Zuckerberg Gets to Go After Competitor Twitter—on Fox


Meanwhile, as for President Trump’s executive order on social media bias, “Go get ‘em, Mr. President!”

Judi McLeod image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesMay 29, 2020

Zuckerberg Gets to Go After Competitor Twitter—on Fox

Hypocritical Facebook weasel Mark Zuckerberg went after competitor Twitter today—and was handed the prime opportunity by no less than Fox News.

Imagine the CEO of the social media that bans conservative voices on Facebook having the gall to say that “private companies shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth”.

That’s exactly what Facebook has been doing all along out in the cyberspace world.

Facebook deserves the same treatment President Trump’s executive order on media bias will enforce on Twitter

On the same day that Zuck got himself on Fox News, Facebook just arrogantly announced that they have identified PragerUniversity as a fake news media outlet. (Prager Newsletter)

“And they will, therefore, restrict our reach to our own audience. Even people who have chosen to follow our page will be deliberately prevented from seeing our posts.”

Facebook deserves the same treatment President Trump’s executive order on media bias will enforce onTwitter.

Activist Social Media, coached by desperado Democrats and now providing digital personalities to progressives, is well on its way to make Election 2020 a total mail-in event.

The mail-in vote, headed up by Michelle Obama, is the only means left for the Impeachment-failed Democrats to take down a duly elected president who bypassed Barack Obama candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016.

“Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has called out Twitter for attaching a fact check to a tweet from President Trump, telling Fox News’ Dana Perino that privately-owned digital platforms should not act as the “arbiter of truth.” (Fox News, May 27, 2020)

This is the propaganda push Fox gave to the slippery-as-an-eel Facebook owner

“We have a different policy than, I think, Twitter on this,” Zuckerberg told “The Daily Briefing” in an interview scheduled to air in full on Thursday.”

The many thrown off Facebook for posting Conservative messages don’t just think—but know—otherwise, Zuck!

Why would Fox News give the Facebook CEO an interview the same day of the president’s social media executive order?

Mighty Fox NEVER gets Facebook-banned.

Meanwhile, this is the propaganda push Fox gave to the slippery-as-an-eel Facebook owner who pontificated:

“I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online,” he added. “Private companies probably shouldn’t be, especially these platform companies, shouldn’t be in the position of doing that.” (Fox News)

“I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.”

“Zuckerberg made the comment after President Trump warned social media giants that the federal government could “strongly regulate” or “close them down” if they continue to “silence conservative voices.”

“I have to understand what they actually would intend to do,” Zuckerberg said in response to the president’s warning. “But in general, I think a government choosing to to censor a platform because they’re worried about censorship doesn’t exactly strike me as the the right reflex there.”

“Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey responded late Wednesday, saying: “We’ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally. And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make.

“This does not make us an ‘arbiter of truth’,” Dorsey continued. “Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves. More transparency from us is critical so folks can clearly see the why behind our actions.”

“On Tuesday, Twitter slapped a fact check notification on one of Trump’s tweets for the first time, cautioning users that despite the president’s claims about mail-in voting, “fact checkers” say there is “no evidence” that mail-in voting would increase fraud risks and that “experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud.

“Facebook has faced criticism in the past for failing to address controversial content on the platform, but it appears Zuckerberg has no plans to change company policy. Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg expressed a similar sentiment during a 2017 CNBC interview, asserting that the tech giant does not intend “to be the publisher and we definitely don’t want to be the arbiter of the truth.”

“We don’t think that’s appropriate for us,” Sandberg said at the time.

“Facebook, and Google have been censoring and editorializing for years under the absurd pretext that they were just enforcing their own “community guidelines,” not weighing in on the merits of what their users were saying or embedding their own biases into the site’s rules. Who writes and enforces these community guidelines? People like Yoel Roth, Twitter’s Head of Site Integrity, whose anti-Trump tweets from 2016 and 2017 resurfaced recently. Roth called Trump and his officials “ACTUAL NAZIS,” compared Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to a “bag of farts,” and implied that Trump supporters are racists. (Federalist,  May 28, 2020)

“Twitter hasn’t just waded into politics in an overt way, it has exposed the fiction at the heart of what social media companies are: they’re not neutral platforms, they’re biased, and like their peer organizations in the mainstream media, they’re overwhelmingly biased against conservatives and in favor of progressives.

