeney – Director at 'Labourlist' and formerly a
director of 'Dr Majeed' in partnership with Iraqi Hayder Majeed

AltNewsMedia will be following up on a number of aspects to this story,
and the individuals involved.

Update:

We have been passed further information with links to Fiyaz Mughal
(founder of the discredited activists Tell Mama) and Hope Not Hate,
which we will be looking into and seeking to clarify.

(5) Who engineered Katie Hopkins's cancellation? - James Delingpole


First They Came for Katie Hopkins…

LONDON ,JULY 11:

James Delingpole

5 Feb 2020

What would Katie Hopkins have tweeted about the latest terror attack on
the London streets by a committed jihadist freshly released from prison?

Hard to be sure, but we can guess it would have been pretty pungent and
that it would have struck a chord with a lot of ordinary, sensible folk.

Maybe she would have focused on the absurdity of the attempted killer's
sentence: just 14 months served by a committed Islamist who'd been
caught with bomb making equipment, hundreds of computer downloads on
stuff like how to kill people, and was so radical that he'd urged his
girlfriend to behead her parents because they were kuffar (ie unbelievers).

Maybe she would have highlighted the utter ineptitude of the English
justice system which still seems to be more interested in protecting the
human rights of savage and incorrigible terrorist killers than it is in
protecting people who'd prefer to push their kids in pushchairs or ride
on bicycles without being knifed by convicted terrorists fresh out of jail.

Maybe she would have drawn attention to the large numbers of similarly
radicalised, intransigent, Islamist terrorists about to be released onto
the streets.

One thing we do know: her comment would have been angry, darkly funny,
punchy, likely a bit tasteless, a bit 'Did she really say that?'. But
also very apt.

She would have said the kind of thing that lots and lots of people think
privately but dare not express so bluntly in public. That's one of the
things that was great about Katie Hopkins on Twitter and why she had
garnered more than a million followers. She had popular appeal. She
often hit the nail on the head. People were interested in what she had
to say which is why they chose — note: chose –– to follow her.

But now Katie Hopkins's Twitter followers have been denied that choice.

A delegation of activists — an unholy alliance of cry-bully Muslims and
celebrity wankerati — has successfully got Katie Hopkins cancelled.

The cancellation was initiated by one of those ad hoc leftist campaign
groups which no one has ever heard of – the Center for Countering
Digital Hate – and given a celebrity face by Rachel Riley, a pretty
Cambridge graduate who does impressive arithmetic on the cultish UK
daytime TV game show Countdown.

As Allum Bokhari reported:

Progressive TV presenter Rachel Riley, who previously led a campaign
against antisemitism in the British Labour party, said that she and a
member of the Center for Countering Digital Hate had met with Twitter
shortly before Hopkins' suspension to lobby the tech company about her
continued presence on the platform.

Just look at some of her fellow wankerati involved in engineering
Hopkins's cancellation: they include Mayor of London Sadiq Khan and
ex-footballer/overpaid BBC presenter Gary Lineker. The Center for
Countering Digital Hate, meanwhile, appears to be another of those
Soros-style leftist sock-puppet organisations, not unlike Sleeping
Giants or Hope Not Hate.

Its purpose, reading between the lines, is to advance the left's Social
Justice Warrior agenda by closing down right-wing voices while
pretending to be merely about silencing 'hate.'

(Whatever 'hate' means: surely it ought to be obvious with anyone with
half a brain, let alone a clever girl who went to Cambridge, that one
person's 'hate' is another person's 'vigorously expressed home truth.'
It depends entirely on perspective. The idea that some random
organisation, fronted by someone – Imran Ahmed – whom no one, not even
his own mother probably, has ever heard of before, should suddenly
acquire the power to go to Twitter and close down people who don't share
its ideology is outrageous beyond measure).

There is no doubt whatsoever that Rachel Riley is very easy on the eye.
Still less is there any doubt — as she demonstrates every weekday — that
Riley is really, really good at adding up numbers quickly.

What's less obvious, though, is quite what gives this blessed child of
gene pool privilege the moral right to deny Katie Hopkins — or anyone
else for that matter — the opportunity to express herself on social media.

Riley was widely praised for her courage and outspokenness in
confronting the rampant anti-Semitism within Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party.

But any credibility she might have earned for sticking her head above
the parapet on that one issue has been squandered on this disgracefully
illiberal silencing of Katie Hopkins.

In any case, if it's bravery we're talking about, Riley is not fit to
lick the boots of Katie Hopkins.

Lots and lots of people — me included, and I don't think I'm
particularly brave — pointed out what a bunch of vile anti-Semitic
scumbags Jeremy Corbyn's crowd were and are.

Hopkins, on the other hand, tends to focus on the issues where you're
not pushing at quite such an open door: the rapes and grenade attacks in
Sweden; the torture and murder of white farmers in South Africa; the
difficulties created by mass migration; the Muslim rape gangs….

These are issues that the mainstream media has often been loath to cover
for reasons of cowardice and political correctness. But that doesn't
mean the problems aren't real. Hopkins has done a truly heroic and noble
thing – often exposing herself to great personal risk – by covering
these issues in her inimitable style and getting the word out there.

Sure, there are occasions when in her eagerness to drive home the
message Hopkins oversteps the mark.

Every now and then, Hopkins will phrase herself in such a way as to make
friends and admirers — and I count myself both a friend and admirer of
Katie, whom I know to be fundamentally a good, decent, unmalicious
person — wish that she was just a little better at reining in her invective.

The most recent example of this was the cruel and unpleasant stitch up,
organised by a woke YouTube prankster called Josh Pieters, whereby
Hopkins was flown out to Prague in the belief that she was to receive an
award.

It's quite excruciating to watch. To a backdrop that says C**T Award,
Hopkins makes an impromptu speech of gratitude — explaining how touched
she is because normally no one wants to give her awards — to a small
audience of alleged fans, all of whom are in fact actors playing up the
enthusiasm and egging Hopkins on to be more and more outrageous.

Hopkins duly obliges with a number of excruciating, squirm-inducing,
shock-jock-type remarks on Muslims, on disabled people and so on which
means that now, when even the great Brendan O'Neill writes a defence of
Hopkins's right to free speech, he has to preface it with a wheedling,
self-preserving cop-out intro like this:

Katie Hopkins is a racist. Anyone who hadn't already gleaned that from
her dalliances with the vile race-baiters of Generation Identity types
or her use of the word 'cockroaches' in a column about immigrants will
surely see it now following the speech she made at a phoney awards
ceremony in Prague. Internet pranksters invited Hopkins to accept the
Campaign to Unite the Nation Trophy (CUNT), during which Hopkins made a
speech filled with racist epithets. She mocked Pakistani speech
patterns. She compared Asians to epileptics. She described Muslims as
retards who rape their mothers. She said that if you shout 'Mohammed' in
a British playground, thousands of 'fucking' kids will come running, and
'you don't want any of them'. Vile, hateful stuff.

I don't dispute that what Hopkins said was embarrassing, ugly and
horribly ill-judged. But I also believe if you're going to bandy about
terms like 'vile' and 'racist' you need to take a view on the totality
of someone's track record, rather than cherry-picking their worst
moments in order to cover your sorry arse lest anyone accuse you of
'endorsing' racism.

Tone-policing is the enemy's game and no one on the side of free speech
should play it, however tempted the opportunity to virtue signal might be.

The good that Hopkins has done far, far outweighs the occasional slip to
which she is sometimes understandably prone given the intolerable
pressure under which she operates and given her unfiltered,
attention-seeking personality (a double-edged sword which explains both
why she is so loved and so hated).

And the people she speaks for above all aren't the chin-stroking,
libertarian-leaning fanboi types who can't get enough of Brendan O'Neill
(I'm one of them by the way); nor are they the sophisticated
free-thinkers who adore and worship Douglas Murray (me too, again); nor
are they the people who rightly think the stuff I write is great too.

