Is The Election Already Done?

Big Tech’s Big Secret (perpetrated upon the American public)

Big Tech’s Big Secret

Redacted from an earlier but more pertinent than ever article 

By David Kupelian, Editor

WhistleBlower Magazine 

World Net Daily  2019

Democratic presidential primary debates highlight one of the great paradoxes of our time: The Democratic Party, to all appearances, has gone completely mad, embracing wildly radical policies from mass gun confiscation to socialism to late-term abortion to allowing convicted, incarcerated terrorists to vote. Yet the party could well see its candidate elected president in 2020.

www.israel-commentary.org

Lords of the internet mean to defeat Trump – then reshape America and the world

How is that possible?

Consider, after all, the degree of lunacy now championed by Democrat presidential candidates: America is being negatively transformed by a full-scale, never-ending invasion across its southern border, but all the Democrat candidates love, enable and encourage it. Their “Green New Deal” schemes would cost untold trillions of taxpayer dollars while destroying America’s fossil fuel industries, thereby putting millions out of work. 

They celebrate full-term abortion (aka infanticide) and cheer the epidemic of delusional men invading women’s locker rooms and showers and dominating the world of women’s sports. One Democrat candidate, Julian Castro, announced from the debate stage that he even wants taxpayer-funded abortions for men who get pregnant.

Add to this insanity the never-ending calls to impeach President Donald Trump, all part of a rolling coup attempt that has severely traumatized America with the most outrageous political hoax in U.S. history – the allegation, utterly without evidence, that the president of the United States is secretly a traitorous Russian double agent.

Of course, the fake news media serve as the grand enablers of all this, modern alchemists magically transmuting leftwing insanity into fools’ gold, forever portraying Democrats as moral and caring, and Republicans as selfish and evil.

However, all of this intense daily drama also serves as camouflage – the perfect smokescreen for concealing another and even more daunting attempted coup d’état taking place largely out of view.

And therein lies the answer to our question of how a wildly unhinged political party like the Democrats of 2019 could actually retake the White House – and Congress – and therefore the courts – in 2020.

Imagine, just for a minute, that some unseen yet immensely powerful entity existed, one capable of influencing the minds of hundreds of millions of people, shaping their perceptions in such a profound way as to steer them toward voting for a certain party or candidate. 

Suppose, further, that this influence was virtually undetectable, indeed that the entity was one we had come to admire, consulting it on a daily basis, tapping freely into its vast, almost god-like reservoir of universal knowledge and understanding.

Suppose further that, though imperceptible to us, this great and all-knowing something had a secret plan for our lives and our society, an overriding will to guide and shape us and our world in its benevolent image.

This, in essence, is what America – indeed the whole world – is dealing with in the Age of Big Tech.

As the June issue of Whistleblower magazine documents, citing hard evidence including multiple peer-reviewed studies, Google is already determining the results of elections around the world. And, contends Google researcher Robert Epstein, Ph.D., former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today (and a Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016), Google likely swung as many as 3 million votes toward Hillary in the 2016 presidential contest. It just turned out not to be quite enough.

“I’m guessing that these companies held back in 2016, because they were overconfident,” Epstein said later. Recently, Epstein predicted, based on his half-decade of peer-reviewed research, that Big Tech could swing 15 million votes toward the Democrat presidential candidate in 2020, without leaving any paper trail and without those so influenced realizing it.

In widely read Wired article headlined, “Is Big Tech Merging with Big Brother” journalist David Samuels writes,  “the threat of government surveillance systems being integrated with the existing corporate surveillance capacities of big-data companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon into one gigantic all-seeing eye appears to trouble very few people.”

He then spends the rest of his 5,000+ word article documenting how America’s elite class appears “to accept the merger of the U.S. military and intelligence complex with Big Tech as a good thing.” 

Indeed, with the growing presence of Big Tech in Washington, D.C. – from Google’s huge corporate lobbying expenditures, to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ purchase of the Washington Post, to major high-tech contracts being awarded by the CIA, Pentagon and other federal agencies to companies like Amazon, Microsoft and Google – the merger of Big Tech and Big Government appears to be happening.

And then there’s this: In a June report on Breitbart.com, technology writer Allum Bokhari reveals, based on an internal Facebook document obtained by the news website, that Facebook monitors users’ offline behavior to determine whether or not the user should be labeled a “hate agent.”

Let’s say it straight: Big Tech – overwhelmingly far-leftist progressive in worldview and therefore, by definition totalitarian – is attempting to transform the world in its image.

Big Tech – first and foremost Google, which accounts for 90 percent of all search inquiries worldwide – has become almost like a god to billions of people. But that god is attempting to reshape errant and wayward humanity in its image. Its most urgent task right now? Defeat Trump in the 2020 election. Big Tech is still kicking itself for having failed in 2016. It doesn’t intend to make the same mistake again.

