One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Not logged in

You must be logged in to compose private messages. Please use the Login link at the top.

The Newest Discussions On Our Forum:
Nazi's Marched in Newnan Georgia...
And the conservative argument is that ANTIFA are the Fascist!

...continue reading this topic >>
Remember this one!
Nuff said...

...continue reading this topic >>
Oh them pesky old Christians and their paranoid thoughts of being persecuted...
Christians Now Targets of Choice
David Fiorazo ~ April 24, 2018
Five recent news stories indicate a concerning trend in America; a shift from disagreeing with Christians to discriminating against them. Sadly, these attacks are slowly becoming accepted.

With a campaign of redefined words such as ‘tolerance,’ it often starts with mild persecution.

New Yorker magazine recently suggested Chick-fil-A, the third largest restaurant franchise in America, doesn’t belong in their blue state because of the alleged “infiltration” of what one writer called “pervasive Christian traditionalism.”

That’s right, a corporation built on family values, hard work, and integrity, and whose stated mission is to “glorify God,” who also donates thousands of pounds of food to the homeless is somehow a threat to the liberal stronghold of New York.

Down south, a Miami Dolphins cheerleader went public because she was discriminated against for not only being a Christian, but apparently a virgin as well. As a cheerleader, Kristin Ann Ware was also criticized for posting a Bible verse on social media with a photo of her baptism.

Over in Minnesota, a school bus driver and pastor was recently removed from his route for praying with students on the way to school, even though students would volunteer to lead prayer.

Next, you probably heard liberal Democrat and anti-Christian Senator, Corey Booker, actually believes that those who have a biblical worldview are unfit to serve our country.

At a confirmation hearing for Secretary of State, Booker grilled Mike Pompeo, but it wasn’t about foreign policy or any of the most pressing national concerns. He demanded to know Pompeo’s stance on homosexual sex and asked, “Do you believe gay sex is a perversion?” Can you imagine a Muslim, Jew, or anyone else being asked this kind of question?

Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire writes:
Here’s the real issue: when your religion is government, and government is god, you cannot tolerate any other God before it — and you assume that all those who believe in God wish to mobilize government in order to impose God’s will.

Booker’s line of questioning was flat-out unconstitutional, but did you hear the media mention it – if they reported on it at all. The Constitution clearly forbids religious tests for public office. Period.

But here’s the most disturbing story: a bill was passed in California that could ban counseling services and the sale of books expressing orthodox Christian views about sexual immorality. This pro-homosexual bill would ban the Bible! (Images of Nazi’s burning books in the 1930s may come to mind.)

Assembly Bill 2943 would make it unlawful to engage in transactions offering to pursue “sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.”

National Review’s David French says California state law would lock in a sexual-revolution orthodoxy that hurts the very people they seek to protect. The bill defines “change efforts” as “any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions…”

French adds, “…no state legislature should be permitted to ban a “good” (such as a book) or a “service” (like counseling) that makes these arguments and provides them to willing, consenting consumers.”

This would not only outlaw certain speech, but California seems willing to ignore the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of and enjoyment of religion without discrimination.

The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration, and if they pass it, radical CA Governor Jerry Brown is expected to sign it. And if the bill becomes law, we know from past history what happens in California doesn’t stay in California.

In recent years, Christians believing in the Bible and natural marriage have been suspended or fired from their jobs, sued and taken to court, slandered, some have lost businesses, savings, and have been viciously attacked in the press and on social media.

How can we respond? Stay the course. Don’t fret and don’t be surprised by any of this. Jesus told His followers they would be hated because of Him. Understand the times, pray, and press on.
...continue reading this topic >>
Who is Jim Jordan?
Jim Jordan is the man I want to see take Paul Ryan's place as the Speaker of the House next year. Of course, the Republicans will have to maintain control of the House. At any rate Ms. Parker says that Jordan stands for what she calls the three Cs which are what we believe this nation was built on. Of course, those on the left won't agree with this since they have come to believe in other things. Those three 3 Cs are Christianity, Capitalism, and the Constitution. How many of these Cs have been forgotten by the left these days.

Who Is Jim Jordan?
Star Parker · Apr. 25, 2018

Ohio Republican Congressman Jim Jordan has confirmed that he is looking to run for House speaker when current Speaker Paul Ryan departs at the end of the year.