No, Katie Hopkins speaks for the masses who have been dispossessed,
silenced and all but disenfranchised by our politically correct,
egg-shell treading culture. They are not racists (though of course the
MSM and now, sadly, it would seem Brendan O'Neill too, would happily
brand them as such). They are simply ordinary, decent people who see the
world they know and understand, the culture that is their birthright,
slowly being dragged away from them by forces they do not understand.
Hopkins – sometimes clumsily, more often funnily and punchily –
articulates their despair in a way they cannot.

Which is why — AGAIN — Katie Hopkins amassed more than a million
followers on Twitter. She strikes a chord!

No one, anywhere, is going to be seriously harmed by even the worst
things Katie Hopkins has said or done.

Lots and lots and lots of people are going to be harmed by the causes
championed by the left-liberal Wankerati — Josh Pieters; Rachel Riley;
Gary Lineker; Sadiq Khan; the list of wankers just goes on and on — none
of whom is ever going to be banned from Twitter, despite the destructive
nature of the leftist beliefs they endorse.

Oh, and by the way, I don't think the former MP, radio broadcaster,
hard-left pro-Islamist bruiser George Galloway should have been banned
from Twitter either — despite the fact that the hypocritical tosser once
sought hard to get me banned from Twitter just for being rude — would
you believe it — about Jeremy Corbyn.

Free speech is free speech. The bad guys have just won a major victory.

(6) Hope not Hate vs Nigel Farage


What does Hope not Hate actually do?

The anti-racism group hit back at Nigel Farage after he accused it of
being violent and 'extremist' this week. This is what really happens at
their workshops

This week, former Ukip leader Nigel Farage accused the widower of the
Labour MP Jo Cox of having links to extremism. The "extremists" in
question are the anti-racist group Hope not Hate, an organisation
supported by Brendan Cox through his wife's memorial fund. "He backs
organisations like Hope Not Hate, who masquerade as being lovely and
peaceful, but actually pursue violent and undemocratic means," Farage
told LBC Radio on Tuesday. Hope not Hate said it might take legal action
in response, and has begun crowdfunding for its legal costs.

The group's chief executive, Nick Lowles, says he has been overwhelmed
by the support. "For a lot of people, including ourselves, there is a
wider issue. People are horrified by the toxic nature of our political
debate, certainly in terms of what has gone on in Britain and in the US
– and this is just one example of it."

Lowles says they have received thousands of donations, not just from
existing backers, but from the general public. Though it has also
exposed them to new attacks from online trolls, the controversy has
significantly raised the group's profile, making many more people
interested in what they do.

Farage accuses Brendan Cox of backing extremist groups In November, I
went to a Hope not Hate event at a mosque in Cardiff – a three-hour
workshop on how to challenge and discuss anti-migrant and prejudiced
sentiments. It drew a crowd of around 20, one or two of them local
muslims and a few with migrant backgrounds, but the majority were white
Welsh, many of whom had not previously been in a mosque. The organiser,
Jonathan, began the session by asking what had prompted people to
attend. Many described feeling worried, frustrated and in need of a
toolkit for discussing race and immigration with family, friends and
colleagues.

"What usually happens is I either move the conversation on to something
else, or I get angry," said Amy (some names have been changed), a
30-year-old with family roots in Wales. "I want a third way." One woman
in her 50s, from a village in the south Wales valleys, said she was
struggling to discuss these issues with her fellow allotment gardeners.
A younger man living in Cardiff worried that facts and statistics were
no longer getting through to people he spoke to.

Next we split into groups to draw a chart of the kind of opinions we
would expect to find in the wider public about migration, and in what
sort of numbers. Afterwards, the organiser shared with us Hope Not
Hate's research on public opinion around migration, explaining that,
while there may be a very vocal "hostile" camp, most people in Britain
are in the neutral section of the spectrum – perhaps holding concerns,
but not with strong animosity. We then took part in some roleplays,
practising listening skills and conversation techniques such as asking
open questions that encourage broad responses, rather than a simple yes
or no.

"We don't have all the answers, but we know two things work," explains
Jonathan later. "One is listening to people, to challenge prejudice
constructively. The second is building an inclusive narrative through
shared action." The former, he explains, is about being respectful and
creating space for open discussion. The second is recognition that this
work has to be community-led, finding shared pursuits and common ground.

Sarah, a Welsh woman in her 40s, told the group she had been struggling
with racist conversations, including with her own family. "People have
become more open about saying these things," she said. Afterwards, she
spoke of having more usable strategies. "Being in that meeting gave me
support that I'm not on my own – because sometimes you do think, 'Is it
just me, am I the only one that doesn't think this way?'"

After the workshop, some participants joined a small group of volunteers
to go door-knocking. They travelled to the Adamsdown neighbourhood of
the city, near one of Wales's four asylum-seeker dispersal areas.
Adamsdown is a low-income, inner-city area of Cardiff; the idea of
door-knocking along its terraced streets on a Saturday afternoon was to
put some of the techniques picked up into practice – to start the
conversations.

You might think this exercise could result in a lot of swiftly shut
doors, but Jonathan says most people are happy to talk ("as long as
you're not a politician, a salesman or from the council"). Using events
at a local centre for asylum-seekers and refugees as a conversation
starter, the door-knockers encountered a range of views. There was the
couple who wanted to support the centre, and the man in his 60s who was
deeply hostile; in between were the ambivalent or anxious – the target
group. "Everyone seems surprised that we are asking these questions,"
says volunteer Sian. "I was pleased we were able to have the
conversations – nobody slammed doors in our faces. It's reassuring that
we can go to doorsteps with this complicated and turbulent issue."

It's this sort of slow, grassroots effort that Hope not Hate considers
vital in post-Brexit Britain. Their concern is that, in the absence of
such engagement, an opportunistic, populist right will find it easier to
take hold. In May this year, Ukip took seven seats in the Welsh assembly
– before then, it had zero.

Jonathan says that, since November, there have been two more training
sessions in Cardiff, and others in Swansea and Newport. Volunteers have
also been door-to-door several times in Adamstown, where some of the
locals who initially expressed doubts about the area's refugee centre
attended its Christmas bazaar a few weeks ago. Workshops are
oversubscribed and attendees have included local activists from Plaid
Cymru, Labour and the Lib Dems – as well as people with no background in
politics. There are 18 more Hope Not Hate events planned across the UK
in the new year, including in Manchester, Liverpool, Derby, Bristol,
Swindon and Sheffield. "Recruitment is not a problem at the moment,"
says Jonathan. "It's just something that people really want."

(7) YouTube deletes David Icke's account for his comments on coronavirus


YouTube deletes conspiracy theorist David Icke's account

Online giant takes the 68-year-old's platform down for violating its
policies on sharing information about coronavirus

By JEWISH NEWS REPORTER

May 3, 2020, 9:59 am

YouTube have deleted conspiracy theorist David Icke's account.

The video-sharing site said the 68-year-old violated its policies on
sharing information about coronavirus.

The former footballer has made controversial unproven claims about the
virus on several internet platforms, including one that it is linked to
the 5G mobile network.

The video service, owned by Google, told the BBC: "YouTube has clear
policies prohibiting any content that disputes the existence and
transmission of Covid-19 as described by the WHO and the NHS.

"Due to continued violation of these policies we have terminated David
Icke's YouTube channel."

This comes after Countdown star Rachel Riley, the Community Security
Trust and the MP Damian Collins were among public figures throwing their
weight behind an open letter urging social media companies to
"deplatform" the conspiracy theorist.

Icke has previously claimed the world is run by reptiles, has faced
accusations of antisemitism from anti-racism and Jewish groups in the past.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)  unveiled a report on
Friday, alleging Icke is spreading "dangerous misinformation" about
covid-19 to his two million followers, including the claim that
"Sabbatian Frankists" and the Rothschilds are behind, or helped plan,
the outbreak.

The ban follows a similar move by Facebook, who removed Icke's page from
their site on Friday.