Liars Lie!

LIAR! 5 biggest debate lies (and the truth Biden hates)

SEPTEMBER 13, 2019

• LINKEDIN
• TWITTER

On Thursday night, 10 of the top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates were invited by ABC News to take the stage and debate — and they all lied straight to the faces of American voters.

In the past, presidential debates were once considered a prestigious affair.

But Thursday’s Democratic sideshow was filled with errors, lies, mis-truths, and worse.

Here are the five biggest lies Democrats tried to push on America last night… and the truth the mainstream media won’t share.

Lie #1 — The El Paso shooting was President Donald Trump’s fault

BETO O’ROURKE, former U.S. representative from Texas, on last month’s mass shooting in El Paso: “Everything that I’ve learned about resilience, I’ve learned from my hometown of El Paso, Texas, in the face of this act of terror, that was directed at our community, in large part by the president of the United States. It killed 22 people, and injured many more, we were not defeated by that. Nor were we defined by that.”

JULIAN CASTRO, former U.S. housing secretary: “Look, a few weeks ago a shooter drove 10 hours inspired by this president to kill people who look like me and people who look like my family.”

THE TRUTH: Trump didn’t direct the killer. He didn’t inspire him, either.

It is difficult to know for sure what led the gunman to open fire inside a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 22 people. The suspect posted a manifesto online before the shooting about his fear of illegal immigration.

The screed spoke of what the suspect called a “Hispanic invasion of Texas,” railed against illegals and warned of an imminent attack. But he wasn’t directed or inspired by Trump.

In his manifesto, he said his own views “predate Trump and his campaign for president.”

Lie #2 — America has one of the worst child poverty rates in the world.

BERNIE SANDERS: “We have the highest child poverty rate of almost any country on Earth.”

THE TRUTH: Wrong. This oft-repeated line by the Vermont senator is simply false.

There are nearly 200 countries in the world, many with people deep in extreme poverty that most Americans would struggle to fathom.

Poverty is also a relative measure in which someone who is poor in one nation might look rather prosperous in another.

According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s updated child poverty report in 2018, things are good inside America’s borders.

The United States was not at the bottom of the 42 nations listed in the report. Even poor children in the United States are better off than in Russia, Chile, Spain, India, Turkey, Israel, Costa Rica, Brazil, South Africa, China, and other countries.

Lie #3 — Former President Barack Obama didn’t separate illegal immigrant families

JOE BIDEN: “We didn’t lock people up in cages, we didn’t separate families.”

THE TRUTH: Biden’s comment about cages and family separation are both completely wrong.

The so-called “cages” — chain-link enclosures inside border facilities where illegal immigrants have been temporarily housed, separated by sex and age — were built and used by the Obama administration. The Trump administration has been using the same facilities as the Obama administration.

Democrats routinely accuse Trump of using “cages” for children when they’re caught crossing the border illegally. But the media and Democrats don’t acknowledge that the same enclosures were employed when Biden was vice president.

No one cared then. Now that a Republican is in office, they’re suddenly “concentration camps”?

The Obama administration also separated children from families under certain circumstances, like when the child’s safety appeared at risk or when the parent had a criminal history.

Lie #4 — “Medicare for All” will save taxpayers money

SANDERS: “Every study done shows that ‘Medicare for All’ is the most cost-effective approach to providing health care to every man, woman and child in this country.”

THE TRUTH: It’s the exact opposite, according to experts.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in a report earlier this year that total spending under a single-payer system, such as the one proposed by Sanders, “might be higher or lower than under the current system depending on the key features of the new system.”

Those features involve details about payment rates for hospitals and doctors, which are not fully spelled out by Sanders, as well as the estimated cost of generous benefits that include long-term care services and no copays and deductibles for comprehensive medical care.

A report this year by the nonprofit Rand think tank estimated that “Medicare for All” would actually increase national health spending, the opposite of what Sanders claimed.

Rand modeled a hypothetical scenario in which a plan similar to legislation by the Vermont senator had taken effect this year. It found that total U.S. health care spending would be nearly $4 trillion under “Medicare for All” in 2019, compared with about $3.8 trillion under the status quo.

Lie #5 — Donald Trump wasn’t indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller only because of a legal loophole

KAMALA HARRIS, on Trump: “The only reason he has not been indicted is because there was a memo in the Department of Justice that says a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.”

THE TRUTH: Not according to former special counsel Robert Mueller.

He never said that in his 440+ report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election, and corrected the misinformation when questioned by Congressional leaders while under oath.

Harris is referring to a Justice Department legal opinion that says sitting presidents may be immune from indictment. But Mueller said that they never reached a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.