This puts Jordan up alongside the other principal candidates, current Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), whom Ryan has endorsed as his successor, and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA).

Jordan co-founded the House Freedom Caucus in 2015 with eight other conservative Republicans. He explained then that the motivation for founding the caucus was to give “a voice to countless Americans who feel that Washington does not represent them. We support open, accountable and limited government, the Constitution, and the rule of law and policies that promote liberty, safety, and prosperity for all Americans.”

The caucus now has more than 30 members and has dug in as a unified bloc fighting for exactly those principles that Jordan articulated at its founding. Most recently, the caucus opposed the $1.3 trillion spending bill passed by congress and urged President Trump to veto it.

In addition to being a fiscal and constitutional conservative, Jordan is also a stalwart pro-life Republican and has been on the front lines fighting to defund Planned Parenthood.

In other words, he stands for what I call the three C’s that have been the pillars of American success and greatness.

Christianity, Capitalism and the Constitution.

For this reason, I find the prospect of Jordan running for House speaker of great interest.

In a recent Fox radio interview, Jordan put it best by saying that in order to win, Republicans “have to fight for things. All too often Republicans want to forfeit even before the referee blows the whistle to start the game. … Let’s not forfeit, let’s go have the debate.”

But it’s not just a matter of the fight. It’s what the fight is about.

Certainly, in 2015, when the House Freedom Caucus was formed, few would have predicted that Donald Trump would be sitting in the White House today.

Trump’s appeal to make America great again spoke to the frustration among many Americans that we’ve lost touch with our American “exceptionalism.” This is the sense that we are not like other nations — that something special and vitally important is going on here. And that this “something” is what has given the nation strength, prosperity and leadership.

Unlike other nations, American identity is about aspiration, not fate. Geography, ethnicity or circumstances of birth do not define America — ideals and principles do.

These ideals define the struggle that is taking place today.

Many want to drag us down to the lowest common denominator when we should be fighting for our highest aspirations.

As we teeter on fiscal and moral bankruptcy, it’s the three C’s — Christianity, Capitalism and the Constitution — that shine like a lighthouse in the night to guide our ship of state in the direction we need to be headed.

Those who founded the nation, fired up by those ideals, appealed, in the Declaration of Independence, to the “Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [and] with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Of course, Jim Jordan faces an uphill struggle to achieve the 218 votes necessary to achieve the House speakership.

But when Jordan says he’s ready to fight for it and that we shouldn’t forfeit the game before it starts, he’s not just tapping into the dissatisfaction of the nation. He’s tapping into what defines the nation and its spirit.

The possibility of bringing the spirit of the Freedom Caucus to lead the House, as Jordan will do, is an exciting development.

...continue reading this topic >>
Why did the Center for Disease Control play political games concerning Guns?
CDC Hid Survey For 2 Decades That Found Americans Used Guns Defensively 2.4 Million Times Per Year
I'll wager that was all right around the time of the "assault weapons ban" that took place in 1994 and they were looking to go after other guns.

Not that the Center for Disease Control should be studying guns and gun use in the first place, but this goes to show how political the CDC has become. A bombshell was uncovered decades after the CDC performed a study which found that Americans used guns to defend themselves 2.4 million times per year.

Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck performed a similar study in 1995 to the one conducted by the CDC. However, he was unaware that the CDC actually backed up his findings because the study was hidden for more than two decades.

Kleck indicated that Americans used their guns defensively approximately 2.2 million times per year.

In a follow-up report, Kleck comments on the CDC study that occurred just one year after his own, but was kept from the public eye.

Kleck wrote:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has often been criticized by gun owner organizations like the National Rifle Association as being “antigun” and for awarding research grants on firearms and violence only to researchers with strong anti-gun or pro-gun control publication records (see remarks of the NRA chief lobbyist - Cox 2017). Belief in this anti-gun bias was so strong among pro-gun forces that the NRA got Congress to slash CDC’s budget by an amount exactly equal to the budget for its program that studied firearms violence, and to insert a rider in the funding bill that read: “Provided further that none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Of particular relevance to the present topic, CDC has helped finance surveys on defensive gun use (DGU) by David Hemenway and others that the authors interpreted as indicating that DGU was rare (Hemenway and Azrael, 2000, p. 272; Hemenway Azrael and Miller, 2000, p. 267).

