Posts

Voter Fraud has Become a Staple of the Modern Democratic Party

As reported in the WSJ article “Heed Jimmy Carter on the Danger of Mail-In Voting,” a bi-2005 partisan commission co-chaired by former president Jimmy Carter determined that mail-in ballots are the greatest source of potential voter fraud.

Opposition to voter ID laws facilitates voter fraud. Despite feigned protests to the contrary, voter ID laws are not racist, nor do they suppress minority voting. How does requiring voters to present a photo ID suppress the ability of any adult citizen to vote? Government-issued photo IDs are easily obtainable by every legitimate voter in America, including those who don’t drive. Virtually every voting-age citizen already has photo identification, yet Democrats aggressively oppose laws that require presenting photo IDs to vote.

Partial list of things that require photo identification

  • Driving a vehicle
  • Airport check-in
  • Hotel check-in
  • Hospitals & outpatient testing
  • Doctors’ offices
  • Social Security office
  • Medicare/Medicaid
  • Pawn shop transactions
  • Federal, state & local courts
  • Military bases
  • Donating blood
  • Volunteering at charities
  • Professional applications
  • College applications
  • Job applications
  • Buying a house
  • Boarding a cruise ship
  • Boarding a train
  • Getting a license to hunt or fish
  • Buying cigarettes & alcohol
  • Opening a bank account
  • Applying for credit
  • Cashing a check
  • Getting a tattoo or body piercing
  • Getting a library card
    Visiting Congress

And here’s a list of things that don’t require photo ID (in many Democrat-run jurisdictions):

  • Voting

Democrat election official admits rampant absentee ballot fraud

As reported by The New York Post, Manhattan Board of Elections commissioner Alan Shulkin was caught on a Project Veritas undercover video slamming Mayor Bill de Blasio’s municipal ID program as contributing to “all kinds of fraud,” including voter fraud. Here’s more of what Commissioner Shulkin had to say:

  • “I think there’s a lot of voter fraud.”
  • “There’s thousands of absentee ballots and I don’t know where they came from.”
  • “In some neighborhoods they bus people around to vote, they take them from poll to poll.”
  • “De Blasio’s municipal IDs can be used for anything, including voting.”
  • “The city doesn’t vet people who get ID cards to see who they really are.”
  • “Anybody can go in there and say I am John Smith and I want an ID card.”

When Shulkin’s comments were made public, he was told by Democratic Party officials to hit the road.

NYC Democratic Election Commissioner, “They Bus People Around to Vote”

EXPOSED: Nationwide voter fraud operation funded by the DNC

As Bernie Sanders can attest, his 2016 run for the presidency was rigged out of existence by collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, both of which were implicated in a nationwide voter fraud operation. Three weeks prior to the election, investigative journalist James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released two videos of an undercover sting in which high-level Democrat operatives bragged about running a nationwide voter fraud operation financed by the DNC and the Clinton campaign:

● “We’ve been busing in people [illegal voters] for 50 years and we’re not going to stop now.”
●”[We know] this is illegal.”
● “I think backward from how they would prosecute us, and then try to build out a method to avoid [getting caught].”
● “We implement the plan across every Republican-held state.”
● “[Our operation] causes massive changes in state legislatures and Congress.”
● “Hillary knows what’s going on.”

One of the covert operatives caught in the Project Veritas sting is a longtime Democrat named Bob Creamer. Found guilty in 2005 of tax violations and bank fraud, Creamer has been a highly respected player in Democratic Party politics for more than 30 years. Official visitor logs show the convicted felon visited the Obama White House 342 times, including 47 personal meetings with President Obama, a fact that was buried by the mainstream media when O’Keefe’s explosive exposé was released less than a month before the election Hillary Clinton was heavily favored to win.

Voter fraud has become a staple of the modern Democratic Party

Democrats say voter fraud is a myth, and that voter ID laws are nothing more than a racist effort by Republicans to suppress minority voting. In fact, voter fraud is a pervasive, nationwide problem that’s given a wink and a nod at the highest levels of the Democratic Party.