Famous medics including Dr Christian Jessen and former junior doctor
Adam Kay have called on social networks to remove Icke from their platforms.

They are backed by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), who
claim Icke's conspiracies over Covid-19 have been viewed more than 30
million times.

"We commend YouTube on bowing to pressure and taking action on David
Icke's channel," said CCDH's chief executive Imran Ahmed.

"However, there remains a network of channels and shadowy amplifiers,
who promote Mr Icke's content (and) need to be removed."

They asked for other networks to follow the lead, and added: "It is time
for Instagram and Twitter to follow Facebook and YouTube by acting to
remove Icke and his content from their platforms.

"Lies cost lives in a global pandemic, and their failure to act promptly
puts us all at risk."

This comes after Ofcom sanctioned a local TV channel, London Live, for
broadcasting an interview in which Icke aired "potentially harmful"
views about the coronavirus pandemic. A London Live spokesperson said
the TV channel "respects Ofcom's decision in this case and apologises
for any harm this may have caused."

(8) Ofcom 'protects the public from harmful or offensive material'


The Office of Communications, commonly known as Ofcom, is the
government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the
broadcasting, telecommunications and postal industries of the United
Kingdom.

Ofcom has wide-ranging powers across the television, radio, telecoms and
postal sectors. It has a statutory duty to represent the interests of
citizens and consumers by promoting competition and protecting the
public from harmful or offensive material.

This page was last edited on 27 April 2020, at 01:09 (UTC).

(9) Ofcom rules David Icke's coronavirus comments could have done
'significant harm'


Ofcom rules David Icke's coronavirus comments could have done
'significant harm'

Harrison Jones

Monday 20 Apr 2020 3:57 pm

A television channel has been sanctioned after allowing a well-known
conspiracy theorist to air views 'which had the potential to cause
significant harm' to viewers in London during the coronavirus outbreak.

Ofcom imposed a sanction on London Live today, following an 80-minute
interview with David Icke – known for his belief that the world is ruled
by shape-shifting reptiles – during which his 'unsubstantiated' views
went 'largely unchallenged'.

The regulator received 48 complaints about the interview, which it said
'cast doubt on the motives behind official health advice to protect the
public from the virus', when it was broadcast on April 8.

In a statement, Ofcom explained: 'Our investigation found David
Icke?expressed views which had the potential to cause significant harm
to viewers in London during the pandemic. We were particularly concerned
by his?comments casting doubt on the motives behind official health
advice to protect the public from the virus.

'These claims went largely unchallenged during the 80-minute interview
and were made without the support of any scientific or other evidence.'

Presenter Brian Rose said he believed coronavirus was created
'naturally' when he questioned Mr Icke, who claims the world is
controlled by a cult that wishes to create a 'tyrannical technocracy'.

(10) Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite, by Samuel
P. Huntington

Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite

Samuel P. Huntington
The National Interest
March 1, 2004
Significant elements of American elites are favorably disposed to
America becoming a cosmopolitan society. Other elites wish it to assume
an imperial role. The overwhelming bulk of the American people are
committed to a national alternative and to preserving and strengthening
the American identity of centuries.




Posted by at No comments:

1176 As Biden struggles, Hillary waits for the call; DNC fear Sanders might stage another run

As Biden struggles, Hillary waits for the call; DNC fear Sanders might
stage another run

Newsletter published on May 3, 2020

(1) With Reade accusation against Biden, Democrats are reaping the
'Whirlwind' Kavanaugh warned about
(2) Biden denies sexual assault allegation, but Democrats' nervousness
about his candidacy grows
(3) When it comes to Joe Biden, New York Times abandons "Believe women"
(4) As Biden struggles, Hillary waits for the call; DNC fear Sanders
might stage another run
(5) Biden deal allows Sanders to keep 300+ delegates, enabling him to
continue shaping the official party platform
(6) Hillary embraces George Soros' open-border world - WaPo (2016)

(1) With Reade accusation against Biden, Democrats are reaping the
'Whirlwind' Kavanaugh warned about


Democrats Are Reaping The 'Whirlwind' Kavanaugh Warned About

The media and Democrats were enraged when Brett Kavanaugh warned that
their unethical behavior against him might have consequences. They
should have listened.

By Mollie Hemingway

MAY 1, 2020

Brett Kavanaugh was a very difficult Supreme Court nominee for liberals
to oppose. He had a stellar reputation, an impeccable record, and a
genial disposition. While members of the Resistance held a protest on
the steps of the Supreme Court minutes after President Trump announced
him as the pick to replace retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy,
their early efforts to keep him off the bench showed little promise.

All that changed in mid-September 2018, when the Washington Post
carefully packaged and presented Christine Blasey Ford's claim that
Kavanaugh had tried to rape her when she was in high school. The media
and Democrats immediately latched onto the accusation in a desperate
attempt to keep Kavanaugh from being confirmed.

It wasn't the quality of the allegation that led to this reaction.
Blasey Ford had no evidence she had ever met Kavanaugh, much less that
he had tried to rape her. She wasn't sure about any detail related to
the event other than that she had precisely one beer and that Kavanaugh
had tried to rape her.

She didn't know how she got to the alleged event, where it was, how she
got home, or whose house it was. None of the four witnesses she
identified to reporters as having been at the event in question
supported her claim. That included her close friend Leland Keyser, who
was pressured by mutual acquaintances to change her testimony that she
had no recollection of the event in question. Kavanaugh had an army of
close friends and supporters who testified to his character throughout
his adolescence and adulthood.

Nevertheless, over the next ten days, thousands of articles were
published in newspapers and online while broadcast and cable news
outlets devoted their entire schedule to covering the accusation. All
hands were on deck to legitimize the allegation, paint the accuser in
the most sympathetic light possible, downplay the many problems with her
story, and ignore exonerating information. Anybody who supported
Kavanaugh, from high school friends to sitting U.S. senators, was
subjected to hostile media treatment and accusations of being a rape
apologist.

The nation watched in horror as the federal judge, a happily married
father of two young girls, was repeatedly called a rapist. MSNBC
contributor Jason Johnson called Kavanaugh "the fifth guy in the gang
rape." That was after Michael Avenatti's client Julie Swetnick claimed,
absurdly, that Kavanaugh was the secret leader of a serial gang rape
cartel that roamed the streets of suburban Maryland. One reporter
admitted that she was trying to spin another murky claim from a
Kavanaugh classmate at Yale specifically to show a pattern of misconduct.

It was a terrifying mob, the worst kind of feeding frenzy many Americans
had ever witnessed. Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee
accepted each claim, no matter how outlandish. After Swetnick's
obviously ridiculous claim, all committee Democrats called for the
immediate withdrawal of Kavanaugh's nomination.

It all culminated with reopened hearings in which Blasey Ford publicly
accused Kavanaugh, still with no evidence, and Kavanaugh fought to
defend himself. In a lengthy opening statement, he reminded the gathered
how they had publicly opposed him from the moment of his nomination,
with Schumer saying publicly he would oppose Kavanaugh with everything
he's got. Another senator called Kavanaugh evil and said those who
supported him were "complicit in evil."

I understand the passions of the moment, but I would say to those
senators, your words have meaning. Millions of Americans listen
carefully to you. Given comments like those, is it any surprise that
people have been willing to do anything to make any physical threat
against my family, to send any violent e-mail to my wife, to make any
kind of allegation against me and against my friends. To blow me up and
take me down.

You sowed the wind. For decades to come, I fear that the whole country
will reap the whirlwind.

The media and other partisans were enraged by Kavanaugh's remarks.
"Brett Kavanaugh just got remarkably angry — and political," opined the
Washington Post's Aaron Blake. The New Yorker's Benjamin Wallace-Wells
editorialized that Kavanaugh had given an "Angry, Partisan, Trump-Like
Opening Statement." His successful renunciation of the charges was
evidenced by his opponents coalescing around a new talking point that he
was too upset at the false accusation he was a serial gang rapist.

