The CNN Headquarters in Atlanta is attacked by rioters, smashing windows, detonating explosive devices, and defacing the company’s iconic logo sign just outside the building; in this video, we’re going to take a look at what happened at the CNN building, and how it ironically was the logical outworking of the very leftist liberal fake news CNN spews out every single day; you’re not going to want to miss this!


Trump Cuts Aid to Big Tech, Citing Bias and Censorship



SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/35851-trump-targets-big-tech-silencing-of-conservatives-christians

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

President Donald Trump issued an executive order on May 28 targeting Big Tech companies for discriminating against conservatives and Christians, vowing to end federal support as well as liability protections for the Deep State-controlled firms if they continue silencing viewpoints their bosses disagree with. The U.S. president, whose supporters have long been targets of the Silicon Valley elite, blasted the social-media giants for their discrimination and also threatened that federal legislation might be coming soon to help rein in the attacks on free speech. There are even potential national-security concerns at stake, the president suggested.

Trump’s new policy, known simply as “Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship,” does not impose any new restrictions or mandates on the companies in question. Instead, it targets federal benefits that have long been offered to the giant Deep State companies, many of which were launched with crucial help from U.S. taxpayer funds and other federal assistance. In particular, the order calls on various federal agencies and departments to revisit the broad protections offered for social-media and other tech firms under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) exempting them from liability if they act as neutral platforms.

“It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints,” Trump’s order said. Among other concerns, the president explained that the statute was designed to address court rulings establishing that if an online platform restricted some content, it should be treated as a publisher, making it liable for the content posted there. In short, the measure was supposed to help foster a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”

But that is not what happened. As virtually everybody knows now, the companies dropped everything but the pretense of neutrality many years ago. That process accelerated amid and after the 2016 election, with multiple individuals and organizations, such as Alex Jones’ Infowars, being completely deplatformed. Instead of neutrality, Trump said the Big Tech firms were engaged in “inappropriate political activism” and were seeking to rig the upcoming election in favor of Democrats. It would not be the first time the Deep State-controlled firms would try to tip the electoral scales, as top experts in the field such as Dr. Robert Epstein and multiple whistleblowers have pointed out over the years.

The new White House measure begins by pointing out that freedom of speech is a “bedrock” principle underpinning American self-government. “Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution,” explained the president in the text of the order, an action that victims of Big Tech had been asking the president to take since at least 2018. “The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.”

The order cites court cases establishing that these tech companies, which long deceived consumers into believing they were neutral platforms, have now become the modern equivalent of the public square. And that dominance, the president argued, was partly a result of the firms deceiving users into believing they were neutral venues for Americans to communicate and express themselves, rather than left-wing activists seeking to manipulate and control what Americans could see and say.

“Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike,” Trump declared in his executive decree. “When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct.”

Trump also explained the importance of all this to America and self-government. “In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet,” the president’s order continues. “This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.”

The executive decree calls on the federal government to quit using tax money to support companies that censor free speech, including through the purchasing of ads. It orders the heads of various agencies to review their spending on social media sites, and to consider the statutory authorities available to them to stop spending the American people’s hard-earned money propping up companies that seek to silence a significant segment of those taxpayers while manipulating the entire population. The Department of Justice is instructed to review the viewpoint discrimination imposed by the companies to assess whether these companies are problematic in terms of communicating with the public.

The order also directs the U.S. Attorney General to establish a working group that would examine the potential enforcement of state statutes prohibiting online platforms from using unfair practices or deception. In short, if the companies lied to consumers, or misled them, they may be in violation of statutes prohibiting such deception. Another task for the group would be to consider possible model legislation that could be considered by state legislatures where there are no state laws protecting consumers from such abuses. State attorneys general will be invited to participate in the discussion and consultation, according to the order.

One task for the working group will be to examine algorithms that are used to suppress content or users based on their perceived political views, and whether users are prohibited from earning money on those platforms based on their viewpoints. Another will be to collect information on whether the firms are subjecting users to increased scrutiny based on whom they may follow on the platforms. And the group is supposed to gather facts concerning the reliance of these firms on biased third parties to review content. This is something that conservatives subjected to smears by anti-Christian hate groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center are only too familiar with.