In 2013, a Cincinnati Democrat activist named Melowese Richardson was convicted of multiple counts of voter fraud. When released early from a 5-year prison sentence, Richardson was hailed by Al Sharpton as a conquering hero at a “Welcome Home” party held in her honor by Ohio Democrats. That Sharpton publicly hailed Richardson as a hero shows that acceptance of voter fraud extends to the highest level of the Democratic Party. Invited to the Obama White House 61 times, Sharpton was (and still is) one of Barack Obama’s most trusted confidants on race, and his public honoring of a convicted voter fraud felon would not have occurred without the knowledge of President Obama.

In the early 1970s, the post-JFK Democratic Party adopted Saul Alinsky as its most revered political strategist. A Marxist community organizer in Chicago, Alinsky believed that socialists are so morally and intellectually superior that their ideas must prevail at all costs. That ends-justify-the-means-mentality is why Democrats are furiously demanding mail-in voting for the November elections.

©John Edison. All rights reserved.

The Election Heist: ‘In 2020, governments still do not take the threat of a major election security breach seriously.’

“In his new political thriller, The Election Heistnovelist Ken Timmerman has written another page-turner, with all the suspense of election drama, voter recounts, and political high-stakes poker the way the game is played in today’s super-charged political reality. If you enjoy the scheming of talented but devious political operatives, media personalities angling to make their careers on a ‘gotcha’ moment, and the winner-take-all gambles today’s candidates for political office must take, this is a book you can’t afford to miss.”  — Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., bestselling author of “The Obama Nation,” “Unfit For Command,” and many others

“Americans will be shocked to learn that even their paper ballots are not secure if the software that counts them can be compromised. In addition to being top rate entertainment, The Election Heist was a real eye opener.”  — Rep. John Rutherford (FL-4)

“In 2020, governments still do not take the threat of a major election security breach seriously. Ken Timmerman gets it! His scenario in this book is all too plausible, which means the realities are chilling… A good and timely read.”  — Tom Malatesta, nationally recognized cyber security expert

“If you don’t think election security is important, think again. Ken Timmerman’s new book shows why all of us should be worried about the 2020 election.”  — Stephen Moore, economic advisor to President Trump and Heritage Foundation senior fellow

“Every American voter who cares about the integrity of our election processes, regardless of political affiliation, should read The Election Heist. Only someone who has been in the political warfare trenches like Ken Timmerman could write such a timely, political thriller ‘work of fiction’ like this.”   — Hon. Joseph E. Schmitz, former Inspector General of the Department of Defense and author, “The Inspector General Handbook: Fraud, Waste, Abuse, and Other Constitutional ‘Enemies, Foreign and Domestic'”

“A political thriller that will keep you at the edge of your seat unable to put it down.”  — Lady Brigitte Gabriel, bestselling author, founder and chairman, ACT for America

“Thank God voting machines in America are secure for now, otherwise The Election Heist provides a fictional account of a horrible disaster very different from the nightmare we already face of corrupted voter rolls, absentee ballot fraud, and administrative incompetence in election offices across the country.” — J. Christian Adams, member of President Donald Trump’s advisory commission on election integrity, President of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, Department of Justice voting veteran, and New York Times bestselling author of “Injustice”

About the Author

Kenneth R. Timmerman is a nationally recognized investigative reporter, novelist, and war correspondent who was nominated for the Nobel Peace prize in 2006. He is the New York Times bestselling author of ten books on national security issues, as well as three novels and the critical biography, Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson. His work is regularly featured on FoxNews opinion, FrontPage Magazine, Breitbart, the New York Post, and elsewhere. In 2012, he was the Republican nominee for congress in Maryland’s 8th district.

“Presenting the Nobel Peace Prize to Kenneth Timmerman and John Bolton will strengthen those in the world…who are today trying to find ways and means of putting a stop to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.”—Nominating letter to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee from former Swedish deputy prime minister Per Ahlmark.


TO ORDER A COPY OF “ELECTION HEIST”

PLEASE CLICK HERE.


©All rights reserved.