He went on to state that the CDC has conducted several surveys of the American population regarding DGU, but did not report the findings, post them on their website or even acknowledge they took place.

Mr. Kleck says that he stumbled upon a question about DGU in the questionnaires asked by the CDC. Once he found that question, he began to scour the rest of their surveys from 1984 to 2016. The question was asked in the years 1996, 1997, and 1998.

Here is the exact wording of the question regarding DGU asked by the CDC.

“During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?”

While Kleck was impressed with the question and how it was presented, including informing respondents not to not report incidents from occupations, such as being a police officer, where using firearms is part of the job and leaving out incidents involving animals, he was not so impressed by the fact that the question was only asked of those who admitted to owning guns in the home earlier in the survey. He also mentioned that failing to follow up with the specifics of the incident were not impressive.

Kleck also finds the timing of the CDC survey to be peculiar.

The timing of CDC’s addition of a DGU question to the BRFSS is of some interest. Prior to 1996, the BRFSS had never included a question about DGU. Kleck and Gertz (1995) conducted their survey in February through April 1993, presented their estimate that there were over 2 million DGUs in 1992 at the annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology in November 1994, and published it in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in the Fall of 1995. CDC added a DGU question to the BRFSS the very first year they could do so after that 1995 publication, in the 1996 edition. CDC was not the only federal agency during the Clinton administration to field a survey addressing the prevalence of DGU at that particular time. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) financed a national survey devoting even more detailed attention to estimating DGU prevalence, which was fielded in November and December 1994, just months after preliminary results of the 1993 Kleck/Gertz survey became known.

Neither CDC nor NIJ had ever financed research into DGU before 1996. Perhaps there was just “something in the air” that motivated the two agencies to suddenly decide in 1994 to address the topic. Another interpretation, however, is that fielding of the surveys was triggered by the Kleck/Gertz findings that DGU was common, and that these agencies hoped to obtain lower DGU prevalence estimates than those obtained by Kleck/Gertz. Low estimates would have implied fewer beneficial uses of firearms, results that would have been far more congenial to the strongly pro-control positions of the Clinton administration.

I'll wager that was all right around the time of the "assault weapons ban" that took place in 1994 and they were looking to go after other guns; and that the survey was conducted similarly to that of what the Obama administration tried to do with the CDC following Sandy Hook.

I mention going after guns not mentioned in the Clinton/Feinstein "assault weapons ban" because of Senator Feinstein's own words from 1995.

These people think they can just take away right by voting, and they want to try and manipulate public opinion with that end goal, but our rights are God-given, not state permitted. The state is to protect them, not infringe on them.

Yet, it appears, the CDC was being a tool of the state and hiding its findings which were detrimental to the agenda of the administration at the time.

Chris Menahan sums up Kleck's findings.

From Kleck's own surveys, he found that only 79 percent of those who reported a DGU "had also reported a gun in their household at the time of the interview," so he thinks whatever numbers the CDC found need to be revised upward to account for that. (Kleck speculates that CDC showed a sudden interest in the question of DGUs starting in 1996 because Kleck's own famous/notorious survey had been published in 1995.)

At any rate, Kleck downloaded the datasets for those three years and found that the "weighted percent who reported a DGU...was 1.3% in 1996, 0.9% in 1997, 1.0% in 1998, and 1.07% in all three surveys combined."

Kleck figures if you do the adjustment upward he thinks necessary for those who had DGU incidents without personally owning a gun in the home at the time of the survey, and then the adjustment downward he thinks necessary because CDC didn't do detailed follow-ups to confirm the nature of the incident, you get 1.24 percent, a close match to his own 1.326 percent figure.

He concludes that the small difference between his estimate and the CDC's "can be attributed to declining rates of violent crime, which accounts for most DGUs. With fewer occasions for self-defense in the form of violent victimizations, one would expect fewer DGUs."

Kleck further details how much these CDC surveys confirmed his own controversial work:

The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996--1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.
...continue reading this topic >>
Lawlessness is cheap
What illegal activities annoy us the most, theft, murder, illegal border crossings? There's quite a list. How about the crimes we never hear about? Well, I guess if they don't make the front page, then they can't be that serious right? Wrong.