The events of the last weeks have proven Kavanaugh right. While even two
years ago the media and Democrats may have gotten away with burying the
sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, it's not working now. They
have no one to blame but themselves.

It may have seemed necessary to play around with false accusations of
serial gang rape to stop a nominee from securing a place on the Supreme
Court — or to make sure the justice would always have an "asterisk" next
to his name on any abortion decision, as Blasey Ford's attorney admitted
was her client's goal. But the move has unbelievably serious consequences.

Remember that Biden himself joined the pile-on against Kavanaugh. As
Marc Thiessen reminds readers:

Who was cheering them on the whole time? Joe Biden. The former vice
president insisted that Ford 'should be given the benefit of the doubt'
and declared that 'for a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of
focus, nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at
least the essence of what she's talking about is real, whether or not
she forgets facts.' He called, through a spokesperson, for 'thorough and
nonpartisan effort to get to the truth, wherever it leads.' He hailed
her testimony as 'courageous, credible and powerful.' He even explained
away her lack of corroborating witnesses, declaring 'if, God forbid, you
walked out and somebody patted you in the rear end, your boss, or said
something to you, how many of you would go report it?'

If the media and Democrats thought that they could get away with their
despicable behavior with Kavanaugh and then turn around and attempt to
bury a sexual assault allegation against Biden, they were sorely mistaken.

Since the media and Democrats don't have consistent standards for how
they deal with accusations of sexual assault, they are facing
consequences. It's an incredibly low bar, but there is no question that
Tara Reade's claim against Biden is significantly stronger than Blasey
Ford's claim against Kavanaugh.

For instance, Reade has evidence she met Biden. No one disputes she
worked for him in 1993. Further, she has incredibly strong evidence that
she told multiple people that Biden assaulted her at the time she
claimed it happened. Her own mother called into CNN's Larry King show to
discuss the matter in 1993! Blasey Ford's story changed in the recent
years she began telling it, but was not told for several decades and not
before Kavanaugh had become a nationally known figure.

None of this is to say that Biden is guilty, but the media and Democrats
sure as hell are. They were willing to destroy a man's life over far
weaker claims, so they in no way can excuse ignoring Reade's claim.
Whether or not the media and Democrats want to acknowledge the growing
anger over their despicable double standards, the anger is not going away.

They sowed the wind with their treatment of Kavanaugh. Now more than
just Kavanaugh may fear that for the decades to come, the whole country
will reap the whirlwind.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. She is
Senior Journalism Fellow at Hillsdale College and a Fox News
contributor. She is the co-author of Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh
Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court. Follow her on Twitter
at @mzhemingway

(2) Biden denies sexual assault allegation, but Democrats' nervousness
about his candidacy grows


By David Walsh

2 May 2020

On a television talk show Friday morning, Joe Biden, the leading
candidate for the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential nomination,
denied an allegation of sexual assault that has been leveled against him.

Tara Reade, a former Biden staffer, claims the incident occurred in 1993
when the former vice president was a Senator from Delaware. There were
no witnesses, Reade never contacted the police and the statute of
limitations has long since run out.

Biden told MSNBC interviewer Mika Brzezinski the allegation wasn't true,
"I'm saying unequivocally that it never, never happened."

Pressure had mounted on Biden as the week went on to break his silence
on the issue. It is unlikely, however, that his categorical denial will
put the story to rest. On the one hand, the Republican Party and certain
#MeToo elements will continue to pursue the issue for their own
respective political ends.

Beyond that, however, the controversy has gained additional and
significant traction due to nervousness within the Democratic Party and
the American ruling elite generally about Biden's candidacy under
conditions of an unprecedented social and economic crisis and the
emergence of widespread popular opposition. Considerable skepticism
exists about the ability of the 77-year-old Biden, who finds it
difficult at times to respond coherently to reporters' questions, to
confront an explosion of working-class anger.

Reade's persistence, the various forces fanning the controversy and
Biden's silence on the issue until yesterday have played a role in
keeping the issue alive. But, as noted, the critical factor is growing
disquiet about the former vice president's political fitness in the
context of the pandemic crisis and the disappearance of millions of jobs.

While Politico headlined a lengthy recent comment, "Tara Reade
allegations rattle Biden's VP search," Jeff Bezos's Washington Post
suddenly editorialized Thursday that "Biden himself should address the
Tara Reade allegations and release relevant records." The editorial
called on Biden to allow a search of his papers donated to the
University of Delaware, on condition they not be opened until after his
retirement, for any complaint Reade might have made.

The Post also urged "the candidate himself" to be more forthcoming: "Mr.
Biden may have little to say besides what his campaign has already
said—that he did not do this, and that this is not something he ever
would do. Yet the way to signal he takes Ms. Reade's case seriously, and
the cases of women like her seriously, is to go before the media and the
public ready to listen and to reply." Biden's appearance on the talk
show Friday morning was an attempt to satisfy that demand.

The fear of the ruling class about the storm to come remains a central
issue. As the New York Times' Thomas Friedman observed in a column last
month, "while most people are playing nice right now managing this
virus, the wreckage, pain and anger it will leave behind will require
megadoses of solidarity and healing from the top." As the present crisis
abates, conflicts will break out, Friedman predicted, over who was saved
"by Washington's trillions of dollars" and who wasn't—"the societal
stress is going to be enormous."

The Democratic hierarchy was preparing, although not without
trepidation, to present a public display of unity behind Biden, a tried
and trusted representative of the financial oligarchy. Replacing Donald
Trump with Biden would not have any positive results for the mass of the
population, but there are financial, political and foreign policy issues
that divide the American ruling elite. The elements aligned with the
Democrats are obliged under the present circumstances to determine
whether Biden is a political asset or liability. Meanwhile, as the Hill
reported Thursday, Hillary Clinton "waits for the call." Clinton, the
publication writes, "continues to hover in the wings, ready to step
forward should Joe Biden fail. Don't look now, but Joe is failing."

Of course, the filthiness of official American politics and the
commitment of the media to appeal to the basest instincts and interests
also play a role in the ongoing coverage of Reade's allegations, which
seem to lack much credibility.

Tellingly, the Biden-Reade issue dominated the American news media in
recent days, as the body count climbed and the brutal demands that
employees go back to unsafe, perhaps lethal conditions in plants and
other workplaces became more insistent.

In part, the promotion of the Reade accusations is a deliberate effort
to divert attention from the social and economic calamity. However, it
is a fact of political life in America that while the deaths of 65,000
people and the collapse of jobs and incomes have not shaken the
Democrats, who are as callous and removed from the crisis as Donald
Trump, a sex scandal is another matter.

Reade's allegations are treated seriously, not because of their
intrinsic importance, but because of the social layers with whom they
resonate, the upper middle class on which the Democrats rest and rely.

The Times, the Washington Post and other major media outlets ignored the
claims for weeks, hoping they would disappear on their own. However,
having fashioned and animated the Frankenstein monster of a sexual
harassment witch hunt, they now discover it is not so easy to make their
creation go away. This "fiend" too, like the original, "can create
desolation."

Prominent figures in the Democratic Party, including Barack Obama,
Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Amy
Klobuchar, Stacey Abrams and others, are presently "standing by" Biden
and choosing to accept his claims of innocence. That support could
evaporate overnight, or even more rapidly, if confidence in the former
vice president deteriorates further.

The hypocrisy of the various #MeToo Democrats, who have applauded or
even helped engineer the destruction of various "powerful men" since
October 2017 on the basis of flimsy evidence, or none at all, is
breathtaking.

Gillibrand, Democratic Senator from New York, who played a leading role
in forcing then-Senator Al Franken (Democrat from Minnesota) to resign
over trivial sexual misbehavior in early 2018, continues to back Biden
on the grounds that the former vice president has "devoted his life to
supporting women and he has vehemently denied this allegation."

