Spooks Slander and Libel Jimmy Dore

A “progressive” is just a Dem party bitch

If you’re not INDEPENDENT and ready to criticize anyone who has power, then I don’t care what you have to say.

There is one week left to get these corrupt scum to do the right thing. The time for pressure is right now. Tell them what’s what.

Apocalypse Now, by Design

Joe Rogan Interviews Edward Snowden: Government Violating Constitution

I 

 

 

Edward Snowden doesn’t get 9/11 at all. They let it happen on purpose. CIA hid hijackers for over a year. I Tweeted this article to him.

28 Pages of Treason

I also told him to get this book and suggested to Joe Rogan to interview Kevin Fenton:

Disconnecting the Dots: How 9/11 Was Allowed to Happen

The fictional version…

Snowden – My Review

 

The Hill: once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden’s Ukraine story

 

Since this doesn’t seem to be going away, here’s important additional evidence. I may have posted the link in another article, but it deserves its own entry.

Once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden’s Ukraine story

PS

Important DEBUNKING today. Nancy Pelosi’s son is accused of being corrupt, being attached to a Ukrainian company. This is promoted by the rabid, reactionary right: Infowars, Breitbart, et al.

The Pelosi son connection occurred in March 2013 almost a year BEFORE the illegal coup of January 2014. It is thus irrelevant to the coup and means nothing.

Pelosi Enables Trump at Border – Fraud Exposed

 

Pelosi Sides With Trump-Attacks AOC & Screws Immigrants

Does Pelosi’s HR1 Destroy Free Speech in America?

 

I haven’t heard of this “Free Speech Institute” before, but they seem to have their shit together. Recall Pelosi and friends are the ones making it illegal to boycott Israeli products or even talk about it. Something to investigate.

Analysis of H.R. 1 (Part One)

&

ACLU Concurs: ACLU LETTER TO HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE ON H.R. 1

 

Executive Summary

Specifically, H.R. 1 would:

• Unconstitutionally regulate speech that mentions a federal candidate or elected official at any time under a severely vague, subjective, and broad standard that asks whether the speech “promotes,” “attacks,” “opposes,” or “supports” (“PASO”) the candidate or official.
• Force groups to file burdensome and likely duplicative reports with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) if they sponsor ads that are deemed to PASO the president or members of Congress in an attempt to persuade those officials on policy issues.
• Compel groups to declare on these so-called “campaign-related disbursement” reports that their ads are either “in support of or in opposition” to the elected official mentioned, even if their ads do neither. This form of compulsory speech and forcing organizations to declare their allegiance to or against public officials is unconscionable and unconstitutional.
• Force groups to publicly identify certain donors on these reports for issue ads and on the face of the ads themselves. Faced with the prospect of being inaccurately associated with what, by law, would be considered (unjustifiably, in many or most instances) “campaign” ads in FEC reports and disclaimers, many donors will choose simply not to give to nonprofit groups.
• Subject far more issue ads to burdensome disclaimer requirements, which will coerce groups into truncating their substantive message and make some advertising, especially online, practically impossible.
• Focus public attention on the individuals and donors associated with the sponsoring organizations rather than on the communications’ substantive message, thereby exacerbating the politics of personal destruction and further coarsening political discourse.
• Force organizations that make grants to file their own reports and publicly identify their own donors if an organization is deemed to have “reason to know” that a donee entity has made or will make “campaign-related disbursements.” This vague and subjective standard will greatly increase the legal costs of vetting grants and many groups will simply end grant programs.
• Likely eliminate the ability of many employees to make voluntary contributions through employee-funded PACs, which give employees a voice in the political process with respect to issues that affect their livelihoods.
• Effectively prohibit many domestic subsidiaries, and perhaps most corporations with even a single foreign shareholder with voting shares, from making independent expenditures, contributions to super PACs, or contributions to candidates for state and local office, thus usurping the laws in more than half of the states that allow such contributions.This appears to be a thinly veiled artifice to overturn Citizens United and to unconstitutionally accomplish by legislation what congressional Democrats failed to achieve by constitutional amendment in 2014.