Unfit To Print Episode 66: Democratic Conspiracies About USPS are Russiagate 2.0

Democrats are accusing President Donald Trump of trying to steal the 2020 election by slowing down the mail and carting off mailboxes. Several viral tweets purported to show mailboxes being thrown out at industrial sites, while others claimed that mailboxes had red locks on them to make sure people couldn’t turn in their ballots.

The tweets were missing vital context, such as the fact that the mailboxes were being refurbished and that the USPS had to put locks on some boxes to prevent mail theft. In this week’s episode of “Unfit to Print,” Amber Athey breaks down how the Democrats are drumming up Russiagate 2.0 to preemptively dismiss the results of the election.

LISTEN:

COLUMN BY

AMBER ATHEY

Podcast columnist.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Critics Push Conspiracy Theories About Postal Service Mailboxes

Unfit To Print Episode 64: Media Refuses To Cover George Floyd Body Cam Footage

Unfit To Print Episode 63: Media Applauds NBA Anthem Kneeling, Avoids League Kneeling To China

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Media’s coverage of the Democratic National Convention, dishonest and unfair!

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

CLAY CLARK

Clay Clark former SBA Entrepreneur of the Year and the Founder of Thrive15.com — a highly respected Business School as seen on Forbes, Bloomberg and YahooFinance. He is also a Contributor for Entrepreneur Magazine, and is an investor and co-owner of several multi-million dollar companies around the world.

TOPIC: It’s imperative America open back up for business!

JULIO GONZALEZ

Julio Gonzalez nationally recognized Tax Reform Expert and CEO of Engineered Tax Services. His expertise and strong presence in the field is helping define our current tax laws. Under Gonzalez’s guidance, Engineered Tax Services is one of the largest, fastest growing, and most innovative engineering, energy, and specialty tax credit services firms in the country.

TOPIC:Florida is not suffering the economic crisis!

DAN GAINOR

Dan Gainor Vice President for Business and Culture for the Media Research Center. He is also a veteran editor whose work has been published or cited in the following media: Congressional Quarterly.com, Investor’s Business Daily, Chicago Sun-Times, New York Post, Washington Times, Orange County Register, San Diego Union-Tribune, Dateline Washington, Janet Parshall’s America, Chuck Harder Show, Thom Hartmann Show, American Family Radio, CNBC’s “Power Lunch,” CNN’s “Paula Zahn Now” and Fox’s “Hannity & Colmes” and “Fox Business Live.”

TOPIC: Media’s coverage of the Democratic National Convention, dishonest and unfair!

©All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Tucker brings us some of the DNC conference that for some reason, was not on TV

‘Ilhan Omar has almost certainly committed the most extensive spree of felonies by a congressperson in U.S. history’

Ilhan Omar will not be prosecuted, or even investigated. She can do whatever she wants. Why? Because she is a leftist, a black person, a woman, and a Muslim. Those are the groups that really have privilege in American society today. Those four aspects of Omar’s identity are the reasons why she will not be prosecuted. Anyone who dared to prosecute her would be excoriated in the establishment media as a racist “Islamophobe.” Few have the courage to stand up against that onslaught.

“Ilhan Omar must resign: New evidence from nearly three dozen Somalis reveals a probable spree of felonies,” by David Steinberg, The Blaze, August 10, 2020:

According to the media’s general judgment, 2020 U.S. voters are most concerned with purportedly complex issues of crime and justice. Voters should place no trust in this. This same media forbade itself to investigate a simple, yet objectively historic corruption scandal of national interest.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has almost certainly committed the most extensive spree of felonies by a congressperson in U.S. history. As a criminal, she also appears to be historically inept. Scores of verified items of evidence against her are in the public record. Omar has never challenged their authenticity and has never produced a single piece of evidence to support her version of events.

She faces a primary on Tuesday. She again won her party’s endorsement. She again won House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s endorsement — and her funding.

The mainstream media judges this remarkable situation to be irrelevant to Minnesota voters, let alone the dominant concern. Editorial malpractice on issues of crime, justice, and the 2020 election spreads everywhere this summer; by no coincidence, the spread can be traced to irresponsible media coverage of a deadly riot in Rep. Omar’s district.