Interestingly, considering recent revelations about the Big Tech firms’ cozy relations with the mass-murdering regime in China, the working group is also tasked with gathering information on whether accounts associated with the Communist Chinese Party are benefiting from differential policies that enable Beijing and other regimes to do what Americans are not allowed to do. Depending on what is found, this could have massive potential national-security implications. Indeed, YouTube and Google were recently accused of automatically censoring anti-communist comments in Chinese, something that multiple U.S. lawmakers have expressed outrage about. The company blamed an unspecified “error.”

“At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China,” Trump said, adding that some have even peddled paid Communist Chinese propaganda enabling barbarous human rights abuses such as the mass internment of Muslims. “One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for ‘human rights,’ hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.”

The abuses against Americans are an enormous problem, the order suggests. A year ago, Trump said in the measure, the White House launched a “Tech Bias Reporting tool” that allowed Americans to report incidents of online censorship by the Big Tech firms. In a matter of weeks, more than 16,000 official complaints were filed accusing the companies of censoring or restricting users based on their political viewpoints. Those complaints will be submitted to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Those agencies will be tasked with reviewing whether the Big Tech firms have used “deceptive practices,” which are illegal, to dupe users into using their services by pretending to be neutral.

Also key will be legislation, Trump said. In the U.S. Senate, more than a few Republicans and even some Democrats, including presumed presidential nominee Joe Biden, have taken aim at the broad protections for Big Tech giants under the CDA. U.S. Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, even promised on Twitter that he would “introduce legislation to end these special government giveaways” to social-media companies that act as an unfair subsidy and were designed to protect neutral platforms from liability, not publishers pushing a political agenda. Trump’s order calls on Attorney General William Barr to develop a proposal for federal legislation, too. Barr suggested a lawsuit was being planned as well.

The day before signing the order, Trump dropped a major hint that it was coming on Twitter, putting it in the context of election meddling and efforts to censor GOP officials while boosting Democrats. “Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices,” the president said. “We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can’t let a more sophisticated version of that happen again.” In particular, Trump’s order noted that Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was still peddling the debunked “Russia collusion” conspiracy on social-media even recently, while Republicans are targeted even for speaking the truth.

Indeed, Trump’s order came shortly after a high-profile spat with Twitter. The controversial company allowed Chief of Site Integrity Yoel Roth, a radical anti-Trump activist who has openly expressed his hatred and contempt for Trump supporters, to put out a “fact check” purporting to discredit one of Trump’s tweets. “Twitter is now interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election,” the president said about the incident. “They are saying my statement on Mail-In Ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud, is incorrect, based on fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washington Post. Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!”

Indeed, this is hardly a new phenomenon. According to top experts in the field such as Dr. Robert Epstein, himself a supporter of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, Google dishonestly managed to shift millions of undecided voters toward Clinton through rigged algorithms that were imperceptible to users — almost all of whom were deceived into believing the search-engine was a neutral arbiter. Leaked videos and Project Veritas interviews with insiders and whistleblowers at Big Tech firms also offered additional proof that the companies were brazenly rigging their platforms against conservatives while tricking users into believing they were neutral. Such practices have been described as “fraud” by more than a few critics.

But there is even more to the story. According to longtime D.C. insider Mike Lofgren, broadly credited with popularizing the term “Deep State” in American political discourse, Silicon Valley is a crucial part of the Deep State, alongside the security agencies, the Treasury, Wall Street, and the secret courts. As numerous media outlets have documented, the so-called intelligence community, including the CIA and the NSA, sometimes through their investment arm known as “In-Q-Tel,” played a key role creating many of the companies. Also crucial was the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which helped Google early on.

Naturally, the beneficiaries of social-media efforts to silence conservatives, Republicans, Christians, and others expressed outrage about Trump’s efforts to rein in federal benefits for the Big Tech titans. “The proliferation of disinformation is extremely dangerous, particularly as our nation faces the deadliest pandemic in history,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement blasting the executive order. “Clearly and sadly, the President’s Executive Order is a desperate distraction from his failure to provide a national testing strategy to defeat COVID-19.” Establishment Beltway “think tanks” taking in large contributions from Big Tech were also critical, falsely suggesting that ending unfair federal benefits to Big Tech was tantamount to attacking free speech.

In an upcoming report, this writer will detail some of the outrageous efforts by Big Tech companies including YouTube, Facebook, and Google to silence The New American magazine. This has ranged from shadow banning and slapping obviously phony “fact checks” on content to rigged algorithms making TNA content invisible or even outright deleting it forever. While private companies in a free society have a right to prevent people from using their services for any reason, they do not have a right to special protections or taxpayer money. Neither do they have a right to deceive users into believing they are neutral platforms when they are not. Nor do they have a right to trick naive consumers into surrendering their personal data.