• Disproportionately burden the political speech rights of corporations, thereby ending the long-standing parity in the campaign finance law between corporations and unions.
• Increase regulation of the online speech of American citizens while purporting to address the threat of Russian propaganda.
• Expand the universe of regulated online political speech (by Americans) beyond paid advertising to include, apparently, communications on groups’ or individuals’ own websites and e-mail messages.
• Regulate speech (by Americans) about legislative issues by expanding the definition of “electioneering communications” – historically limited to large-scale TV and radio campaigns targeted to the electorate in a campaign for office – to include online advertising, even if the ads are not targeted in any way at a relevant electorate.
• Impose what is effectively a new public reporting requirement on (American) sponsors of online issue ads by expanding the “public file” requirement for broadcast, cable, and satellite media ads to many online platforms. The public file requirements would compel some of the nation’s leading news sources to publish information, which is likely unconstitutional.Both advertisers and online platforms would be liable for providing and maintaining the information required to be kept in these files, which would increase the costs of online advertising, especially for low-cost grassroots movements. Some of these online outlets may decide to discontinue accepting such ads due to the expense of complying with the requirements.The “public file” also may subject (American) organizers of contentious but important political causes like “Black Lives Matter” and the Tea Party to harassment by opponents or hostile government officials monitoring the content, distribution, and sponsorship of their activities.

• Make broadcast, cable, satellite, and Internet media platforms liable if they allow political advertising by prohibited speakers to slip through, thereby driving up the costs of political advertising, especially for online ads where compliance costs are relatively high.
• Impose inflexible disclaimer requirements on online ads that may make many forms of small, popular, and cost-effective ads off-limits for (American) political advertisers.

Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump, No Comment

Chuck & Nancy #Matrix

Party of Chumps & Hypocrites

 

He claims this has happened twice. In fact it happens every single election.

Pelosi and Dems played voters for chumps — again

The Pelosi Double-Cross

 

 

Pelosi’s Deceptive Plan: Blocking any Tax Rise Could Rule Out Medicare-for-All and Bolstering Social Security

Pelosi: “I Don’t See Anything Inappropriate” In Rigging Primaries

Scum of the earth: Pelosi, Hoyer, et al. Whatever they choose to call “reality” must be so, and they rig their primaries accordingly.

These people do not represent you. Period.

Pelosi: “I Don’t See Anything Inappropriate” In Rigging Primaries

 

HOYER: Levi, obviously I wanted to talk to you about this congressional race.

TILLEMANN: You would like me to get out of the race.

HOYER: You keep saying I would like you to get out, and of course that’s correct.

TILLEMANN: I know you’re fundraising for Crow.

HOYER: Yeah. I’m for Crow. I am for Crow because a judgment was made very early on. I didn’t participate in the decision.

TILLEMANN: So your position is a decision was made very early on before voters had a say. That’s fine because the DCCC knows better than the voters of the Sixth Congressional District, and we should line up behind that candidate.

HOYER: That’s certainly a consequence of our decision. There are two things I would like you to consider. One may be easier than the other. First would be, if you stay in the race — and frankly, I hope that you would not — but I’ll get to that in a second. But if you stay in the race, it is not useful to the objective to tear down Crow. Crow’s clearly the favorite; doesn’t mean he’ll win, just means he’s the favorite.

TILLEMANN: I hear you.

HOYER: That doesn’t mean it’s right, just means —

TILLEMANN: No, I hear you.

HOYER: I don’t know Crow well, but I think he’s a decent human being.

TILLEMANN: So before we go any further on that, Crow is the favorite in no small part, Congressman Hoyer, because the DCCC not only put its finger on the scale, but started jumping on the scale very early on. I’m born and raised a Democrat, I mean, it’s undemocratic to have a small elite select someone and then try to rig the primary against the other people running, and that’s basically what’s been happening.

HOYER: I hear you, and I disagree.

TILLEMANN: But you were part of that process.

HOYER: Absolutely.

TILLEMANN: You said, “Abso — ”?

Hoyer: Absolutely.

TILLEMANN: Yes.

HOYER: I’ve been at this a long time. When I said we need to get in strong, hard, and early, you disagree with me. You know, obviously, that’s your choice.

TILLEMANN: You guys are shoveling money at him.

HOYER: We’re going to continue.

TILLEMANN: You’re going to continue to do it?

HOYER: We are going to continue to do it, and the reason, Levi, we’re going to do it is because a decision was made to focus. It was clear that was our policy and our hope that we could, early on, try to come to an agreement on a candidate that we thought could win the general, and to give that candidate all the help we could give them so that we would have a unified effort going into a general election.

TILLEMANN: Which means effectively, Congressman Hoyer, I’m running a campaign against Crow, and against you, and against the DCCC, because you guys are on Crow’s side.

HOYER: Yeah. You know, frankly, that happens in life all the time.

SECRETLY TAPED AUDIO REVEALS DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP PRESSURING PROGRESSIVE TO LEAVE RACE

 

Nancy Pelosi doesn't see "anything inappropriate" about Steny Hoyer telling a progressive to drop out of Colorado congressional race because "a decision was made early on" by the party to back the centrist candidate https://t.co/ddwIYnm6hU

— Jordan (@JordanChariton) April 26, 2018