Below are 32 new, verifiable, archived pieces of evidence of Omar’s historic crime spree.

Above: One of many Somali-language tributes to “Colonel Nur Said Elmi,” Rep. Ilhan Omar’s father, sent from around the world by family, friends, and contacts following his tragic June 2020 death from a COVID-19 infection. As a high-ranking officer in Somalia’s (U.S.-backed) military from the 1970s until 1991, he was well known by this name and title.

In mid-June, Ilhan Omar’s father tragically died from a COVID-19 infection. Expressions of grief, condolences, and prayers arrived from around the world, but particularly from the Somali-speaking immigrant community of Minneapolis and from the U.K. By all accounts, he earned his reputation as a gentle, kind neighbor, well known and beloved within Cedar-Riverside, as he had been in Somalia.

His relevance to Rep. Omar’s landmark scandal is, of course, his birth name. Upon arriving in the United States in 1995, he claimed to be “Nur Omar Mohamed” and received a Social Security number with this name. However, all appeared to know him as Nur Said. He presented himself as Nur Said. Both Ilhan and her sister Sahra Noor referred to their father as Nur Said (prior to deleting the evidence). He is identified on-screen as “Nur Said, Ilhan’s father” in the 2018 documentary film “Time for Ilhan” and again as “Nur Said” in the credits. Twice.

Most importantly, British citizen Leila Nur Said Elmi declared her father to be “Nur Said Elmi, military officer on her 1997 marriage application. (Click the link to see the application and a photo of Leila Nur Said Elmi with both Ilhan and Nur Said.)

From 2009 until 2017, Ilhan Omar was married (by a Christian minister) to British citizen Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. Somali naming customs are patrilineal and do not use family surnames. For example, “Ahmed Nur Said Elmi” implies that Ahmed’s father is “Nur,” his grandfather is “Said,” and his great-grandfather is “Elmi.”

Also from 2009 until 2017, Ilhan Omar lived with, raised three kids with, and illegally filed multiple joint tax returns with a second man — not Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.

Just a couple months after marrying, Ilhan and her legal husband both enrolled at North Dakota State University and received federal financial aid. Married couples are not required to submit evidence of their respective parents’ assets on FAFSA applications and thus likely receive much more favorable loan terms.

Almost certainly, Rep. Omar fraudulently married her brother, a British citizen, in the service of immigration fraud, education fraud, and federal student loan fraud. Along the way, she filed at least two years of fraudulent tax returns, and possibly eight. She lived in several different subsidized housing units during this time. She likely received subsidized health care and child care during this time. For eight years, every application she signed for state and federal aid was likely fraudulent. During her 2017 divorce from Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, Ilhan submitted a nine-question statement to the court signed under penalty of perjury. Literally — she signed just below the statement of acknowledgment. Eight of her nine answers appear to be perjurious. Each instance is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.

The paperwork she signed for her successful 2016 run and two-year tenure as a Minnesota state representative may contain instances of perjury as well.

It appears that the media may be waiting for verifiable references to her father as “Nur Said Elmi” rather than “Nur Said.” Logically, this should not be considered necessary, considering the following:

  1. Ilhan’s father and her father-in-law would have been named “Nur Said.”
  2. Only one “Nur Said” in the necessary age range appears in publicly available archives in either the U.S. or U.K.

However, here these references are. Below are dozens of new, verifiable, archived references to father as “Nur Said Elmi” from family, friends, and contacts. You will also find many new references to his daughter Leyla Nur Said Elmi, his son Mohamed Nur Said Elmi, and even to his son Ahmed Nur Said Elmi…

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Palestinians’ Are Enraged at Trump’s Israel-UAE Deal, Which Means It Must Be Good

Austria: Muslim migrant ‘guardians of morals’ threaten ‘too Western’ women, hang their pictures in mosques

India: Muslim kidnaps minor Hindu girl at gunpoint, cops insist it’s a ‘love affair,’ refuse to investigate

French cops in Muslim no-go zone: ‘You only have to move somewhere else’ or go vigilante

France: Calais mayor says UK has ‘declared maritime war’ by stopping illegal Muslim boat migrants

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

FIRE FAUCI: Early Hydroxychloroquine Use Had 79% LOWER MORTALITY RATE, Massive New Study

VIDEO: Massive International Study Shows Countries with Early HCQ Use Had 79% Lower Mortality Rate

Over 100,000 American lives could have been saved…..