“If Twitter wants to start fact-checking everything that gets posted by influential people, fine. But there’s no way it can do so in an even-handed or fair manner, and no way it can continue to insist on Section 230 protection.

Meanwhile, as for President Trump’s executive order on social media bias, “Go get ‘em, Mr. President!”

President Trump Signs Executive Order – Directing Efforts to Prevent On-Line Censorship – Video and XO


This afternoon President Trump held a press availability in the oval office answering questions from the media as he signed an executive order [Available Here] directing the prevention of on-line censorship in social media platforms.

The president was joined by Attorney General Bill Barr, and both leaders delivered remarks and answered questions from the media. [Video Below, Transcript to Follow]

.

[Read Executive Order Here] – In the periphery of this executive action there are indications, and a widespread expectation, the DOJ is close to filing an antitrust lawsuit against Google Inc and their affiliated companies. There is a strong possibility the controlling ideology of ‘big tech’ is about to merge with legal action by the DOJ.

The DOJ action has not yet happened, but there are signals it is very close. There have been visible signals, subtle but visible, that the DOJ was/is about to move on a massive (the biggest in history) antitrust lawsuit against Google and all affiliates.

The issue will not necessarily surface as most would think; via a bias based on conservative -vs- leftist ideology in content manipulation; though those underlying aspects are a part of the larger underpinning we will soon see surface.

Antitrust lawsuits, writ large, are based on “prices”, “costs”, and net “financial” distortions caused by corporations not competing based on open commerce. “Antitrust” in it’s structural form is based on costs and the manipulation of prices.  Essentially, controlled commerce.

In the digital sphere the targeted firms have not opened themselves to liability based on ideology; but rather Google, all subsidiaries and alliances, have opened themselves to antitrust violations through the manipulation and control of financial benefit.

Demonitization of digital platform content providers, in combination with Google’s control of almost all ad revenue in the digital space, is what has opened the door for DOJ intervention based on antitrust laws.

This happens because the content being generated on these controlled platforms is being arbitrarily valued by the media company, not the free market. Devaluing certain content they are ideologically opposed to creates consumer distortions.

Underpinning that revenue control is the ideological nature of the content provider. However, for the purpose of antitrust lawsuits, that motive is irrelevant.

The methods, practices and purposeful control of value; through collusion of corporate interest specific to a planned and organized effort to control monetary benefit; is the part of their activity that is quantifiable, discoverable, easily provable, and ultimately unlawful.

The financial distortion of internet commerce is the crack in the Big Tech stranglehold that affords the DOJ the opportunity to step in.  Google (and all subsidiaries) will lose on the substance of their defense because ultimately their business practice has resulted in, and arguably they have engaged in, price fixing.

It will take time, but eventually they will settle; and there will likely be a massive financial settlement in addition to a negotiated Consent Decree. Within the CD terms, we may even see a break-up.

The antitrust action is only tangentially related to the current POTUS confrontation with Twitter and big tech social media based on ideological lines. However, it is easy to see how the two issues will merge.  The monetary distortions are based on ideology.

As soon as the DOJ takes action Silicon Valley will hold an even larger self-interest in the 2020 election outcome; and they will respond accordingly.

This is definitely worth watching…

How Fake News is Manufactured 


Lies are propagated and disseminated as truth broadcast 24/7

Dr. Robert R. Owens image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesMay 13, 2020

How Fake News is Manufactured 

Our President has pointed out the fake news at many of his rallies and news conferences.  He specifically identifies CNN, MSNBC, The AP, The New York Times and The Washington Post as primary sources for the misinformation and downright lies that pass for news among the low-information voters.