It takes gall for Gillibrand—who, along with Harris, Klobuchar and
Abrams, has vice presidential ambitions of her own—and others to take
special note of Biden's strenuous denials. As though declarations of
innocence by the accused, vehement or otherwise, have carried the
slightest weight during the neo-McCarthyite campaign of the last several
years.

One is obliged to point out yet again how cynical and empty the #MeToo
campaign and its slogans have proven to be. They were and remain
principally means of channeling the indignation and discontent of the
affluent petty bourgeois in a rightward direction. When it seemed
expedient to destroy careers and lives on the basis of unsubstantiated,
unproven and often anonymous charges, the media, the Democrats and their
"left" hangers-on went ahead with their dirty work without batting an eye.

"Believe women" was the watchword. It seems pointless to recall how many
times that slogan was trotted out by media and political figures in
2017, 2018 and 2019—and with what nearly bottomless sanctimony!

It turns out that battle cry needs a slight adjustment.

During the confirmation hearings of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018,
Gillibrand, for instance, tweeted, "The fundamental question we must
answer right now: Do we value women? Do we believe women? Do we give
them the opportunity to tell their story? To be heard? Will we ensure
they get the justice they deserve? We must fight to be a country that
answers, 'Yes,' every time.'"

Every time except this time, it seems. With remarkable sophistry,
Gillibrand now says, "So when we say believe women, it's for this
explicit intention of making sure there's space for all women to come
forward to speak their truth, to be heard. And in this allegation, that
is what Tara Reade has done." Hearing is not the same thing as believing.

Stacey Abrams, the former Georgia state legislator and right-wing
racialist, has also qualified her 2018 comments about ensuring "that
survivors who wish to come forward can do so safely, and be believed."
She recently told CNN, "I believe that women deserve to be heard and I
believe that they need to be listened to, but I also believe that those
allegations have to be investigated by credible sources."

Gillibrand, Abrams and the others simply hope the public suffers from
amnesia. "Believe women" meant just what it said: there was not much
need, if any, for additional proof, an allegation of sexual misconduct
was proof enough—especially if the "victim" was accusing an influential
male figure.

Along those lines, Washington Post columnist Monica Hesse bluntly urged
in 2018, at the time of the Kavanaugh hearings, "In other words, believe
them [women] when they tell stories of assault and harassment. Victims'
lives are rarely made easier by levying accusations against powerful
perpetrators, which means that if a woman has come forward, she's
probably doing so at personal cost. So believe her."

Biden offered the same reasoning at the time. When a woman "comes
forward in the glaring lights of focus" to make an allegation of sexual
abuse, he said, "you've got to start off with the presumption that at
least the essence of what she's talking about is real."

Actress Alyssa Milano, who popularized the slogan #MeToo in October
2017, is standing by Biden and has also discovered that "Believe women"
is not sufficiently nuanced. In a column on Deadline ("Living in the
Gray as a Woman"), Milano outlines her general world view. Living "in a
culture whose structures fundamentally thrive upon the objectification
and oppression of women," the actress writes, has "forced so many women
to make impossible choices between working with the very people who
oppress us in order to have a chance at gaining power or not working
with them, and staying under their thick, hairy thumbs."

Nonetheless, because the "world is gray. And as uncomfortable as that
makes people, gray is where the real change happens," Milano is sticking
with Biden, apparently "thick, hairy thumbs" and all. Although her
endorsement is not exactly categorical: "The allegations against Joe
Biden concern me, deeply. He's a man I know, respect, and admire, and
who I can't picture doing any of the things of which he's accused. But
I've thought that before, and been wrong. And sexual assault is always
wrong."

Columnist Jessica Valenti, #MeToo crusader and middle-class moralizer
par excellence, won't give up so easily on "believing women" under any
and all circumstances. In an April 30 column for Medium ("The Importance
of Believing Women—Even When It's Politically Inconvenient"), Valenti,
formerly of the Nation and the Guardian, contends that if Reade "is
smeared as a liar or opportunist by a movement that claims to believe
women, what moral standing will we ever have again?"

Without providing the slightest evidence Reade is telling the truth,
Valenti goes on to argue that "it is feminists' responsibility to come
to the aid of a woman who accuses a powerful man. We can listen to her
story, believe her, and speak out about what Biden has done—not just to
Reade, allegedly, but to the many women he has made feel uncomfortable
or diminished over the years." Remarkably, Valenti too, however,
concludes that "Doing all of this doesn't mean we can't vote for Biden"!

In any event, the accusations against Biden have left his #MeToo
supporters twisting and turning.

For the working class, the crisis of the Democratic Party over a sexual
misconduct allegation under the present disastrous circumstances should
be further proof that this is a big-business party and resolute enemy of
their interests and needs. A clean historical break with the Democrats
and the turn toward socialism is on the order of the day.

(3) When it comes to Joe Biden, New York Times abandons "Believe women"


By David Walsh

15 April 2020

Former Vice President Joe Biden, the leading candidate for the
Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2020, has been accused by
a former staffer of sexually assaulting her. Tara Reade alleges the
incident occurred in 1993 when Biden was a senator from Delaware. There
were no witnesses, Reade never filed a complaint and the statute of
limitations for such an offense, if it occurred, has long since expired.

Reade told Newsweek that she went public with her claims in late March,
according to the magazine, "to ensure that 'powerful men' are held to
account."

The reluctance of the New York Times and the Washington Post to report
Reade's allegations—neither covered the story until a few days
ago—reveals, first of all, their rank hypocrisy.

Since the October 2017 launch of the #MeToo campaign, the Times and the
Post have operated with great recklessness and sensationalism as relay
stations for the transmission of sexual abuse complaints that have
destroyed dozens of reputations, careers and lives. Each newspaper has
eagerly passed on anonymous and unsubstantiated claims, reveled in the
"takedown" of "powerful men" and pooh-poohed the implications of their
actions for such elementary principles as presumption of innocence and
due process.

In regard to protests against McCarthyite denunciations, Times columnist
Roxane Gay, for example, complained in October 2017 about "a lot of
hand-wringing about libel and the ethics of anonymous disclosure."

One year later, the Times gloried, in a headline, about the fact that
"#MeToo Brought Down 201 Powerful Men. Nearly Half of Their Replacements
Are Women." The article breathlessly began: "They had often gotten away
with it for years, and for those they harassed, it seemed as if the
perpetrators would never pay any consequences." The word "allegedly"
appears nowhere.

Earlier this year, in its shameful editorial celebrating the conviction
of producer-"monster" Harvey Weinstein, the Times crowed about
prosecutors in the case having been able "to break through a barrier
common to many assault cases, a lack of physical or other corroborating
evidence. And they also overcame another, even more fundamental barrier:
basic mistrust of women alleging sexual assault." In other words, the
authorities and the media, including the Times, stampeded a jury into
convicting Weinstein, despite a mass of evidence raising reasonable doubt.

In regard to Reade's claims, however, the Times and the Post have both
discovered the value of scrupulous and even sluggish investigations and
permitted themselves the liberty of expressing skepticism about an
accuser's account. (All of a sudden, for example, in a reference to
Reade's recent filing of a complaint with Washington, DC police in
regard to the alleged 1993 incident, the Times recalls that "Filing a
false police report may be punishable by a fine and imprisonment." When
has the newspaper ever brought that up before in its coverage of
allegations of sexual harassment or abuse?)

In an interview published by the Times April 13, its executive editor
Dean Baquet resorted to sophistry to explain the newspaper's tardy
coverage of the Biden-Reade story. Baquet asserted that "what The New
York Times could offer and should try to offer was the reporting to help
people understand what to make of a fairly serious allegation against a
guy who had been a vice president of the United States and was knocking
on the door of being his party's nominee."

In other words, Biden deserved special treatment, as he received from
the editors even after the April 12 piece was published. One of the
latter's sentences originally read, "The Times found no pattern of
sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching
that women previously said made them uncomfortable." As amended, the
sentence simply read, "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct
by Mr. Biden."