How many commercials have you seen this month, from law offices announcing bad drugs and/or bad medical products? Doesn't it surprise anyone that we only hear about these disasters from lawyers? Well, everyone knows lawyers are always looking to make a buck off of people's misery, so that part isn't surprising. What IS surprising, is that these products have passed rigorous testing and clinical data examinations. I mean, they MUST have, or they couldn't be marketed. So, what happened?

You know the products, abdominal mesh, hip replacement parts, all kinds of drugs, and dozens more. How could the FDA miss so many bad products? It's actually quite easy to get stuff past all the red tape designed to catch all this bad stuff. Clinical trials are expensive, the expense of which must be deducted from ( or added to ) the final cost of the cheating makes enormous economic sense. It's easy - if you know the right people and grease the right palms. Sounds kinda like organized crime huh.

I won't mention any brand names, because I'd probably be sued, but there are so many of them, just take your pick. Recently, a certain former Congressman was elevated to a Cabinet post, who was caught accepting stock in a medical company in exchange for streamlining the approval process through the Congressional committee he chaired. Sound familiar? What were the consequences of his bad behavior? He wasn't indicted on bribery charges - he was confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Multiply his shenanigans by 535 or so, then add another 100, and you'll get an idea of the scope of the criminal activity.

The Congress of the United States of America has built a criminal empire, by easing or eradicating ethics rules and repealing anti corruption law, erasing campaign financing rules and encouraging it's members to solicit as much money as they possibly can, from as many people/businesses as they possibly can. This all but ensures a corrupt system - and ensures a steady stream of victims. Would it be any surprise that the Congress tries to pass "no can sue" laws often, to protect their investments? So what if a few Americans die or are disabled along the way to huge profits, there's too damn many of them anyway.

Life is cheap in is lawlessness. After all, when YOU make the laws, you can't lose - and those that do lose - can hire an attorney.
...continue reading this topic >>
Gun Control
Because you can't load armed citizens into boxcars

...continue reading this topic >>
Sex 'Assigned at Birth,' One of Nation's Largest School Systems Plans to Teach Middle Schoolers
Sex 'Assigned at Birth,' One of Nation's Largest School Systems Plans to Teach Middle Schoolers

By Brandon Showalter , CP Reporter | Apr 24, 2018 3:03 PM

The idea that biological sex is "assigned" at birth is being enshrined in the official curriculum of one of the nation's largest public school districts. Medical doctors and feminists maintain this is a case of an ideology endangering women and girls and an affront to science.

In Fairfax County, Virginia, which neighbors Washington, D.C., and is home to more than 1 million people, ongoing controversy has surrounded the public school board's push to advance a family life education curriculum that includes 80 hours of sex ed for every public school child.

Last month, "biological sex" had been declared "essentially meaningless" by Dan Press, one of the most liberal members of the 26-member board, and the phrase was removed from the lessons. Students will now be told that sex is "assigned at birth." The entire medical establishment was behind this idea of doctor-assigned sex, he said at the time.

In opposition, Laura Murphy, who serves on the Family Life Education Curriculum Advisory Committee, presented a three-minute response to the notion that sex is assigned and not determined by genetics, at the last meeting on April 12, as reported by The Stream. She cited numerous sources to make the case that "biological sex" should be placed back in the curriculum.

"We discussed this last time. Let's move on," Press reportedly said of Murphy's objections. The committee did indeed move on, voting 24-2 to proceed.

The proposed revisions to the sex ed lessons also currently suggest that if a student has "concerns" with sexual orientation and gender identity, he or she should speak with a trusted adult, removing "clergy" from the list of trusted adults.

In a Sunday letter to the editor in the Fairfax County Times, Robert Rigby Jr., president of FCPS Pride, insisted that they were not attempting to eliminate biology, echoing Press, and deferred to medical "experts" on the semantics of sexuality.

"[T]he term we used to use, 'biological sex,' is broader and less well defined that what we used to think" and that "we are learning through scientific studies that there are genetic, hormonal and developmental (that is, biological) components of gender identity," he wrote, listing the support of 19 medical and professional associations.

"When a child is born, the attendant (doctor or midwife) looks at the child's visible anatomy, makes a determination (assigns) and puts that on the birth certificate. This is the gender with which the child grows up in their early years."