The Democrats who identify as journalists served up a perfect case in point on Friday.

Every freedom loving patriot celebrated the dismissal of the trumped-up charges against General Michael Flynn.  After years of news articles calling him everything from a liar to a Russian agent the media begrudgingly had to report that all charges were dropped.  Why after ruining this good man’s finances and career did the Justice Department finally release him from their gulag of lies?

The US attorney reviewing the Flynn case, Jeff Jensen, recommended the move to Attorney General William Barr last week and formalized the recommendation in a document this week saying, “Through the course of my review of General Flynn’s case, I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case.  I briefed Attorney General Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed.”  The Justice Department said it had concluded that Flynn’s interview by the FBI was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn” and that the interview on January 24, 2017 was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.”

This recommendation led to the court action by the Justice Department.  U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Timothy Shea said in a court briefing, “The United States of America hereby moves to dismiss with prejudice the criminal information filed against Michael T. Flynn.  The government has determined, pursuant to the principles of federal prosecution and based on an extensive review and careful consideration of the circumstances, that continued prosecution of this case would not serve the interests of justice.”  Without prejudice means the government cannot refile these charges.

These conclusions, recommendations, and actions were based on the release of previously secret Justice Department documents relating to the Flynn case that included a handwritten note from former FBI counterintelligence director Bill Priestap.  After he met with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Priestap wrote: “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

Another document in that release indicates the FBI was planning to close the investigation into Flynn before Trump took office in January 2017.  But, then two weeks before Trump’s inauguration, anti-Trump former FBI official Peter Strzok wrote: “Hey, don’t close RAZOR,” using the codeword for a probe into whether Flynn was a Russian agent.  Strzok wrote that “7th floor involved.” The 7th Floor is a reference to FBI leadership.

The Flynn part of the coup attempt was summed up by President Trump, “He’s in the process of being exonerated if you looked at those notes.  These were dirty, filthy cops at the top of the FBI.”

So here we have an innocent man hounded and railroaded into pleading guilty to a crime he didn’t commit.  The wheels of justice slowly roll around and he’s completely exonerated.  Here is where the fake news industry gets rolling.  Enlisting their biggest spokesman himself fires off the following broadside of bilge.

The next day President Obama emerges from his palatial retirement and does his best to cast the mud of these false accusations back on a man who served this country’s military honorably for more than thirty years saying, “The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn.

And the fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”

These opinions were then published, broadcast, and in general swilled out for those locked into the Corporations Once Know as the Mainstream Media.

These outrageous statements didn’t require more than twenty-four hours for even other Progressives to start punching holes in them.

According to Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, a legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism, who has testified in United States Congressional proceedings about constitutional and statutory issues, who participated in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, and who is a self-avowed liberal said, “It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury.  Second, we now know Obama discussed charging Flynn under the Logan Act which has never been used successfully to convict anyone and is flagrantly unconstitutional.  Third, this reaffirms reports that Obama was personally invested in this effort.”

Continuing Turley pointed out there’s precedent for the Justice Department’s sudden decision.  And to find it President Obama had to look no further than his own Attorney General, Eric Holder.

To give substance to his statement Turley said, “There is a specific rule allowing for this motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). There are specific Supreme Court cases like Rinaldi v. United States addressing the standard for such dismissals.  The Justice Department has dismissed cases in the past including the Stevens case.  That was requested by President Obama’s own Attorney General Eric Holder for the same reason: misconduct by prosecutors. It was done before the same judge, Judge Sullivan. How is that for precedent?”

Lies are propagated and disseminated as truth broadcast 24/7 by the discredited media which is nothing more than a Democrat echo chamber.  In this case they’re straining at the bit and trying valiantly to keep the Russia Hoax which was the center piece of their failed coup attempt alive, at least in the minds of the low-information voters.

This is how the fake news is manufactured.