JAIL FAUCI: Massive International Study Shows Countries with Early HCQ Use Had 79% Lower Mortality Rate — THIS IS HUGE!

We Are Talking Over 100,000 American Lives!

By Jim Hoft, August 6, 2020:

The latest international testing of hydroxychloroquine treatment of coronavirus shows countries that had early use of the drug had a 79% lower mortality rate than countries that banned the use of the safe malaria drug.

This means that Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, the CDC, the liberal fake news media and the tech giants have been pushing a lie that has had deadly consequences!

America has lost (reportedly) over 150,000 lives.And that could have been lowered by nearly 80% if HCQ use would have been promoted in the US.

On Wednesday night Dr. Ramin Osoui went on with Laura Ingraham to discuss this study that involves the populations of 2 billion people.

Dr. Ramin Oskoui says there needs to be consequences for such glaring and deadly errors that cost tens of thousands of lives.

Dr. Oskoui: It’s really devastating to Dr. Fauci, Dr. Hahn, Dr. Redfield and their performance. I think not only should they be embarrassed but I think they really need to be held to account… Physicians have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of their patients.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Minnesota’s Largest Newspaper Endorses Ilhan Omar Primary Challenger, Cites Omar’s ‘Ethical Distractions’

Biden Suggests Diversity Of Thought Doesn’t Exist In Black Community

Real Fascism: L.A. Mayor Garcetti authorizes city to shut off power, water to buildings hosting gatherings

DHS insider: Ilhan Omar won’t be prosecuted for marrying her brother (ugh)

28 Million Mail-In Ballots Went Missing in Last Four Elections

New York: SOROS-Backed Radical Attorney General Seeks to Dissolve NRA in Its Entirety In New Lawsuit

Twitter banned President Trump campaign from sharing crucial Coronavirus information

Jihad-Jew-Hater Ilhan Omar Pushes Anti-Jews Boycott Targeting ‘Employer of Thousands of Her Voters’

Deadly Shooting Rocks NFL Player’s Massive Party

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Panicking over climate change has a cost, too

False Alarm: How Climate Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet” is the new book by the Danish political scientist and author, Bjørn Lomborg.

In it, Lomborg hones in on the subject which is rapidly becoming the most consequential area of political and social debate: climate change.

The risks posed by climate change, he argues, are exaggerated. Furthermore, the policy measures which governments around the world have embraced – like subsidising solar and wind power – are failing miserably.

Most importantly of all, a continuation of this fear-driven approach will result in serious costs to the world’s population over the next century, particularly poorer people in developing countries who cannot enter the middle-class without access to the affordable and reliable energy which comes from fossil fuels.

In spite of the obvious trade-off, it has almost become an axiom that climate change is an existential threat to mankind, and that all measures which could be taken to cut emissions should be taken, regardless of the financial or practical cost.

Just a few years ago, for instance, calls for a 50 percent reduction in carbon emissions over the next decade would have been dismissed as being completely unachievable.

Yet now, that target is part of a Programme for Government which Ireland has happily signed up to.

These policy changes could not have occurred if a large segment of the population were not deeply worried.

A narrative this dominant inevitably seeps through to most of society. This is shown in polls cited by Lomborg which show that significant percentages of the world’s population – including four in ten Americans – believe global warming will lead to mankind’s extinction.

Here, as he has done in previous books such as “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming,” Lomborg calmly examines the facts and argues that this extreme pessimism is unfounded, given the undeniable progress which humankind has made.

Since 1900, average life expectancy has more than doubled, from 33 to 71. Rates of absolute poverty and illiteracy have shrunk and child labour has become rarer.