It is past time for the federal government to quit funding, boosting, and protecting rogue economic actors that are hostile to America’s most important and fundamental principles, including privacy and freedom of speech. President Trump’s order is a step in the right direction. However, over the long term, once the feds quit rigging the marketplace in favor of the Big Tech giants, it will be crucial that the free market provide alternatives to the anti-American giants of Silicon Valley. The sooner that happens, the better.

Related articles:

Trump’s Feud With Twitter Takes a Serious Turn

Exploiting COVID19, Big Tech Censors Become Big Brother

If Trump Loses in November, Blame Google and Facebook?

Google Caught Red-handed: Tried to Get Clinton Elected

Senior Google Engineer: Google Manipulates Results to Manipulate Elections

Freeing the Web From Big Tech

Big Tech Under Fire

The Way Forward: Bypassing Big Tech Censorship

Big Tech Censors Alex Jones — Who’s Next?

Executive Order Coming Against Big Tech Censorship?

Big Tech and Big Government Censoring the Internet. Who’s Next?

U.S. Tech Giants Join EU to Censor the Internet

How Google Censors The New American (and Other Conservatives)

Facebook Fraud: Ex-workers Admit They Censored Conservative News





SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/35856-trump-forced-to-withdraw-his-atf-nomination

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

When the White House pulled the nomination of Kenneth Charles “Chuck” Canterbury, Jr. (shown) to head up the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) last week, it didn’t say why. But Canterbury’s confirmation was in jeopardy almost from the beginning.

The White House announced the nomination a year ago, but after hearing what Canterbury had to say about his commitment, or lack of, to the Second Amendment, it died in committee.

During that hearing, GOP Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana expressed his frustration at Canterbury’s lack of candor: “I like straight answers, and you are being evasive. You have been nominated to run the ATF. I think every member of this panel, both my Democratic friends and Republican friends who have feelings about the Second Amendment, are entitled to know both morally and legally what you believe.”

His nomination suffered at the hands of the Gun Owners of America, which said that, while Canterbury was head of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the FOP “backed Congressional measures to expand the unconstitutional and failing NICS [background check] system … and … supported Universal Background Checks and opposed Constitutional Carry.”

The FOP itself didn’t help any, either, when it made plain is opposition to the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act under Canterbury’s leadership.

Canterbury’s nomination stalled, but was returned and revived by the president in February when he renominated him for the position. But his chances were sunk into oblivion when a letter was uncovered, dating back to January 2013, that Canterbury wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee on behalf of the FOP, not only urging support for expanded background checks, but for “reinvigoration” and additional funding for the ATF “to ensure that it has the tools and resources necessary to [fulfill] its mission.”

Canterbury’s letter also supported the gathering of mental-health records “in the context of firearms acquisition” (whatever that’s supposed to mean), and more federal funding of state and local law-enforcement agencies “to put more State and local law enforcement officers on the street.”

Canterbury buried his nomination when, in the 2013 letter, he gave his reasons for more unconstitutional infringements:

We believe the most logical starting point to address gun violence is the expansion of the background check system. Incomplete or absent background checks create a gaping hole in the wall between firearms and criminals. Loopholes in the background check system give criminals unprecedented opportunity to access firearms. This problem must be remedied quickly….

We encourage you to consider expanding the resources available to ATF to combat firearms trafficking.… As things stand now, ATF has been scraping by with a dwindling number of agents and other resources while ATF’s mission has expanded. Frankly, this is unacceptable.

Things are so bad, complained Canterbury, that “there are jurisdictions out there telling civilians bluntly that they will have to defend themselves.”

In anticipation that he would be confirmed, Canterbury resigned from the FOP after 26 years. It’s hoped that he will now disappear altogether from public view. In the meantime, Regina Lombardo will continue in place as the Bureau’s acting director.

Related article:

Trump Plans to Nominate Known Gun-grabber to Head ATF





SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/35855-woman-in-wheelchair-defending-target-from-looting-sprayed-with-fire-extinguisher

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

“You’re not stealing that TV to honor George Floyd or protest police brutality. You’re stealing that TV because you’re a POS,” conservative commentator Ben Shapiro tweeted when looting began following the death of George Floyd during an arrest by Minneapolis police on Monday.