Mass media need to fully investigate Biden


When President Trump continually calls the mass media “fake news”—victims such as Flynn and Reade confirm his assessment to be chillingly accurate

David Singer image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesMay 1, 2020

Mass media need to fully investigate Biden

Joe Biden has been finally forced to go on the record and strongly deny Tara Reade’s allegations that he sexually assaulted her in 1993—but he was given an inexplicably easy ride by interviewer Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC.

Brzezinski’s 20-minute interview followed shortly after a statement released by Biden claiming that the truth of Tara Reade’s allegations could be established by conducting a document search in the National Archives to find any written complaint—as Reade alleged having been made to her superiors.

Concealment of documents and destruction of documents

Concealment of documents and destruction of documents featured prominently in the FBI investigation involving Hillary Clinton and her private server.

Uncovering new documents never produced in response to Freedom of Information applications is par for the course.

Finding a document in an archive before believing Reade’s allegations? Breathtaking.

Amazingly, Biden was not asked one question by Brzezinski about corroborating witnesses the New York Times had interviewed—nor a potentially damning Larry King video that could collaborate Reade’s account.

The New York Times had published a long article on April 12—updated on April 29 Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden,

An enormous amount of investigative resources were undoubtedly deployed in what appeared to be a long and thorough report.

Many people were interviewed. Their statements were published supporting no contemporaneous complaint had been made by Reade.

A small section of the article stated:

A friend said that Ms. Reade told her about the alleged assault at the time, in 1993. A second friend recalled Ms. Reade telling her in 2008 that Mr. Biden had touched her inappropriately and that she’d had a traumatic experience while working in his office. Both friends agreed to speak to The Times on the condition of anonymity to protect the privacy of their families and their self-owned businesses.

Ms. Reade said she also told her brother, who has confirmed parts of her account publicly but who did not speak to The Times, and her mother, who has since died.”

The updated article made no mention of possible additional confirmatory evidence that had emerged on April 27— archival video supposedly of Reade’s mother anonymously calling Larry King’s show on CNN in 1993 and making a reference to what happened to her daughter.

Why the New York Times omitted to disclose this possibly very vital evidence in its updated report is for the NYT to explain.

It is understandable that Biden chose his TV appearance to be on MSNBC—a bitter critic of President Trump for the last four years—rather than FOX News—a supporter of the President—where Biden could have expected to come under more intense and uncomfortable questioning.

The mass media’s attempt to go easy on Biden will rebound badly

Fox’s allegations of Democrat-inspired tactics to defeat Trump in the 2016 elections—and when that failed—to end Trump’s Presidency—are now beginning to hit hard.

Latest revelations that the FBI—still operating under the Obama-Biden administration on January 4, 2017 —did not close off an investigation into Trump senior campaign advisor General Michael Flynn after clearing him of acting as a Russian agent during the 2016 campaign—are particularly disturbing.

The mass media—notably MSNBC and the New York Times—have paid scant attention to investigating what is increasingly being uncovered by Attorney General Bill Barr as the greatest political scandal in America’s history extending over four years or more—leaving the Watergate break-in a very distant second.

When President Trump continually calls the mass media “fake news”—victims such as Flynn and Reade confirm his assessment to be chillingly accurate.

The mass media’s attempt to go easy on Biden will rebound badly.

Stimulus Checks Sent to Deceased People


Neither my sister nor I collect Social Security. Nevertheless, she received a check in the mail made out to my deceased mother, and it says “DECD” for her stimulus check of $1,200. Not exactly sure what to do with this check. How would we cash it? This is really confusing. It will probably cost $1,000 for legal advice to figure out if the check should be cashed or if they would call it fraud because we knew she was deceased, even though it is made out to her as deceased. Sort of a trick question with consequences.

This is why I say the government is just incapable of ever doing anything whatsoever. They would never be able to run even a bubblegum machine. When they sold out of gum, they would need three committees to investigate, and a fourth one to figure out how much to raise taxes to buy more bubblegum. The Justice Department would need to investigate if someone got two pieces of gum with one coin, provided they are not related to a politician.