Asked about the deletion, Baquet referred to pressure from the former
vice president's forces, indicating that "the [Biden] campaign thought
that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other
instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct. And that's
not what the sentence was intended to say."

Baquet can twist and turn as much as he likes, but everyone not a child
knows the Times' "main obligation" was not, as he suggested, "to get a
really sensitive story as close to right as we could," but to protect
Biden's reputation for political reasons.

The ease and speed, moreover, with which the watchword of "Believe
women" has been abandoned in the present case—because it cuts across the
plans of important sections of the ruling elite in regard to Biden and
the 2020 elections—sheds light on the false and cynical character of the
#MeToo campaign and its function as a subservient and reactionary
adjunct to the Democratic Party.

The sexual harassment witch-hunt was initiated, along with the
anti-Russia hysteria, in the aftermath of the 2016 election. The
Democrats and their "left" orbit needed to distract attention from their
electoral fiasco, regroup and galvanize their shocked and demoralized
middle class supporters and direct them along right-wing, identity
politics lines. This was never about the rights and conditions of
working women.

Now, in addition to the Times and the Post, many of the same forces that
for two-and-a-half years have passed on dozens of unproven, often
scurrilous claims of sexual wrongdoing, have suddenly discovered the
value of "due process" and the need to maintain the "presumption of
innocence." Their proximity to the Democratic Party and the Biden
campaign explains their newfound (and unconvincing) concern for
elementary legal rights.

The Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, an offshoot of the #MeToo campaign,
turned down Reade's request for funding in January on the questionable
grounds that Biden "was a candidate for federal office, and assisting a
case against him could jeopardize the organization's nonprofit status,"
according to the Intercept.

The CEO of Time's Up is Tina Tchen, a prominent Chicago lawyer and one
of the biggest fundraisers for Barack Obama and Biden, Obama's running
mate in the 2008 presidential campaign. Tchen subsequently served as the
Obama-Biden administration's director of the White House Office of
Public Engagement from 2009 to 2011, and later as Obama's assistant,
chief of staff to First Lady Michelle Obama and executive director of
the White House Council on Women and Girls.

Speaking for many, actress Alyssa Milano, whose October 15, 2017 message
launched the #MeToo slogan, recently explained why she was keeping mum
about the charges against Biden. On a radio program, Milano commented,
"I just don't feel comfortable throwing away a decent man that I've
known for 15 years in this time of complete chaos without there being a
thorough investigation."

On Twitter, Milano observed, "#BelieveWomen does not mean everyone gets
to accuse anyone of anything and that's that." The actress added, "I
believe, along with many others in this space, that accusations need to
be investigated with due process for the accused."

Contrary to the protestations of Milano and others, the #MeToo campaign
has taken dead aim against due process and the presumption of innocence
since its launch. "Throwing away decent men" without conducting a
"thorough investigation" and "accusing anyone of anything" have been
among its guiding principles.

Biden's own record on these issues is utterly poisonous. For
opportunistic political reasons, this corporate-sponsored windbag has
made "violence against women" one of his pet causes. He was the
co-sponsor, along with Senator Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican, of the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994, a measure that did absolutely
nothing to prevent violence against women, but helped build up the state
apparatus and further fueled the "law and order" hysteria.

Under Obama, Biden truly came into his own as the benevolent defender of
womankind.

In April 2011, Biden and Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced the
release of a "Dear Colleague Letter" on student-on-student sexual
harassment and sexual violence. As Emily Yoffe explained on Politico,
the letter "laid out new directives for how campuses were to root out
and punish sexual assault. It was the beginning of a concerted effort
that radically remade how students could interact sexually, with severe
penalties for those who violated increasingly expansive codes of
conduct. The accused were to be judged under the lowest standards of
evidence, the definitions of misconduct were widely broadened,
third-party reports could trigger an investigation even if the alleged
victim did not think there had been a violation, and more."

Along the same lines, in January 2014, Obama named Biden a co-chair of
the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. The
vice president, as part of the government's "It's On Us" campaign,
delivered sanctimonious addresses on campuses around the country,
stigmatizing male college students as essentially bestial and defending
the weakening of the rights of the accused in cases of sexual harassment
allegations.

In June 2016, Biden intervened in the case of Stanford University
student Brock Turner, penning a politically transparent "open letter" to
the victim in the case and coming out openly against the presumption of
innocence. In his wretched message, the vice president wrote: "We will
speak to change the culture on our college campuses––a culture that
continues to ask the wrong questions: What were you wearing? Why were
you there? What did you say? How much did you drink? Instead of asking:
Why did he think he had license to rape?"

What if "he" did not rape anyone? That did not seem to be a possibility.

Most damningly, at the time of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings
into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in September 2018, the
Washington Post cited Biden as suggesting that when a woman "comes
forward in the glaring lights of focus" to make an allegation of sexual
abuse, "you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the
essence of what she's talking about is real, whether or not she forgets
facts, whether or not it's been made worse or better over time."

We have no way of knowing whether Reade's claim is true. Even if it is,
the incident in question would be the least of the crimes committed by
Biden, a leading official in an administration responsible, directly or
indirectly, for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, including
large numbers of women and children.

The Obama-Biden administration made drone assassination a key element in
its foreign policy, and even declared the right to assassinate American
citizens, exercising this "right" to murder Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011.
Obama and Biden also bolstered the repressive apparatus of the state,
expanding government surveillance programs and funneling billions of
dollars in military hardware to local police forces. In 2010, Biden
termed Julian Assange a "high tech terrorist," urging on the state
persecution of the WikiLeaks co-founder.

In any event, as the present controversy graphically demonstrates, no
matter what the reality of Biden's record, this warmonger and enemy of
the working class has the New York Times and the rest to come to his aid.

(4) As Biden struggles, Hillary waits for the call; DNC fear Sanders
might stage another run


As Biden struggles, Hillary waits for the call

BY LIZ PEEK, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 04/30/20 08:30 AM EDT

Hillary Clinton continues to hover in the wings, ready to step forward
should Joe Biden fail.

Don't look now, but Joe is failing. Not only has his campaign been
rocked by sexual assault allegations from onetime staffer Tara Reade,
but the public is beginning to give up on the former vice president. A
new Emerson College poll showed 57 percent of likely voters think
President Trump will win reelection in November.

Remember, establishment Democrats put forward Uncle Joe because he was
the "safe" candidate, bound to defeat Trump. Oops.

That's not the only problem that crops up in the Emerson Poll. It also
shows Trump supporters 19 points more enthusiastic about their candidate
than Biden supporters. That "enthusiasm gap" will drive turnout this
fall. With Democrats dependent on young people and minorities, both
typically less reliable voters, that lack of excitement for the
candidate could be a big problem.

Also less than gung-ho about Biden is, predictably, Bernie Sanders's
army. Though the Vermont socialist has endorsed Biden, 51 percent of
Bernie supporters are, according to Emerson, open to voting for a
third-party candidate.

Another red flag is Biden's tepid fundraising; according to The New York
Times, Trump has a monster cash advantage of $187 million. Further, in
swing-state polling, the presumptive Democratic nominee is running
behind where Clinton stood at this point in the race, and we know how
that turned out.

As all of those issues cast doubt on Biden's prospects, the presumptive
nominee must now fend off Reade's allegations, which put 'Me
Too'-supporting Democrats in an incredibly awkward spot.

None of this augurs well for the Biden campaign, which will likely
confront further obstacles in the months ahead. Eventually, the
coronavirus will no longer excuse the former VP's invisibility; he will
have to engage in the kind of give-and-take that often shows him getting
befuddled, including real — not scripted — town halls and interviews.

At that point, the public will see what numerous Democrats have noted
sotto voce — Obama's former wingman is struggling with some cognitive
decline.

We really cannot elect a president who mixes up his sister with his wife
or who collapses in midsentence, unsure of where he's going next.

