(Via Fox News) California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of “shadow-banning conservatives” including himself to influence the 2018 elections, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints and totally “ignoring” lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.
In a complaint filed in Virginia state court on Monday, obtained by Fox News, Nunes charged that Twitter wanted to derail his work on the House Intelligence Committee, which he chaired until 2019, as he probed alleged and apparent surveillance abuses by the government. Nunes said Twitter was guilty of “knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform.”
The lawsuit alleges defamation, conspiracy, and negligence, and seeks not only damages, but also an injunction compelling Twitter to turn over the identities behind numerous accounts he says have harassed and defamed him. The lawsuit is separate from Nunes’ work on the House Intelligence Committee, where he is now the ranking member. (read more)
Obviously there are Fox viewers looking at the Fox News decision to hire Donna Brazile and shaking their heads.
It is, factually, a pretty stupid decision; and diminishes the integrity of all other Fox News contributors and analysts.
Following the 2016 primary election, Donna Brazile was exposed as leaking CNN Townhall questions in advance to her friends on the Clinton campaign. Ms. Brazile did this twice, at two different events. Ms. Brazile initially lied about it and tried to cover her tracks until the evidence was overwhelming. Wikileaks released the email proof.
Ms. Brazile’s integrity and credibility was shredded and even the far-left ideologues at CNN HQ were forced to fire her. In short, she’s a liar, a proven manipulator and an unapologetic fraud. Yes, this cloud has now transferred over the head of all Fox media voices, pundits and contributors; including Sara Carter and Dan Bongino, who will be contractually obligated to defend her or lose their paychecks.
“I’m delighted to be joining Fox News. I know I’m going to get criticized from my friends in the progressive movement for being on Fox News. My response is that, if we’ve learned anything from the 2016 election, it is that we can’t have a country where we don’t talk to those who disagree with our political views.” ~ Donna Brazile
So, why did Fox News hire Donna Brazile?
Well, first we must remember that our reference point of Fox News (cable TV) as a conservative media outlet, and the subsequent brand image, is not based on actions by the owner or CEO Rupert Murdoch.
It was Fox President Roger Ailes who created Fox News from the ground up, and what most Americans reference as the Fox Media brand outlook was actually created by Mr. Ailes (the deceased Roger Ailes left a few years ago).
The preferred brand image of Rupert Murdoch is Sky News, and that shift has been taking place for the past few years. Fox is morphing from the conservative brand of Roger Ailes, to the preferred globalist Sky News brand of Murdoch. Once we accept that central shift, then the hiring of Donna Brazile makes sense.
Billionaire Rupert Murdoch and his sons are in charge of a media network they did not create and were not ideologically aligned toward when Roger Ailes left. So the shift to a brand they can relate to, the global Sky News approach, is what we are witnessing. It’s really not more complex than that.
Do Murdoch and Sons realize they are destroying the network. Yes, and no. Yes, they know they are dropping market share and viewership, but no they really don’t have any choice; and likely they don’t care. The Murdoch clan do not know what makes a conservative product appealing to conservatives; they only know what they want in theirbrand…
…And their brand is what we are getting.
Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics
Re-Posted Mar 19, 2019 by Martin Armstrong
People have no idea that the Justice Democrats really stand for injustice. Their platform is the subjugation of everyone who disagrees and to force their beliefs upon the rest of society. They were founded by Kyle Kulinski (born 1988), who is at least an American, and Zack Exley (born December 5, 1969) who was the Chief Revenue Officer and former Chief Community Officer at the Wikimedia Foundation, which was founded in 2003 by Jimmy Wales as a way to fund Wikipedia and its sibling projects through non-profit means. The third founder is Cenk Kadir Uygur (born March 21, 1970) is a Turkish-American lawyer who has dual citizenship.
The Justice Democrats did manage to get four people elected to radically change the Democratic Party with extreme left-wing politics. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, and New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are the face of the Justice Democrats who took seats in Congress during the midterm election. They are using women of color to further their political agenda. All four also happen to be Justice Democrats, a group that’s quickly gained currency under the leadership of a handful of determined alumni from Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign.
They believe in the subjugation of all people who disagree with their positions. What is interesting, however, is the fact that they do not have deep pockets. They took advantage of the rath building against the government. This is the same trend that put Trump in the White House — throw out whoever is there.
AOC Denies Being a Puppet Candidate, She’s Not Being Entirely Truthful…
Amid growing revelations surrounding Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a puppet candidate, enlisted by a group of far-left activists, Ms. AOC tweets a firm denial.
Unfortunately, the AOC denial breaks an Alinsky rule. When a leftist breaks an Alinsky rule, the opposite of their claim is generally accurate; counter-intuitively affirming a stronger likelihood Representative AOC is actually steered by a group of leftists.
The evidence to support the puppet proposition is quite strong, albeit somewhat overblown in construct; and unfortunately for Ms. AOC, the evidence that does exist completely reconciles what is factually visible. However, the issues are more nuanced that most are willing to admit.
Apparently Ms. AOC and her handler Saikat Chakrabarti are responding to a recently viral video put together by a Youtube personality called Mr. Reagan. Many of you have likely viewed the video; for those who have not seen it, it is worth the time:
When you spend a lot of time deep in the granular weeds of politics, what Mr. Reagan is describing is not a conspiracy; in practice it is a well established fact. The construct of recruiting political candidates for office is well known; the difference in modern politics is the type of candidate being recruited.
The video above is approximately 85% accurate. Having spent time following the reaction of the progressive movement to the defeat of Hillary Clinton the thing Mr. Reagan gets wrong are some of the dates and the timeline.
The loss of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election exacerbated a pre-existing fracture inside the Democrat party. The far-left Bernie Sanders wing became more angry with the establishment Hillary Clinton wing. The reaction was not dissimilar to the same thing that happened in the Republican party in 2008 and 2009 that gave rise to the Tea Party.