Good Morning – How the Press Interpret Those Two Words


Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing Part One


Dr. Dan Erickson of Accelerated Health Care talks about the impact of the coronavirus on Kern County.

65.2K subscribers

1,875,171 views Apr 22, 2020

Edward Snowden’s Interview Why He Did What He Did


 

Where are the Real Whistleblowers?


People who stand up to the overwhelming corruption that has seized control of our lives through the offices of government are demonized, arrested, killed, or thrown in prison on charges that make no sense and they are always denied a trial. Even Jeffrey Epstein posed way too much of a threat to everyone who was influential. He was certainly not a pedophile which is molesting children pre-puberty. He was taking girls 16 and 17 to most likely entrap various people where he could use that info for political blackmail. The list of influential people in his circle was amazing. There was NO WAY he would be allowed to go to trial. He was unquestionably murdered.

Blue Bloods Have Gone Oprah!


We’ve dropped this leftist travesty forever, and are now enjoying both reruns and new episodes of the quite fabulous and compelling Chicago PD!

Joan Swirsky image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesApril 18, 2020

Blue Bloods Gone OprahAmong the TV shows I gravitate to with my husband Steve, a former athlete, include live baseball, basketball and football games, historical documentaries, and both true crime shows and crime dramas like Law & Order, Forensic Files, Chicago PD, and Blue Bloods––all studies in the greatest mystery of all time, human behavior.

When Blue Bloods debuted in September 2010, we thought it was excellent, featuring in-depth and provocative episodes, and at last embodying the conservative values we embraced, including a distinct lack of the three-legged stool on which Progressives base their so-called values: moral relativism, political correctness, and multiculturalism.

The show is about the Reagan dynasty in NY City, where the following characters are presented every week with daunting challenges, moral dilemmas, high-action chases and arrests, and touching family dramas:

  • Frank Reagan, a widower and the New York Police Department (NYPD) Commissioner, played by Tom Selleck.
  • His father Henry Reagan, also a widower and a former NYPD Commissioner, played by Len Cariou.
  • Frank’s son Danny, played by Donnie Wahlberg, a tough, street-smart detective, and his partner Maria Baez (played by Marisa Ramirez). Danny was happily married to R.N.  Linda (played by Amy Carlson) before her death, and they were the parents of two sons played by real-life brothers Andrew and Tony Terraciano.
  • Frank’s daughter Erin, played by Bridget Moynihan, a letter-of-the-law Bureau Chief in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and divorced mother of daughter Nicky (played by Sami Gayle). Erin works closely with Anthony Abetemarco, a detective in the D.A.’s office (played by Steve Schirripa).
  • Frank’s son Jamie, played by Will Estes, a Harvard Law School graduate who chose to become a street cop, promoted to sergeant, and then married to his NYPD partner––a beautiful blonde from a decidedly dysfunctional background––“Eddie” Janko, played by Vanessa Ray.
  • Frank’s Chief of Staff, Garrett Moore, who is also the NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Public Information, played by Gregory Jbara.
  • I cannot omit the very gorgeous and fabulous actress Abigail Baker who plays Commissioner Reagan’s chief aide as Detective Abigail Hawk.

Suffusing the drama is the Commissioner’s late son Joe, an NYPD detective who was murdered by a corrupt gang of police officers and whose memory continues to haunt the Reagan family.

THE OLD FORMAT

Every week for the past many years, all these characters presented compelling and original drama with episodes addressing themes such as the unreliability of eyewitnesses, the difficulty of identifying sociopaths, the nefarious inner workings of the New York mafia, the dangers of nepotism within the ranks, the reluctance of sexual assault victims to come forward, the complexity of solving murder cases, on and on and on.

In every episode, it was clear that the protagonists––members of the NYPD from the top on down––knew the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, legal and illegal.

Right was the teenage kid from the projects who resisted following his thug friends into a life of crime; wrong were the thugs who chose a life of crime, including robbery, rape and murder.