Perhaps a powerful illustration of the truth of Shapiro’s blunt remarks was the attack on a wheelchair-bound woman in the entryway to a Target store in Minneapolis on Wednesday. The woman, identified as Jennifer, attempted to use her wheelchair to block looters from leaving the chain store with all sorts of merchandise.

After the attack on her with a fire extinguisher, Jennifer told a bystander, “I was peacefully protesting and trying to block the way so they couldn’t leave with carfuls of stuff. They attacked me from front and back, they punched me in my mouth and my head. I got punched in the head several times. I got grabbed from behind, people grabbed my wheelchair, they stole my keys, everything they could off me.”

Jennifer added, “I got maced in the face, I got covered in fire extinguisher stuff.”

Incredibly, the looters claimed they were acting in self-defense! Even The Daily Mail seemed to mitigate the seriousness of the attack upon Jennifer by saying, “While some deplored the video as a brutal attack on a disabled woman, others saw Jennifer as the aggressor and the fire extinguisher as an act of self-defense.”

This would be much like Jesse James arguing that one of the victims of his years of robbing banks, trains, and stagecoaches trying to block the path of Jesse, his brother Frank, the Younger brothers, and other members of his gang from leaving the bank with a pile of cash was the real aggressor. Much like today’s criminal looters, the James gang justified their robberies and murders as simply continuing the “cause of the South” in the years following the Civil War.

Some in the modern gang of criminal looters argued that Jennifer had a knife (as though law-abiding citizens are the aggressors if they are armed and can defend themselves), which therefore somehow justified one of the looters covering her in foam from a fire extinguisher.

Conservative writer Andy Ngo shared footage of the brutal attack upon the wheelchair-bound woman on social media.


While foam shot from the fire extinguisher covered the disabled Jennifer, many in the crowed of looters cheered, and some threw objects at her. Others fled the scene.

Some have argued that stealing from stores such as Target and small businesses is a way to “increase the cost” of police brutality, and thus make it less likely in the future. Regardless of the merits of that argument, the people being hurt in such a scenario had nothing to do with the death of George Floyd.

Violent protests have rocked Minneapolis since Monday, when Floyd, a black man, was being arrested by local police. Officer Derek Chauvin, a 19-year veteran of the department, and three other officers involved in arresting Floyd, all white, were fired Tuesday. Chauvin was recorded on a mobile phone with his knee on Floyd’s neck for more than seven minutes, all while spectators could be heard for the officer to get off Floyd’s neck, with one shouting, “You’re f*****g stopping his breathing there, bro.”

Floyd pleaded with the officer that he could not breathe until he eventually passed out, and his listless body was placed in an ambulance. He was pronounced dead at the hospital.

Predictably, many attempted to make the tragic death of Floyd a racial incident, although there is absolutely no evidence that the police officers did what they did to Floyd simply because he was black. Presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden lost little time interjecting race into the incident, arguing that it was “part of an ingrained, systemic cycle of injustice that still exists in this country,” and that it “sends a very clear message to the black community and black lives that are under threat every single day.” It is certainly part of Biden’s message to stoke understandable black outrage for his own political gain, even while violent riots rock the city. Only a few days earlier, Biden had insisted that a black person even thinking about voting for President Donald Trump “ain’t black.”

Such incendiary rhetoric only throws gasoline on the fire of the situation in Minneapolis and is highly irresponsible coming from a man who wants to be president of the United States. Rather than attempting to calm the situation, Biden and others on the Left would prefer to use the unfortunate events in Minnesota for their own political advantage.

It is highly unlikely that Biden or any other liberal political figure or news reporters will condemn the actions taken against the courageous Jennifer.




SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/05/27/jen-hatmaker-says-lgbtq-christians-preach-in-her-church-calls-for-mass-exodus-of-conservative-denoms/

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Jen Hatmaker, who first publicly renounced Christianity in an interview with Jonathan Merritt — a gay activist and son of former Southern Baptist Convention president, James Merritt — and says she first questioned Evangelical Christianity because gay people couldn’t have sex with each other, is now calling for a mass exodus from conservative, biblical denominations.

Hatmaker writes on her Facebook page a scathing denunciation of conservative biblical beliefs referring to those who hold to a biblical sexual ethic and treat the Scriptures as the inerrant and authoritative Word of God as denominations and churches that “diminish women” and “harm or exile LGBTQ Christians” and “peddle shame and guilt and sorrow.”