On the whole, people are living longer, healthier, more prosperous and more peaceful lives than ever before, and there is a very good chance that this progress will continue, with UN researchers estimating that by 2100 average incomes will be at 450 percent of today’s levels.

This much is hard to dispute given the abundance of data available, but interestingly Lomborg also asserts that the health of the planet is actually improving in ways which benefit us substantially.

“Higher agricultural yields and changing attitudes to the environment have meant rich countries are increasingly preserving forests and reforesting. And since 1990, 2.6 billion more people gained access to improved water sources, bringing the global total to 91 percent,” Lomborg notes. “Many of these improvements have come about because we have gotten richer, both as individuals and as nations.”

This is a core point in his overall argument. While many self-described environmentalists and socialists (these days, the two groups are scarcely distinguishable) claim that economic prosperity threatens the planet, Lomborg takes the opposite viewpoint.

Not only does greater wealth improve the quality of life, enhanced affluence also allows us to focus more attention on protecting the world around us.

To be clear, Lomborg is not a “climate change denier.”

A committed environmentalist, he refrains from eating meat, and welcomes the recent tendency to avoid giving the oxygen of publicity to those who dispute the science about rising temperatures.

Lomborg believes that climate change will have a negative impact overall, and insists it needs to be tackled.

However, he takes aim at those who have exaggerated the damage which has been occurring.

In the wake of any extreme weather events, politicians and campaigners are quick to point to the enormous economic toll as a reason to support measures such as new taxes, the closure of high-emitting industries, anti-car policies or dramatic changes to farming practices.

This, to Lomborg, is a false alarm.

True, the costs related to increased flooding or forest fires have increased, and rare events such as hurricanes or tropical storms can also pose enormous challenges.

But this increased cost comes at a time when we are much better able to afford to repair what nature has wrought, and where our improved material conditions mean we are far less likely to be physically harmed.

As Lomborg observes, deaths from climate-related disasters have dropped dramatically over the last century, at a time when carbon emissions and temperatures were going up. In the 1920s, such disasters killed almost 500,000 people annually, but now claim fewer than 20,000 lives annually, in spite of the world’s population having increased fourfold over the last century.

Higher incomes make for better and more secure housing, and as the developing world continues to make economic advances, the numbers dying needlessly due to natural disasters will likely fall even further.

While increased economic damage over the next century is very likely, there is an explanation for this too. As the world’s population has increased, so too has the number of houses and the amount of infrastructure in place.

The same sized flood or storm today will cause more financial damage than it would have a century ago, but recent economic growth means we are better able to afford this.

One of the areas where alarmist media coverage has been most evident is the issue of rising sea levels.

Prominent media outlets frequently point to a future where many large cities are submerged below water, as if this was going to happen suddenly, and as if humans were powerless to take defensive action.

Here again, Lomborg draws attention to what should be obvious.

Significant portions of the world are already at or below sea level and thriving regardless. The Netherlands and large areas of Vietnam, for instance, have long safeguarded low-lying areas by investing in dikes, dams and other flood protection measures.

As sea levels rise, a large amount of additional investment will be needed elsewhere in the next century, but again, this is far from being beyond the means of developed – and even developing – countries.

The greatest value of Lomborg’s analysis lies in his examination of the costs and benefits of existing policy approaches.

Given the consistent failure of solar and wind power to deliver results, he is deeply sceptical about large-scale investment in those areas, but he does have a number of policy recommendations, including the dedication of far more resources to efforts to adapt to a warming planet; a universal but modest carbon tax; and a dramatic increase in R&D spending on new technologies.

Above all else, Lomborg’s message is that we need to view the problem differently. Climate change, he writes, “is not like a huge asteroid hurtling towards Earth, where we need to stop everything else and mobilise the entire global economy to ward off the end of the world. It is instead a long-term chronic condition like diabetes – a problem that needs attention and focus, but one that we can live with.”

In this new reality, where every facet of government policy is likely to be impacted by how we respond to our planet’s changing climate, remaining out of this debate is no longer an option.

As such, it is well-worth taking the time to hear the views of a true humanist, a man who is confident that we have the ability not just to adapt and survive, but to prosper and improve as well.