In Mueller’s congressional testimony in July, he said his team never even started the process of evaluating whether to charge Trump.

Hilllary Still Is Running The Democratic Party

They Keep Trying

Nothing More True Has Ever Been Said

Trey Gowdy Issues Heartbreaking Plea to US Congress That Democrats Plan to Ignore

2 DAYS AGO

 0

The world we live in is full of heartbreak.

And former congressman Trey Gowdy is no stranger to grief and misery, either.

So, to prevent future tragedy, Trey Gowdy issued a heartbreaking plea to the US Congress that Democrats plan to ignore.

In an emotional interview (that you may have missed), the former South Carolina congressman said that he can’t stand to see mass shooters mow down droves of civilians.

Nearly every single person can agree with that sentiment.

Unfortunately, far too many people become overly emotional when it comes to the subject of guns and gun violence. Which is why there’s a tendency for people to instantly scream out for more gun laws to prevent future murder.

It’s hard to blame them for wanting to stop mass shootings.

But passing new gun laws certainly isn’t the answer.

Which is why a heartbroken Gowdy practically begged the American people and the legislators who represent them to rethink their positions on passing more gun control to stop shootings.

On FOX News, Gowdy said, “the right-to-life is the most fundamental, basic, primary right that we have. It is the right from which all other rights emanate.”

And because that right is so important, he doesn’t believe it should be abridged.

Gowdy went on to say that there are plenty of laws on the books already meant to “solve” the issue of gun violence. Gun control failed to stop these tragedies and more attempts to grab guns will only result in law abiding gun owners seeing their freedoms attacked.

“More laws that are not going to be enforced is a panacea and it won’t work,” he said.

Gowdy hammered the point home when he said, “Show me a law that will prevent the next Sandy Hook and sign me up as a husband and father…and I’ll give up any other right I have.”

What at first might be construed as an anti-gun statement is actually Gowdy illustrating a point.

No law is going to stop a shooting… laws don’t stop bad guys from doing bad things. And so creating more laws that limit freedom don’t benefit anyone – other than psychopaths who are willing to exploit these laws.

Consider the manifesto of the El Paso shooter. In it, he wrote explicitly about his decision to choose a gun-free zone as his target of choice.

He wrote:

“Remember: it is not cowardly to pick low hanging fruit. AKA (sic) Don’t attack heavily guarded areas to fulfll (sic) your super soldier COD [Call of Duty first person shooter video game] fantasy. Attack low security targets. Even though you might out gun a security guard or police man, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers. Do not throw away your life on an unnecessarily dangerous target. If a target seems too hot, live to fight another day.”

Gowdy is well aware this is how insane people act.

And his emotional plea for Americans to think rationally about gun laws proves he doesn’t think more gun control is the answer.

Sadly, Democrats don’t believe the same things Gowdy and the rest of America believe.

Gun grabbers don’t see mass shootings as tragedies.

They view the loss of innocent life as an opportunity to attack the Second Amendment and strip away the right to keep and bear arms.

No fewer than half a dozen gun laws are on the table right now, all of which will strip us of freedoms endowed to us by the Constitution and our Creator. Democrats are salivating at the chance to pass them even when Gowdy rightfully pointed out the current ones aren’t working as is…

Biased Hell, They Are Outright Lying

Study Confirms What We’ve Been Saying All Along: CNN, MSNBC Push Biased News

58Shares

 34

 8

 2

 13

Conservatives have long contended broadcast and cable news networks are biased in their reporting. Those same networks dismiss that claim as baseless.

Now the Media Research Center (MRC) has the data that proves what those on the right knew from experience. The MRC study shows CNN and MSNBC hosts Democratic representatives and senators seven times more frequently than their Republican counterparts.

The study also shows that even when networks like CNN interviews a Republican, they use Democratic talking points as the basis for their questioning.

To compile its report, MRC randomly selected three weeks of every broadcast on CNN and MSNBC in the hours from 6am to Midnight Eastern time. The weeks (January 7-11, March 25-29 and June 10-14) offered 540 hours of programming to consider for the study.

MSNBC was the most partisan where it interviewed congressional Democrats 13 times more than their Republican counterparts. During those sample weeks MSNBC featured 148 Democrats and only 11 Republicans.

CNN wasn’t much better with a ratio of 136 Democrats and 29 Republicans interviewed.

Although Republicans hold the majority in the Senate, 87 percent of interviews by the two networks involved Democrats. Of the 103 interviews considered, 90 were with Democrats and just 10 with Republicans.

This disparity is made worse by the fact mainstream media “journalists” do not conduct equally hard-hitting interviews with both sides. Both CNN and MSNBC routinely ask adversarial questions of Republicans that favor Democratic agenda.

When those networks feature Republican panelist, they are #NeverTrumpers like Bill Crystal.