What Hatmaker fails to understand is that “shame and guilt and sorrow” for the unregenerate — like her — are actually a sign of mercy from God and a call to repentance and faith in Christ. Instead, Hatmaker continues to lift her middle finger to God by peddling sin and rebellion to those who need to actually hear the gospel.

Hatmaker conflates freedom in Christ with freedom to sin. Her version of “freedom” is actually a bondage to sin — an inability to escape sin and its consequences — and she inflicts this eternal damnation upon those who need to be set free.

The wrath of God is inescapable. Jesus was very clear: lest you repent, you too will perish (Luke 13:3,5).

Instead, Hatmaker is glad that gays preach in her church. I wonder if the “LGBTQ Christians who preach in her church ever preach on 1 Corinthians 6 or Romans 1. The fact remains that those who are in bondage to sin have not been set free in Christ and will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

She is right about one thing though: those who remain in rebellion to God’s design for us have demonstrated themselves to not be part of the body of Christ and should, well, “come on out.” In fact, they should be purged from among us as the Scriptures command.

God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.” — 1 Corinthians 5:13




Who knew that anonymously handing out $1,000 to criminals could go wrong?


SEE: https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/05/california-tried-bail-out-illegal-aliens-and-its-daniel-greenfield;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

The Golden State is showing its brass with more unemployed people than the entire population of Alabama. So, California’s leaders decided that this was an urgent time to bail out illegal aliens.

California’s illegal alien population is its shadow economy and with many of the industries that employ them shut down, the Democrats who depend on ghost districts populated by illegals decided that something had to be urgently done to keep the illegal aliens from fleeing back across the border.

The Democrats figured that giving them checks would be cheaper than building a wall to keep them in.

But who knew that a $125 million stimulus program for illegal aliens would become such a disaster?

Illegal aliens were eligible to apply for up to $1,000 with $75 million coming from the California taxpayers bailing out illegals who don’t pay taxes. And another $50 million was supposed to be donated by wealthy lefties. But while the taxpayers of the state were forced to put up their $75 million, the wealthy politically correct elites who have poured fortunes into electing Democrats didn’t pay up.

Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees had the backing of billionaires like Steve Jobs’ widow, Mark Zuckerberg, and George Soros, but has stalled at $38 million. And that’s from guys like Zuckerberg and Soros who use million-dollar bills as toilet paper. But why bother donating to illegals, when you can buy the politicians, and they’ll steal money from the middle class to fund your agenda?

The Resilience Fund was supposed to raise an initial $50 million. It’s struggling to get there which means its partner organizations like the California Nail Salon Community Care Fund, the TransLatin Coalition, the Jakara Movement for Sikh illegal aliens, and the Black LGBTQ+ Migrant Project might be out of luck.

But the real train wreck was, as always, on the government side where Governor Newsom had decided to anonymously give away cash to illegals, first-come, first-served. What could possibly go wrong?


The Disaster Relief Assistance for Immigrants (DRAI) program was built to self-destruct from the start.

Since the sanctuary state would rather let a million Kate Steinles be murdered than deport one illegal, not even California authorities would be allowed to know whom they were giving away the money to.

Instead of illegal aliens having to file paperwork or show up at an office and present their undocumented passports, the giveaway was run through non-profits that help illegal aliens. Like a radio station contest, the illegal aliens had to call it to one of twelve non-profits to walk away with a grand.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles claimed that it got 630,000 calls in the first 90 minutes and over 1.1 million calls on the first day. Pew estimates that Los Angeles has around 1 million illegals. What are the odds that all of them would have phoned up one of the non-profits in one day?

The Pew estimate that there are only 2 million illegals in California has always been nonsense, but even so numbers like these are so fishy that they could be served fresh at your local seafood restaurant.

Even at the minimum number of $500, 1 million applicants would require a $500 million fund.

And that’s just the calls coming it to one of the non-profits.

The TODEC Legal Center claimed that it was hammered with 1 million calls in the first 48 hours. Bay Area Catholic Charities told the media that it’s been getting 200,000 calls a day.

Since illegal aliens are only supposed to apply to the contractors serving their geographic area, that means that there are either a whole lot of illegal aliens in California or a whole lot of scammers.

Or both.