James Bradshaw

James Bradshaw works for an international consulting firm based in Dublin, and has a background in journalism and public policy. Outside of work, he writes for a number of publications, on topics including… 

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

As Palestinian Authority calls for jihad against Israel, US House Subcommittee votes to give it $250,000,000

“PA-affiliated TV channels have been running a video including a song with an explicit call for ‘jihad’ — a holy war — against Israel until ‘it is too late.’” — i24News, July 6, 2020

No problem! If the House Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs gets its way, money for that jihad is coming just in time, straight from the Great Satan.

“US House Subcommittee Passes $250 Million in Funding for Palestinian Authority Arabs,” JNS News Service, July 10, 2020:

A U.S. House subcommittee included $250 million in funding for Israeli-Palestinian Authority dialogue and Palestinian Authority business development in a $66 billion spending bill passed earlier this week, despite the Trump administration defunding both areas.

The House Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs passed the bill on Monday. It includes $50 million annually over five years for dialogue programs and investment in the Palestinian Authority’s private sector: $110 million for the former and $140 million for the latter.

Additionally, bill seeks “to restore humanitarian and development assistance to Palestinian Authoirty Arabs to continue the viability of a two-state solution by providing resources to organizations working in the West Bank and Gaza,” said House Appropriations Committee chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) in a statement introducing the bill.

It also includes $225 million for Palestinian Authority relief and development, despite the Trump administration slashing funding in that category to virtually zero.

Israel-related lobbying groups AIPAC and J Street have applauded the move…

RELATED ARTICLES:

US State Department lists 101 “Palestinian” acts of violence against Israelis in 2019, when there were actually 1759

“We congratulate Turkey and ourselves for converting Hagia Sophia back to a mosque, it belongs to all Muslims”

Bangladesh: Muslims dig up three-day-old girl’s body from cemetery and leave it by road because she was Ahmadi

Italy: Muslim says coronavirus is ‘something from Allah, a positive thing,’ because ‘people are going mad’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

BEHRENS: Green New Deal 2.0 Doesn’t Make Biden Look Any Less Radical

Meet the “new” Green New Deal…same as the old Green New Deal.

When House Democrats introduced their new climate plan it’s clear they did so not as a serious proposal, but to give cover to Joe Biden. Their problem? Not even their own members are buying it.

You might recall the first version of the Green New Deal met with disaster even among Democrats. Despite her prime role as a media darling, AOC has never had the ability to bring her Green New Deal to a vote in the House. Democrat leaders, including Speaker Pelosi, never signed on to it and the bill was so radioactive not a single member of the Senate voted in favor of it.

For all the attention the eco-radicals and the media garnished for the first Green New Deal, it seems like not a single leader in Washington was eager to actually vote for it. Of course they had good reason, they know it spells catastrophe.

Now Democrats are taking the lemon-with-a-new-coat-of-paint approach to their environmental policy by hoping you won’t notice their new “plan” is just as out of touch as the old one. The goal is clear: Democrats are betting this proposal will appear more reasonable than the original Green New Deal and Biden won’t look like an AOC climate puppet. However, it’s just as much a threat to America’s middle class families, or even worse.

Under the plan, every American will need to budget for a new electric vehicle in the years ahead. They will also need to prepare for skyrocketing electric bills that are the result of government restricting the open energy market. Families already struggling to make ends meet will have to grapple with electric bills increasing 17 percent and forced to pay thousands to come into compliance with the law. All this at the same time millions of their neighbors lose their job in energy producing states like Pennsylvania, Louisiana and New Mexico.

I was wrong. We scared you unnecessarily, says environmentalist

Michael Schellenberger has been called an “environmental guru,” “climate guru,” “North America’s leading public intellectual on clean energy,” and “high priest” of the environmental movement for his writings and TED talks, which have been viewed over five million times. His latest book, Apocalypse Never, is creating a huge controversy. Below he showcases its main ideas.


On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know:

  • Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
  • The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
  • Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
  • Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
  • The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
  • The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
  • Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s
  • Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level
  • We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
  • Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
  • Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
  • Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture

I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.