The methodology used by MRC is that an agenda question was defined as one in which the interviewee used recognizable talking point from the opposing party.

Republican guests were posed with a total of 310 questions in which just over half reflected the agenda of one party or the other. But that is where “fair and balanced” ended. Of those 156 questions that reflected the agenda of one party, 97 percent reflected an adversarial/Democratic agenda. Only four questions showed a friendlier, Republican agenda.

Democrats experienced markedly more hospitable questions. The MRC study showed:

Of 660 questions identified as having a partisan tilt (out of 1,653 total questions), 535 (81%) were based on a friendly Democratic agenda, while the remaining 125 (19%) asked the Democrats to respond to an adversarial/Republican agenda.

Recommended

Trump Video Banned by CNN (Watch it here)

The Washington Post ignored these raw numbers by dismissing any suggestion there is proof of bias. When Paul Farhi of the Post asked rhetorically if the media has become more biased, he protested, “there’s little to suggest that over the past few decades news reporting has become more favorable to one party.”

David D’Alessio, a communications sciences professor at the University of Connecticut at Stamford agreed with The Washington Post saying his studies showed something quite different than MRC.

The problem with the professor’s claim is that he drew his conclusion from 99 studies of campaign news coverage done over the last 60 years. MRC, on the other hand, took the time to watch CNN and MSNBC to see what and how they were reporting.

Examples MRC offers of a Democratic agenda question being posed to a Republican are:

• CNN’s Wolf Blitzer to Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) on The Situation Room, January 7, “The President has largely dismissed concerns about federal workers not receiving their paychecks … Do you believe President Trump understands the financial hardships these Americans and their families are about to go through?”
• MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki to Congressman Kelly Armstrong (R-ND) on MTP Daily, June 10, “Special Counsel … says there are 10 potential instances here of obstruction of justice involving the President of the United States — if you don’t want impeachment and you are on the Judiciary Committee, what do you do?”

Sometimes this bias can be seen more in what is not reported rather than what is. At the end of Barack Obama’s presidency, USA Today’s editors repeated almost verbatim his claim that his administration had been scandal-free.

The mainstream media was largely silent about what they should have seen as major scandals. NBC’s Tom Brokaw glibly repeated Obama’s scandal-free talking points despite the investigation into the ATF’s Fast and Furious program and Republican investigations into the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups.

A 2018 Axios poll revealed that 92 percent of Republicans believe the media intentionally reports false stories. Perhaps that’s because CNN and MSNBC have done their best to prove them right.

Maybe Getting A Gun Is Not That Easy!

REPORTER TRIES TO SHOW HOW EASY IT IS TO BUY GUNS AT WALMART – FAILS BACKGROUND CHECK!

Mission abandoned after reporter encounters numerous complications

Adan Salazar | Infowars.com - AUGUST 22, 2019 74 Comments 

IMAGE CREDITS: BUSINESS INSIDER, HAYLEY PETERSON.

A reporter who attempted to prove it’s far too easy to obtain a firearm in America instead managed to prove the opposite.

Business Insider reporter Hayley Peterson was on a mission to buy a gun from Walmart, but she ultimately failed to do so.

“I went to Walmart with the intention of buying a gun last week as part of an investigation into the placement, selection, marketing, and security of firearms in Walmart’s stores, and to learn more about the retailer’s processes governing gun sales,” Peterson wrote.

“My journey to bring a gun home from Walmart turned out to be far more complicated than I expected.”

The complications started immediately when Peterson tried to figure out which Walmart locations actually sell firearms.

“I searched Walmart.com and Google on August 13 to find out which of the 10 Walmart stores near me sold guns, and I failed to come up with any definitive answers,” she wrote.

After calling several Walmart stores, she was directed to a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives website which lists firearm retailers.

She next tried to visit the Walmart Supercenter in Chesterfield, Virginia, which sold guns, however she was again foiled when a manager told her the employee in charge of selling the guns would not be in for another two days:

“After a few minutes, a Walmart manager arrived at the gun-sales counter. She said I could not buy a gun that day because no authorized firearm sellers were scheduled to work.”

After leaving the store empty-handed, she tried again two days later, traveling thirty minutes to the store, and met with the employee in charge of firearm sales.

As she filled out the National Instant Criminal Background Check System paperwork, Peterson was informed she’d be unable to buy a gun because her address did not match the one on her driver’s license.

Thwarted multiple times, Peterson finally gave up and admitted it’s harder to purchase a gun than she previously thought.

“Overall, the experience left me with the impression that buying a gun at Walmart is more complicated than I expected, and that Walmart takes gun sales and security pretty seriously.”

Peterson’s efforts come as Walmart has faced calls to stop selling guns due to a shooting in El Paso earlier this month that left 22 dead.