The volume of calls quickly overwhelmed the pro-illegal organizations which processed only 6,500 illegal claims. Only California Democrats can figure out how to outsource a giveaway and make it even worse as other pro-illegal alien groups began complaining to Governor Newsom that “undocumented Californians face unreasonable barriers in accessing these much-needed resources.”

Even though California can’t figure out how to give away the money to illegal aliens, Democrats are demanding even more giveaways with legislators calling for $3,200 in payouts per illegal alien.

With claims that there are 289,000 illegal aliens who are no longer able to work illegally in California, that could run to $9 billion in payouts to illegal aliens. Meanwhile, Governor Newsom is warning that unless his government gets a massive federal bailout, cops and firefighters will lose their jobs.

Maybe the illegal aliens can work as California’s cops and firefighters for less than minimum wage.

But, as the 1.1 million phone calls show, the sky is literally the limit.

California’s illegal alien stimulus routes everything through its dozen Immigration Services Financing contractors who only provide general demographic information to the state. The contractors begin the process by phone and then ask applicants to email them evidence that they’re eligible for the program.

The potential for fraud is as vast as the cash flow is limited.

Meanwhile, CBS Los Angeles interviewed a woman who told the reporter in Spanish. “Right now, we live in a place that is not our country. Our house is in a different country, and we have expenses we have to pay like rent and for food.” It seems like the solution would be for her to go back to her own country.

You don’t need to ask California taxpayers to cover LA rents when you have a house in Guatemala.

Illegal aliens are living in a place that is not their country. There’s no reason for them to be here, let alone be bailed out by California taxpayers, when 5 million Californians are unemployed.

But California’s bad ideas have a way of quickly sweeping the nation. From foods to dances to drugs, once Californians do it, every other idiot blue state decides it must be a good idea.

The Seattle City Council, under Council President M. Lorena Gonzalez, passed a unanimous resolution calling for a fund of over $100 million for “undocumented Washingtonians”.

And they’re not talking about Rep. Ilhan Omar.

Gonzalez’s parents were illegal aliens. The La Raza vet got her start in politics as the legal counsel to Mayor Ed Murray, who was forced to step down after multiple allegations of abusing children that had been covered up by the Democrat establishment. That’s the sort of thing they used to do in Portland.

Like its California cousin, Seattle’s illegal alien giveaway would also be run by “community-based organizations” which is just slang for Democrat organizations that help get out the Democrat vote.

Seattle Democrats claim that they need to bail out the state’s 250,000 illegal aliens. Pew estimates place 140,000 illegal aliens in the Seattle metropolitan area. The entire state is on the hook for Seattle.


The idea of a massive illegal alien bailout is spreading across blue state and areas. Maryland’s 250,000 illegal aliens want their own stimulus plan. Pro-illegal alien activists in Phoenix held a rally demanding money for illegals. Two dozen Connecticut legislators have written a letter calling for a bailout for the state’s 100,000 illegals. Massachusetts Democrats also desperately want to bail out their illegals.

And California has taken its illegal alien bailout national with Speaker Pelosi’s HEROES Act offering stimulus cash for illegal aliens at a time when 30 million Americans are out of work.

Pelosi might have learned the lesson from her own state’s illegal alien bailout disaster.

Handing out cash to criminals never ends well. That’s why so many members of her own party are in jail.




How this anti-American scourge works.


SEE: https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/05/biggest-blacklist-american-history-john-perazzo;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a $592 million non-profit. It is also the creator and leader of the largest blacklist, by far, in American history. Its infamous list of “hate groups,” which currently consists of 940 separate entities in all 50 U.S. states, is the centerpiece of a massive smear campaign that conflates a small number of mostly insignificant fringe groups with entities whose sin is being politically conservative, but which are not “hate” groups in any meaningful sense of the word.

By equating a smattering of actual hate groups with respectable conservative organizations, SPLC seeks to delegitimize conservatives as repugnant monsters whose viewpoints do not merit a hearing. And by labeling mainstream conservative individuals and organizations as “hate mongers,” it seeks to deprive them of the funding they need to reach an audience or even stay alive. Consider, for instance, the SPLC’s branding of David Horowitz, founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, as an “anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim extremist” and as one of the “10 Most Dangerous Hatemongers” in the United States — solely because he opposes illegal immigration and warns against the dangers of Islamic jihad.