Democrats' obstacle to pushing Biden aside is Sanders. The Independent
Vermont senator was the runner-up in the primaries and continues to hold
on to his delegates. Democratic leaders do not want to see Sanders
resurgent; they are convinced he is unelectable. But they also know that
if they move to replace Biden at the top of the ticket and don't elevate
Sanders, the Bernie Bros would revolt.

Indeed, it seems clear that party officials are so worried Sanders might
stage another run that they canceled the 224-delegate rich New York
state primary. They claimed the vote would have been dangerous in the
epicenter of COVID-19, but since they still plan to host a primary for
state and local officials, that excuse seems weak.

As the primaries roll forward, especially with officials' thumbs on the
scales, Biden will almost certainly win the candidacy. In the absence of
a brokered convention, how could Democrats replace their standard-bearer?

One idea has been to convince Biden to step aside in favor of the very
popular Michelle Obama, seen as a sure bet to beat Trump. So far,
though, the former first lady has reportedly rebuffed all invitations to
enter the fray.

That leaves Clinton. Biden could choose Clinton as his running mate and
then step down before the election and allow Hillary to run in his place.

Clinton is the only VP candidate who would be able to pull off such a
last-minute switch. She has the team, the resources and the experience
to be the nominee; Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), former Georgia state
Rep. Stacey Abrams and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) do not.

Clinton is ready and eager. She is desperate to avenge her 2016 loss
(which she still blames on Putin) and has pumped up her public profile
to keep herself in consideration. In past months, she has conducted
endless interviews, promoted the uber-flattering four-part Hulu film
about herself, made headlines by attacking Sanders and Mark Zuckerberg,
and fired unending broadsides against Trump.

Most recently, she joined Vice President Biden in a town hall devoted to
women's issues, during which she effusively endorsed her longtime
colleague. She reminisced about their time together in the Obama
administration, talked about their mutual love of Scranton, Pa., where
her father grew up, and recalled meetings in the Situation Room.

In fact, Clinton talked so much about their shared history that it was
easy to forget that she was endorsing Biden. It almost sounded as though
she was touting her own resume instead.

Maybe she was.

How would Hillary stack up as a nominee this time around? She certainly
looks stronger and more fired up than Biden. She has the energy he
lacks. She has a bigger following on social media (28 million Twitter
followers, compared to 5 million, for instance), and she has a large
devoted following who, like Hillary, still cannot believe she lost in 2016.

She could count on former President Obama to campaign for her, as Biden
can, and she would have her ever-popular husband, Bill, helping out. In
2016, Democrats were not wildly excited about her candidacy, but her
"enthusiasm" readings were better than Biden's today, as was her polling
in critical battleground states.

Hillary is hideously polarizing, but she would be a more forceful
nominee than Biden, has enormous name recognition and, perhaps most
important, can begin and end a sentence without major detours. And she
has not been credibly accused of sexual assault.

Hillary may be Democrats' nominee of last resort. You know she wants it.

Liz Peek is a former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim
& Company. Follow her on Twitter @lizpeek.

(5) Biden deal allows Sanders to keep 300+ delegates, enabling him to
continue shaping the official party platform


Bernie Sanders Will Keep His Democratic Delegates — Here's What That Means

By Meghan Roos On 4/30/20 At 5:18 Pm Edt

Former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders have
reached a deal to share delegates leading into the 2020 Democratic
Convention, currently scheduled to take place in August in Wisconsin,
according to a joint memo released Thursday by the campaigns.

The memo obtained by The Associated Press said the decision was made in
an effort to unify the party as the presidential election draws closer.

"We must defeat Donald Trump this fall, and we believe that this
agreement will help bring the party together to get Trump out of the
White House and not only rebuild America, but transform it," the memo read.

Biden became the presumptive Democratic nominee after sweeping
endorsements from other candidates led him to a strong performance on
Super Tuesday last month. After suspending his campaign on April 8,
Sanders announced a week later that he was officially endorsing Biden.

Though the move was applauded by some who feared a contentious spring
would keep the party divided, as was the case before Hillary Clinton
became the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016, the extent to which
Sanders supporters will rally around Biden is still unclear. In a poll
published earlier this week by USA Today/Suffolk, about 22 percent of
Sanders supports said they were still unlikely to support Biden with
their votes in November.

When a candidate suspends their campaign, they typically forfeit all of
the delegates they've earned through primary elections up to that point.
In its Delegate Selection Rules for 2020, the Democratic National
Convention wrote, "If a presidential candidate entitled to an allocation
under this rule is no longer a candidate at the time at-large delegates
are selected, his/her allocation shall be proportionately divided among
the other preferences entitled to an allocation."

The new phase of collaboration between Biden and Sanders shows an
attempt to assuage concerns of supporters of the Vermont senator not yet
on board with Biden. According to the memo released Thursday, the
agreement between the two politicians allows Sanders supporters to keep
more than 300 delegates (roughly a third of those he won before
suspending his campaign) leading into the Democratic Convention, thus
enabling him to continue shaping the official party platform—and wider
conversations about issues important to his supporters and other
Democrats—in the months ahead.

"While Senator Sanders is no longer actively seeking the nomination, the
Biden campaign feels strongly that it is in the best interest of the
party and the effort to defeat Donald Trump in November to come to an
agreement regarding these issues that will ensure representation of
Sanders supporters and delegate candidates, both on the floor and in
committees," the memo said.

Though Biden is still shy of the 1,991 delegates needed to become the
official party candidate, his current tally of 1,406 trumps that of
Sanders' 974, both of which are far above the numbers earned by others
who ran campaigns earlier this year.

The agreement over the shared delegates between Biden and Sanders is
unusual, as no other candidates have been known to make similar
agreements. Newsweek reached out to the Democratic National Committee to
inquire whether similar agreements had been discussed among Democratic
candidates but did not hear back in time for publication.

(6) Hillary embraces George Soros' open-border world - WaPo (2016)


Hillary Clinton embraces George Soros' 'radical' vision of open-border world

The Hillary Clinton-George Soros symbiosis came into clearer focus this
month with WikiLeaks' release of thousands of hacked emails from John
Podesta, Mrs. Clinton's campaign chairman. Mr. Soros' name comes up
nearly 60 times. (UPI)

By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Thursday, October 20, 2016

Hillary Clinton has aligned herself closely with a vision for America
laid out by her benefactor — left-wing financier George Soros, who talks
of 'international governance,' more open borders, increased Muslim
immigration and diminished U.S. global power.

The phrase 'American exceptionalism' is not part of his agenda. He wrote
in 1998: 'The sovereignty of states must be subordinated to
international law and international institutions.'

'We need some global system of political decision-making. In short, we
need a global society to support our global economy,' Mr. Soros wrote.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks on New York City and the
Pentagon, he said, 'Military power is of limited use in dealing with
asymmetric threats such as terrorism.'

The Clinton-Soros symbiosis came into clearer focus this month with
WikiLeaks' release of thousands of hacked emails from John Podesta, Mrs.
Clinton's campaign chairman. Mr. Soros' name comes up nearly 60 times.

The financial and ideological alliance is so complete that after Mr.
Soros dined with Mrs. Clinton in 2014 and asked her to attend a liberal
group's fundraiser, her campaign manager, Robby Mook, wrote in an email,
'I would only do this for political reasons (ie to make Soros happy).'

Rep. Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who is co-chairman of
Donald Trump's congressional leadership caucus, said a vote for Mrs.
Clinton is a vote for the Soros agenda.

'The fact that Hillary Clinton and her campaign are so closely aligned
with George Soros and his radical agenda is serious cause for alarm,'
Mr. Hunter told The Washington Times. 'Publicly, it's a relationship
she's never really talked up, but communications at least now reveal how
closely aligned they are, and Americans deserve to know that a Clinton
presidency means even more direct influence from George Soros.

'And as for an agenda, there probably won't be much daylight between the
two, and Americans should be concerned that a vote for Clinton is no
different than a vote for George Soros for president,' Mr. Hunter said.

The Times reached out to the press offices for Mr. Soros and Mrs.
Clinton but received no reply.