Immediately following the 2016 election defeat, and with massive anger amid donors who had contributed billions to the campaign effort, the Clinton-Wing led by David Brock, went into damage control and organized a meeting with the intent on re-branding their efforts. [SEE HERE] Meanwhile the more progressive wing, the group that actually has a larger grassroots following, decided upon a different course. That’s where Cenk Uygur comes in.
In the 2018 race the DNC was forced to ride the progressive dragon. Nancy Pelosi and the Clinton/Brock crowd knew their rise to regain political power would not be possible without the grassroots Bernie leftists. The Cenk Uygur, Saikat Chakrabarti, recruitment was left alone to keep the fracture from becoming toxic. The ideological issue of party leadership -vs- grassroots extremists still exists; we see the dynamic playing out daily.
Yes, into this foray the Saikat Chakrabarti (Bernie-wing) 2017 operation to recruit primary candidates to challenge the Pelosi/Clinton-wing was the dynamic that brought forth Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Take any recent college graduate who is interested in politics and has a reasonably attractive social profile and you can get an AOC.
This is what was immediately visible. A political neophyte who only knows the catch-phrases from the educational indoctrination and social network. This surfaces in an understanding of political issues, domestic and international, that is shallow and mostly lacking in substance and structure… Cue the earliest audio visual. Must Watch:
Now, having said that, seen that, and admitting the video which outlines the people controlling the politics of Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is generally true, there’s a dismissive element by her detractors that is unfounded. Most of her words are her own; it’s her ideas, and the formatting of those ideas into content, that are not her own.
No-one knows how over-her-head she is more than AOC. She’s, politically not well versed in issues but she is not a stupid young lady. It is obvious she is working her 29 year-old butt off to get herself up to speed. She’s trying, and those who installed AOC; and are still providing the majority of her education, are also invested in making sure that AOC is not exposed as the recruited 2017 bar-tender.
When we were recruiting constitutional Tea Party candidates (2009) to challenge the vulnerable Blue-dogs and simultaneously primary the GOPe (establishment) Republicans in 2010, we did the same thing as Cenk Uygur, Saikat Chakrabarti. The difference is that our candidates were more mature, already engaged in political granularity, older and skilled.
Our 2009 through 2011 grassroots Tea Party candidate pool was comprised of those who already established themselves in life and were mature professionals in various fields. The 2017 progressive candidate pool for Uygur and Chakrabarti are recent college graduates and young folks fresh from the indoctrination machine. To this college crowd Omnibus is public transportation that goes in all directions.
So yes, AOC was a recruited bartender turned into a congressional candidate and successfully installed as a congressional representative. But don’t allow yourself to become dismissive of the internal success that was needed to achieve this result.
Remember, the people who attempted to destroy the Tea Party were the GOPe; specifically the Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell decepticon caucus. Sure the media were all-in to help them, but it was Boehner and McConnell who attacked the freshmen. Pelosi and Schumer saw the mistakes Boehner, Ryan, Cantor, and McConnell made with the dismissal of the Tea Party…. that’s why they now have President Donald Trump.
Do not expect Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to be as overt with their attacks against the young rebels within their progressive caucus. Instead, look for Pelosi and Schumer to plan strategies to ‘use’ the movement. If there is one thing Democrats excel at it’s strategy.
They have an ambitious, albeit politically naive, young lady who is intent on proving her individual merit and strength. By disposition AOC will not be reliant upon the talking points and handlers forever. Eventually Ms. AOC will form her own thoughts, speeches, congressional questioning and geopolitical opinions…. in short, she will become self-aware.
If the progressive movement is successful, by the time AOC fully matriculates she may find herself surrounded by a few hundred similarly recruited colleagues…. and just like the corrupt and rotten Paul Ryan who thrived throughout the rise of the Tea Party until he was faced with the sunlight of Trump, Speaker Pelosi ain’t stupid.
Armstrong Economics Blog/Regulation
RE-Posted Mar 17, 2019 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: You mentioned that the ROME WEC may be the last in Europe. If a VISA is required starting in 2021, does that effectively mean the political end for pro-immigration politicians in the EU? Seems to me the VISA requirement is incompatible with the entire notion of free movement across borders. Maybe the EU will be effectively dead by the time 2021 comes around?
ANSWER: Believe it or not, these people who create the regulations just want to know everything. Even when our staff flies these days, the question becomes do you transport any cash for your boss? I am not entirely sure that they are trying to stop the migrants or are they preparing for a cashless society? Nevertheless, this program is really a quasi-visa no matter what they claim. It could stop all immigration but they would never admit that.
You have to apply first for what they call “pre-screening,” so the difference is you cannot even get on the plane without pre-approval. Today, you can hop on a plane and receive the visa upon landing. That visa is generally good for 90 days. Free travel as it currently stands between the USA and Europe is without pre-visa applications. They are calling this new process “pre-screening,” so it is a digital visa where you have to be cleared before you can get on a plane.
Even when I land in the USA and go to one of those machines, it already knows the flight I came in on. The information manifested is transmitted to the USA and they too know who is arriving on the plane. Therefore, they do not call this a “visa,” but in reality, it very much is where you must apply for one before getting on the plane to China or Russia. The freedom of travel is coming to an end. They will know everyone and every plane.
I was flying to Paris. I had a one-way ticket because I was then flying to Switzerland and off to Athens. I would return from Athens to JFK in New York. I had to buy a first-class refundable round-trip ticket to Paris to get into the country, for they required a round-trip ticket. Once in, I had to cancel the ticket to go on from there. This was a stupid requirement based upon an assumption that I would go to Paris and just stay. When dealing with governments, there is never any common sense.