After Horowitz gave a speech to the bi-partisan American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in August 2018, SPLC organized a boycott that singled out his remarks as worthy of suppression and called on ALEC’s corporate sponsors to withdraw their support. The actual sin Horowitz committed was confined to one sentence in which he referred to Black Lives Matter as a “racist organization” and the Muslim Brotherhood as a “terrorist” group.[1] Within two weeks, 79 leftist organizations had joined the boycott. This led to the withdrawal of financial support by major corporations like Verizon, AT&T, and Dow Chemical, and the loss of tens of thousands of dollars for ALEC.

The following month, SPLC’s slurs were the basis of major media attacks smearing Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis as a “white supremacist” for appearing at a Restoration Weekend event hosted by Horowitz, who was described as “an infamous racist” in a headline that appeared in the Huffington Post. (As a side note to this baseless slander, Horowitz is a friend of Arianna Huffington — who founded but no longer owns the Post — and was married in her home.)

The SPLC blacklist is enabled by — and could not be successful without — the mindless support of media outlets like the Washington PostNew York Magazine, Vanity Fair, and so-called “liberal” organizations like People for the American Way and Common Cause. It is also empowered by major support from billionaires like Apple CEO Tim Cook and JP Morgan chairman Jamie Dimon, and by the charitable arms of such major American corporations as Amazon.

Amazon’s alliance with SPLC is institutionalized in its popular “AmazonSmile” program, through which customers can purchase Amazon products at their regular prices and then indicate, at checkout, that they wish to have Amazon redirect 0.5% of the payment to a charitable nonprofit organization of the customer’s choice. In fiscal 2018, AmazonSmile funneled some $44 million to non-profits via this program.

But not every governmentally recognized non-profit is eligible to receive Amazon’s largesse. Amazon warns its customers that “organizations that engage in, support, encourage, or promote intolerance, hate, terrorism, violence, money laundering, or other illegal activities are not eligible to participate.” Among the organizations denied Amazon charity on these grounds is the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the chief legal non-profit group committed to protecting religious liberty. ADF is ineligible for Amazon’s program because it defends the First Amendment rights of religious organizations to hold views that SPLC doesn’t support.

ADF, by its own telling, provides legal advocacy “for the right of people to freely live out their faith,” with a specific focus on “cases involving religious liberty issues, the sanctity of human life, and marriage and family.” In other words, ADF thinks that if a religious organization opposes taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, or believes that marriage should be defined explicitly as a sacramental union between one man and one woman, such an entity should be allowed, in accordance with the First Amendment, to freely espouse those particular values.

But to the leftists at the Southern Poverty Law Center, the defense of the First Amendment by organizations like ADF is a “hateful” endeavor which merits the group’s inclusion in the SPLC blacklist. And AmazonSmile, in turn, has dutifully declared itself off-limits to ADF. As one AmazonSmile spokesperson has acknowledged: “We remove organizations that the SPLC deems as ineligible.” And by that chain of unexamined “evidence” — i.e., the mere word of SPLC — the blacklist works.

ADF is just one of scores of mainstream religious organizations that have been targeted by SPLC. In particular, SPLC depicts any entity objecting to transformative cultural changes involving homosexuals — such as gay marriage — as a “hate” group whose opinions have no more legitimacy than those of an Aryan militia. In this way, SPLC classifies the conservative Family Research Council, a Christian public policy ministry, as yet another purveyor of hate. And in accordance with SPLC’s guidance, AmazonSmile has removed the Council from the list of charities eligible to receive AmazonSmile donations.

The D. James Kennedy Ministries (DJKM), whose mission is to proclaim “the Gospel of Jesus Christ” as widely as possible, likewise opposes the notion that marriage should be redefined to include same-sex unions. Consequently, SPLC has defamed DJKM as yet another “active hate group.” And AmazonSmile, in turn, refuses to direct any of its customer funds to DJKM. But in fact, there is not the faintest trace of “hate” in DJKM’s message. As Ministries spokesman John Rabe has said: “We desire all people, with no exceptions, to receive the love of Christ and his forgiveness and healing. We unequivocally condemn violence, and we hate no one.”

Other noteworthy Christian groups blacklisted by both SPLC and AmazonSmile include the Religious Freedom Coalition (RFC), the Ruth Institute, and the Saint Benedict Center — all of which are guilty of the apparently unpardonable sin of opposing same-sex marriage on religious grounds. When a spokesman for the Saint Benedict Center, Brother André Marie, asked Amazon to explain why his Center had been barred from participating in AmazonSmile, the company told him candidly: “We rely on the Southern Poverty Law Center to determine which charities are in certain ineligible categories. You have been excluded from the AmazonSmile program because the Southern Poverty Law Center lists Saint Benedict Center Inc. in an ineligible category.”