With a Forbes-pegged fortune of $24 billion, Mr. Soros is America's —
and the world's — most prominent financial star in a constellation of
liberal activist groups. They have funded anti-police protests, some of
them violent; rhetorical attacks on conservatives and their media; open
border initiatives; and efforts to control journalists' reporting.

The Hungarian-born U.S. citizen grew even closer to Bill and Hillary
Clinton after Mr. Clinton became president, all the while funneling
millions of dollars to their campaigns and to those of other Democrats.

'I do now have great access in [the Clinton] administration,' Mr. Soros
told PBS in 1995. 'There is no question about this. We actually work
together as a team.'

Mr. Soros has donated nearly $11 million to Hillary Clinton's Democratic
presidential campaign and three main super PACS — USA Action, American
Bridge 21st Century and Hillary for America, according to an analysis by
The Washington Times.

His foundation has given up to $6 million to the Clinton Foundation, the
global charity the Clintons set up that has proved to be a good
networking tool to obtain paid speaking engagements. The Clintons have a
personal net worth of $100 million to $150 million, most of it gained by
giving speeches to bankers, corporations, colleges and trade associations.

Mr. Soros pumps money into a list of who's who on the American left.
They include Media Matters; MoveOn.org, which organized aggressive
protests at Trump rallies; and the Center for American Progress, founded
by Mr. Podesta. Institutions that educate future journalists also take
Mr. Soros' money.

A review of Mrs. Clinton's private and public comments shows she has
very much absorbed Mr. Soros' grand plan for the world, a blueprint that
hangs under the title 'open societies.' His New York-based Open
Societies Foundation is at the center of his philanthropy and politics.

Open borders

Mr. Soros has complained of national borders as an impediment to world
ruling bodies.

He finances at least seven groups in the U.S. that promote open borders
and mass immigration, according to the book 'Shadow Party' by David
Horowitz and Richard Poe.

WikiLeaks' massive release of hacked campaign emails shows that in one
of Mrs. Clinton's paid speeches to bankers, she pledged to work for open
borders. Her 'dream' presumedly means that the southern U.S. border
would be a conduit for untold numbers of immigrants.

'My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open
borders,' she told a closed-door audience at Brazilian bank Banco Tau in
May 2013.

Illustrating how far Mrs. Clinton has moved to the Soros position is a
2003 statement in which she said she was 'adamantly opposed to illegal
immigrants.'

Conservative bloggers say one of Mr. Podesta's emails shows him
explaining how illegal immigrants can vote by obtaining driver's
licenses and attesting to U.S. citizenship at the polls. Noncitizen
voting in federal elections is against U.S. law.

Muslim immigration

Mr. Soros is a big proponent of bringing more Muslims into Europe and,
by extension, to America. He views Muslim immigrants as a savior for
Europe because of the continent's low birthrate.

He has funded private groups helping Muslims enter Germany and other
countries, and he wants Europe to borrow billions of dollars to pay for
resettling them. He wrote in the Australian newspaper last year that
Europe should bring in 1 million Muslim refugees per year 'for the
foreseeable future.'

Hungary built walls to keep out Middle Eastern refugees, fearing they
would turn the country from its 'Christian roots' into an Islamic state.

'This invasion is driven, on the one hand, by people smugglers, and on
the other by [human rights] activists who support everything that
weakens the nation-state,' said Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
'This Western mindset and this activist network is perhaps best
represented by George Soros.'

Mr. Soros told Bloomberg News: 'Our plan treats the protection of
refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.'

Mrs. Clinton said on CBS' 'Face the Nation' that she wants to boost
President Obama's mark of 10,000 Syrian refugees resettled in the U.S.
in one year to 65,000 — a 500 percent increase.

Anti-police protests

The Washington Times reported that groups that went to Ferguson,
Missouri, in 2014 and stirred up anger during protests of the police
shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown were funded by one of
Mr. Soros' umbrella grant-makers.

One recipient was the Organization for Black Struggle, which established
the HandsUp United coalition, which helped create the protest chant,
'Hands up, don't shoot.' Brown never put his hands up and assaulted a
white police officer in the fatal altercation, according to a Justice
Department report.

Mrs. Clinton is clearly in their corner. She has made statements
supporting Black Lives Matter, whose followers call for violence against
police officers, and scolded police across the board.

'Let's admit it: There is clear evidence that African-Americans are
disproportionately killed in police incidents compared to any other
group,' she said in July.

'And surely we can all agree that's deeply wrong and needs to change.
And, yes, we do need to listen to those who say black lives matter,'
Mrs. Clinton said.

She said during the primary election season, 'There needs to be a
concerted effort to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice
system. And that requires a very clear agenda for retraining police
officers.'

The nation's largest police union has endorsed Mr. Trump.

American sovereignty

Mr. Soros says one of his pet peeves is that the U.S. launches military
operations against other nations yet jealously guards its own
self-determination.

'We are willing to violate the sovereignty of other states in the name
of universal principles, but we are unwilling to accept any infringement
of our own sovereignty,' he wrote in 1999 in The Washington Post. 'We
need a new international authority that transcends the sovereignty of
states to promote an open society.'

Mr. Soros castigates the United States for not subjecting its deployed
armed service members to international courts.

He wrote: 'We are willing to drop bombs on others from high altitudes,
but we are reluctant to expose our own men to risk. We refuse to submit
ourselves to any kind of international governance. We were one of seven
countries that refused to subscribe to the International Criminal Court;
the others were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar and Yemen. We do not
even pay our dues to the United Nations. This kind of behavior does not
lend much legitimacy to our claim to be the world's leader.'

In her private 2013 speech to Brazilian bankers, Mrs. Clinton said a
'dream' of hers is to establish a 'hemispheric common market.'
Presumedly, this would be modeled after the European Union, which
dictates economic policy to member countries. The U.S. would find itself
obliged to follow the dictates of a bureaucracy made up of South and
Central America, Mexico, the U.S. and Canada.

The mission statement of Mr. Soros' flagship operation — the Open
Societies Foundation — is that it works 'to build vibrant and tolerant
democracies whose governments are accountable and open to the
participation of all people.'

One group Mr. Soros helped start with a $1 million-plus donation was
MoveOn.org, which helped organize violent protests at Trump rallies last
spring. It celebrated the cancellation of Mr. Trump's Chicago rally in
March because of protesters and their attacks on Trump supporters.

'Mr. Trump and the Republican leaders who support him and his
hate-filled rhetoric should be on notice after tonight's events,' MoveOn
said. 'To all of those who took to the streets of Chicago, we say thank
you for standing up and saying enough is enough. To Donald Trump, and
the GOP, we say, welcome to the general election.'

Mr. Soros adamantly opposed President George W. Bush's war on terrorism.
In a 2004 book blasting the Iraq War, 'The Bubble of American
Supremacy,' Mr. Soros described the 9/11 attacks this way:

'Admittedly, the terrorist attack was a historic event in its own right.
Hijacking fully loaded airplanes and using them as suicide bombs was an
audacious idea, and the execution could not have been more spectacular.
The destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center made a
symbolic statement that reverberated around the word and the fact people
could watch the event on their television sets endowed it with an
emotional impact that no terrorist act had ever achieved.'

Mr. Soros and his Soros Fund Management made his fortune by trading
currencies. France indicted him on charges of insider trading in the
1980s and fined him $2.6 billion. France's highest court upheld his
conviction. In Britain, he dumped so many pounds into the currency
market that the media said he 'broke the Bank of England.'

Mrs. Clinton said in 2004, 'We need people like George Soros, who is
fearless and willing to step up when it counts.'

Steven Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com, said: 'If she does win, she
won't need Soros or anyone else anymore. She will be 'Crooked Hillary'
unchained and beholden to no one. She may do Soros' bidding, but he's
going to have to pay her to do it. She will service the left-wing
ideological agenda to the extent she needs to maintain her voter base
for 2020. But I see her focus being consolidation of power and money, or
money and power.'

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)