He continued saying that he expects a "brief learning curve" in teaching that sex is assigned at birth, arguing that it should be taught starting in 7th grade and children will soon understand it and he hopes no one feels "erased" by it.

Medical doctors who spoke with The Christian Post Monday noted that this is a case of ideology overtaking science.

"Sex is established at fertilization. It always has been and always will be. Every physician in every medical organization knows this, and yet, it seems virtually every 'mainstream' medical organization now denies it — backing the verbiage 'sex assigned at birth,'" commented Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians.

"How can so many large medical organizations turn their backs on science? Maybe science really has changed? Rest assured, 'sex assigned at birth' is still political agenda trumping science.'"

She went on to explain that one of the reasons this occurs is because official positions of these medical guilds are determined by a tiny fraction of their membership, a fraction largely self-selected into various specialty committees.

"For example, the [American Academy of Pediatrics] policies on LGBT issues are determined by a maximum of 30 pediatricians. None of AAP's other 66,000 members have any input whatsoever," she said.

Dr. Joseph Zanga, founder of ACP, said in an email to CP Monday that although the idea that sex is assigned a birth is "insane" it is in line with the public approach of many professional organizations.

"The majority of them exist and are financially supported by commercial interests who in turn, as do the organizations themselves, fear the most vociferous groups," Zanga said.

"Some of their members also are paid to prescribe hormones, do sex change surgery, etc. I've watched this play out for decades in the American Academy of Pediatrics," he explained.

Parents Barred From Questioning 'Gender Identity' Changes at Virginia School District Meeting
Parents Warn Virginia School District May Ban Public Comments Opposing Gender Identity Policy
LGBT 'Acceptance Panel' on Transgenderism, Gender Identity to Be Hosted at Virginia Public Schools

As societal pundits have previously dispensed with other things they came to consider unfashionable — such as the widely held belief that children are best raised in a home headed by a married mother and father — medical and professional groups have moved onto the latest politically correct cause, he continued.

"So it isn't surprising that they would now say that even preschoolers should be able to decide whether they are boys or girls, male or female," Zanga said, adding that these same organizations recognize the brain research, which is now more than 20 years old, "whose antecedents are found in the writings of Socrates and Shakespeare, that children are incapable of making such decisions until their mid 20s."

He concluded: "They even pronounce that these same children aren't mature enough to choose to be tan, to smoke, drink alcohol, and still are holding the line against children using pot. Most of those positions still hold because there is no 'political' support for change, not yet anyway."

"When asked for the science supporting their position on allowing children to make decisions they are incapable of making, they refer to the opinions of others as the science because there really is no support in science for what they say."

Kara Dansky, a board member of the radical feminist group Women's Liberation Front, says there is no such thing as assigning sex at birth and that the entire concept of "gender identity" is misogynistic.

"Gender is a set of sex-based stereotypes that is designed to keep women and girls in positions of subservience. From a feminist perspective, gender is the problem, not the solution," Dansky explained to CP.

"It is also homophobic, in that it denies the rights of people to have same or opposite sex attractions. Suggesting that a male person can 'identify' as a woman is extremely insulting to those of us who actually know what it is like to be female, and who have experienced a lifetime's worth of harassment and abuse because of our sex."

She added that human beings are sexually dimorphic mammals, noting that saying so is neither conservative nor bigoted, and is not even particularly political but basic biology; except for a small percentage of people with chromosomal anomalies, humans are either female or male, a fact that can be known in utero.

"All people have a sex, not 'biological aspects,' and it is not true that all people have a 'gender identity,' she said of the arguments in the FCT letter.

"Women and girls have been held in positions of social and political subjugation for thousands of years precisely because we are female, not because of some vague sense of identity. Of course all people should be welcome, but it does not logically follow that a particular belief cannot be challenged. 'Gender identity' ideology results in the erosion of female-only spaces and the eradication of the category 'women and girls' for civil rights enforcement. Anyone who goes along with it is nothing other than a misogynist."
Follow Brandon Showalter on Facebook: BrandonMarkShowalter
...continue reading this topic >>
The Right Is Whipped Up To Defend Their President, And Nobody Knows What Evidence There Is, It Won't Matter
I think it's fairly obvious that Mueller could make a case for impeachment under any past congress, but being able to trust this one to act upon evidence is weak. This GOP is prepared to investigate the investigation until the cows come home, go super Benghazi in steroids.