Good were the people who yearned for a safe neighborhood coming forward to identify the bad guys, in spite of great risk to themselves and their families; bad were the drug dealers and corrupt politicians who covered for the bad guys.
Legal were the follow-the-rules cops who crossed every “t” and dotted every “I”; bad were the on-the-take judges who ruled against them.

Riveting. Illuminating. Thought-provoking. Influential. Worthy of our time.

THE OLD VALUES

Among the most refreshing qualities of the show was––not is––the great respect the children and grandchildren exhibited toward their father, the Commissioner, and their grandfather, the former Commissioner.

Every week, viewers were treated to the Reagan clan gathering around a huge dining-room table for a sumptuous dinner consisting of platters of roast turkey and roast beef, mountains of salad and vegetables, and heaping portions of baked and mashed potatoes, where one or another member of the family would say Grace before the meal, thank their Lord Jesus Christ for their bounty, make the sign of the Cross, and in unison say Amen.

While serious discussions and good-humored kidding took place around the table, philosophical disagreements also abounded. Yes, quizzical looks and raised eyebrows and even scowls were evinced, but there was always a refreshing absence of the dismissive, rude, hostile and insulting behavior and the repulsively foul language we’ve become accustomed to in shows ranging from newscasts to award shows to daytime talk shows to “Housewives” dramas. And there was never any sign or sight of an iPhone!

RATINGS DON’T LIE

According to Wikipedia, the pilot episode 10 years ago garnered 15,246 million viewers, and the ratings remained sky-high for about seven seasons. But from season eight on, the ratings began to plunge, with season nine seeing the lowest in the show’s history.

No mystery to me, as the Blue Bloods audience witnessed this once-terrific show go Oprah––turning into both a social service and finger-wagging forum designed to set Commissioner Frank Reagan and his unenlightened family straight, to teach them the Progressive values that the leftist writers they hired wanted them to learn: how to be a moral relativist, a multiculturalist, a politically correct jerk.

CLUELESS WRITERS

It is abundantly clear that the current writers had never watched the show, had no idea about the rock-ribbed simpatico dynamics of the Reagan family, had contempt for the police, and had a deep loathing of the Christian religion and prayer and even the mention of Jesus.

Why else would they have the always respectful sons of Frank Reagan and their grandfather Henry speak to them with such antagonistic, disrespectful language? Why would they feature rookie and even senior policemen speak to the Commissioner in such brazenly inappropriate terms? Why would they completely eliminate the prayer before eating dinner and any reference to Jesus?

Why? I know nothing about corporate media or who calls the shots and ultimately determines content. But this is an all-important election year and we already see the Murdoch boys pushing their properties––The Wall St. Journal and Fox News, among others––in a distinctly leftward direction, so it’s not a far stretch to theorize that anti-Trump CBS-TV is also pushing their popular shows along the same route.

After all, why would they drag a veteran leftist, the seemingly dotty 90-year-old Ed Asner, out of his comfortable California home to star in a preposterous episode where the writers wasted our time watching Asner and his old friend Commissioner Reagan show off their knowledge of ancient movies?

Why? Clearly the writers want to make the Commissioner look like a regular guy, to reduce his gravitas, to make him less important.

Why would they feature the toughest guy in town, Commissioner Reagan, visiting the new Mayor of NYC––who told him the City needed a tougher P.R. person than Reagan’s longtime Chief of Staff Garrett Moore––and then portray the Commissioner as an emotional, conflicted, hand-wringing wuss over a simple executive decision?

Why? Again, an attempt by the writers to make the Commissioner look incapable of taking charge and getting something done––sort of like Congressmen Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Adam Schiff (D-CA).

Of course, the goal of the real wusses who are writing this junk is to convince the viewing public that they’ve been wrong all along about Blue Bloods, that what we should really believe is that the police are the problem, prayer is the problem, Jesus is the problem, and we should vote for all the leftwing candidates who believe this tripe.

As for me and Steve, we’ve dropped this leftist travesty forever, and are now enjoying both reruns and new episodes of the quite fabulous and compelling Chicago PD!