In stark contrast to its shabby treatment of the aforementioned Christian groups, AmazonSmile has had absolutely no objection to passing along 0.5% of its customer expenditures to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was co-founded by individuals with close ties to Hamas — a proudly genocidal organization of murderous Jew-haters. Terrorism expert Steven Emerson, citing federal law-enforcement sources and internal documents, has bluntly described CAIR as “a radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas.”

AmazonSmile is likewise happy to funnel some of its customer funds to the Islamic Center of Jersey City (ICJC), an institution whose imam, in a recent sermon, not only characterized Israeli Jews as “apes and pigs,” but also besought Allah’s assistance in killing them, right “down to the very last one.” Moreover, a former ICJC imam was a Hamas activist who was named on a “List of Possible Unindicted Co-conspirators for the [1993] World Trade Center Bombing.”

The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) — a Jew-hating entity that praises terror attacks, supports the imposition of Sharia Law, promotes the establishment of an Islamic caliphate, has ties to the radical Pakistani group Jamaat-e-Islami, and is closely linked to the Muslim Brotherhood — is also an AmazonSmile member in perfectly good standing.

Similarly, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which promotes Sharia Law and Islamic supremacism, is free to rake in loads of cash through AmazonSmile. Established by U.S-based members of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISNA was identified by declassified FBI memos as a Brotherhood front group as early as 1987. Four years after that, ISNA was explicitly named in a Brotherhood document as one of 29 likeminded Islamic organizations that shared the common goal of carrying out a “grand Jihad” in America and “destroying … Western civilization from within.” But it’s not a “hate group,” according to the cheerful, grinning folks at AmazonSmile and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Obviously, the double standards of AmazonSmile are many. But perhaps most troubling is the fact that the single most noteworthy beneficiary of the program is none other than the Southern Poverty Law Center itself. That’s correct: The principal gatekeeper that determines who should, and who should not, be permitted to earn money through AmazonSmile, routinely stuffs its own deep pockets with AmazonSmile cash. Indeed, SPLC is currently the 33rd leading recipient of contributions through AmazonSmile. This of course is in keeping with SPLC’s legendary aptitude for wringing every last penny out of every cash cow in the proverbial barn. Today SPLC boasts a $592 million endowment, of which nearly 30% is sheltered in offshore tax havens.

In their crusade against conservative organizations, SPLC and AmazonSmile have plenty of company. For instance, Color of Change has pressured corporations to cut all business and commercial ties to entities that SPLC designates as “hate groups.”

Similarly, BloodMoney.org will not be satisfied until all “financial service companies” stop “profiting from hate” by “tolerating the use of their services by hate groups.” In short, BloodMoney favors the blacklisting and economic suffocation of conservative groups in much the same way as AmazonSmile does. Particularly remarkable is the fact that BloodMoney has named none other than Amazon as a company guilty of conducting business with various “hate groups” that pursue “dangerous agendas.” In other words, AmazonSmile’s blacklist doesn’t go far enough for BloodMoney, which boasts that, as a result of its own blacklisting efforts, “158 funding sources have been removed from white supremacist sites.”

In 2017, Discover, Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal — much like AmazonSmile — blacklisted a number of organizations deemed objectionable by self-anointed arbiters of “hate” like SPLC, Color of Change, and BloodMoney. As PayPal said in a statement at that time, its own objective was to “ensure that our services are not used to accept payments or donations for activities that promote hate, violence or racial intolerance.”

While aiming to deprive conservative organizations of funding from a host of sources, leftist entities like Amazon and SPLC unapologetically seek to pack as much cash as possible into their own massive coffers. Business Insider recently published an article speculating that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is on track to become the world’s first trillionaire by the year 2026. And if present trends continue, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s holdings may surpass the $1 billion mark at just about that same time. Such a parallel would be a fitting reflection of AmazonSmile’s unique relationship with SPLC — one gang of reckless slanderers lining the pockets of another, in an obscenely crooked, rigged charade.

The SPLC’s massive blacklist is sustained by a powerful movement on the left and in the Democratic Party, which is determined to suppress its conservative opposition and create a one-party state — a feat it has already accomplished in our colleges and universities and in large swathes of our media institutions.


[1] The full text of the speech is available HERE.