Mueller is going to drop a level of crimes and evidence that blows even liberals away. I think people who are paying attention can easily see where the investigation is going by witnesses, indictments, charges, documents listed in warrants, plea deals, etc. I suspect Mueller has a staggering amount of Russian loans, money laundering, tax evasion, outright criminal tax fraud, lying on bank loans (15 year jail sentence possible for each case).

Which leads us into the mind of the right in terms of civil unrest...

Will an overwhelmingly high number of illegal deals backed by a gold standard of paper trail evidence be enough to calm the right down to where they can accept the fact that nobody including the president can be allowed to get away with breaking the law?

Civil unrest between happy liberals pressuring congress to act, and seriously pissed off and armed right wingers? We've already seen a taste of how that goes with 500,000 unarmed peaceful protesters. And six masked men breaking windows and exhibiting violent acts, they disappear while hundreds of the ones not involved in that are arrested and charged with violence related charges.

Congress is going to need to take the evidence Mueller comes out with and act on it, that week, not for weeks or even months of idiotic posturing and investigations on the investigations.

I think Mueller has enough sense to understand what even a solid obstruction case will turn into, the right will say obstruction, what obstruction? I'm thinking Mueller will go for overkill that demands swift actions. Plus he'll be making it good enough that Trump can't start pardoning his list of friends and family.

I'm thinking even an excessively liberal use of trying to pardon criminals is going to create a pretty big degree of civil unrest.

But keep the faith, Trump is the best president we've ever had, he is making Murika great.
...continue reading this topic >>
The YouTube Shooter...
This is WHY I keep telling people we need to MAKE SURE we GET OUT AND VOTE AGAINST anyone that is FOR the NWO!!! AND to drag EVERYONE to the Polls they know to be FOR CONSERVATISM and AMERICA!!! -- Gere S.

Nassim Aghdam The YouTube Shooter

Americans have to realize that the character of certain non-Americans has been formed very differently from the pampering elixir if modern America, and see things much more fundamentally and desperately. Such is the case of Nassim Aghdam, the YouTube shooter, who killed three at the video hosting YouTube service before killing herself. As a rising YouTube star, she branded herself as “Green Nassim” and created stylish videos advocating animal rights, healthy living, and veganism. Problem for her was that she had soured on the United States. She used her Iranian idiom: “In Iran they kill you with an axe; in the United States they kill you with cotton;” i.e., she is dying a slow death in the United States.

At the behest of Israel et als, the U.S. Government, based in Los Angeles, has been spending billions of taxpayer dollars to beam hard-core pornography and decadence into the minds of the Iranian people, designed to undermine traditional values and promote the U.S. as a rich, liberated, sex-saturated paradise, to persuade rebellion against their Islamic culture and government. When she began making her videos, she fit their paradigm, so CIA-google gave her a free pass, “sexy Nassim” dancing in front of American and Israeli flags. That all changed when she wised up, growing ever more critical of the U.S. and the phony “freedom” it pretends to offer, and began to tell her (mostly Iranian) viewers that the U.S. is definitely not paradise and, in fact, not any better than Iran. To quote the American Free Press, which provided this information: “The New World Order’s orchestrated destruction of tradition and religion has created a world that may look like paradise on the outside—as Miss Aghdam’s early videos suggested—but is rotting and dying on the inside.”

As her viewership dried up, she protested. And the more she protested, the more CIA-google tweaked her algorithms to bury her videos and destroy her career. “In a final, desperate gesture of misguided protest, she shot up YouTube’s headquarters.”

The American Free Press: “If Americans were aware of what is being done to them, they would rise up in revolution against the New World Order oligarchs who are dumbing them down, annihilating their religion and spirituality, and robbing their lives of value, purpose, and meaning.” Unfortunately, pampered by the brainwashing elixir of American comfort, dumbed down by public “education” for a century, and sold on communism-lite, most may simply not see it coming. Recall that, while 2,600 flyover counties voted to make America Great Again, the 140 or so remaining counties meant that the criminal, Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote. We see what this popular vote stands for in California.
...continue reading this topic >>
For more, check out Active Topics page.
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use - Forum
Copyright 2012-2018 IDF International Technologies, Inc.