In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.

Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions

But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.

But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “Climate Change Kills Children.”

The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.”

Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.

Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.

I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.

And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.

It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialization, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.

Some highlights from the book:

  • Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress
  • The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land
  • The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium
  • 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
  • We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities
  • Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
  • Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did
  • “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions
  • Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon
  • The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants

Why were we all so misled?

In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable.” And status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism

Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped.

Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it.

The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop.

The ideology behind environmental alarmsim — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.

But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.

The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, Covid-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe.

Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform.

Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.

Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.

The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.

The invitations from IPCC and Congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another one has been to the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists, and environmental scholars. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley.

“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same.  Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets.  Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”

That is all I hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree that it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist, progressive, and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism.

I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.

This article has been republished with permission from the website of Environmental Progress, which was founded by Michael Schellenberger.

COLUMN BY

Michael Schellenberger

Michael Shellenberger is an American author, environmental policy writer, co-founder of Breakthrough Institute and founder of Environmental Progress.

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The Vortex — Trump and the Tech Tyrants

TRANSCRIPT

Late last Thursday afternoon, President Donald Trump took a step that is emboldening conservatives everywhere. He finally struck out at giant tech and called them out for what they are — political censors.

Ever since his 2016 victory, the social media arm of the Marxist media has turned near-violent against Trump specifically and conservatives in general, zapping and deleting, suspending and deplatforming like crazy.

It’s all in an attempt to ensure that Trump does not get re-elected, and it can’t be surprising. This group hates America and pretty much everything it stands for.

They’ll drone on and on about constitutional rights when they can’t pervert them for, say, dreaming up the right to an abortion out of thin air and pretend that it’s there, right there, buried deep and mysteriously in the constitution, which it’s not.

But when it comes to something as straightforward as free speech, the howls from the lunatics on the Left become deafening. See, the tech tyrants are all for free speech, as long as they get to control it. They have set themselves up as the arbiters of truth — their truth — and you should be privileged and grateful for their service to you.

They go through and routinely screen and ferret out anything that is not liberal, Marxist propaganda and brand it as “violating community standards.” But they never tell the offending party exactly what standard was violated and what community established it.

The Marxist Left, like all divisions on the Left, need to control everything. They block and censor free speech — conservative free speech — because if the truth gets out there, someone like, oh, Donald Trump might become president.

At the conclusion of the 2016 election, during the transition away from an Obama White House and to a Trump administration, while he was still president, Obama even talked about — warned about — the role social media platforms had played in getting Trump elected, and said something had to be done about it.

Since the dominant media has been controlled for decades by the godless Left, it was only a matter of time until the forces of truth found a way to breathe. Truth is like water: It always finds a way. And the Left is like Hell, eternally raging against truth.

So no one could be surprised here that, when conservatives abandoned traditional media and took to the internet and social media, that the tech tyrants would eventually catch on and try to put an end to it. The approaching election has, shall we say, quickened their pace, which brings us back to Trump and last Thursday.

The executive order he signed goes after the tech giants where they live, which is behind a shield that protects them from being sued.

The shield is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, enacted 25 years ago to protect what were then-fledgling companies from being sued for allowing all but the most offensive material on their platforms. The idea was pretty simple. Outfits like YouTube were seen as platforms, and that’s all. They didn’t make decisions about content.

But since Trump’s election, these giant corporations have gone nuclear, no longer being just neutral platforms but actually switching, in practice, to publishers — outfits that make editorial decisions about this is true and this is not, and then censoring what they declare untrue.

What ticked off Trump and then kicked off this whole much-needed action was that Twitter decided to do a “fact check” on a Trump tweet about how mail-in ballots could easily be used to produce fraudulent results. Twitter posted that’s not true — which by the way, it is — and that so ticked off Trump, that he signed his executive order striking directly at Section 230, saying it needs to be re-examined in light of current abuse of it.

In Twitter’s appendage to Trump tweet, it said to get the facts on mail-in ballots and provided a link to — of all things — a CNN story saying mail-in ballots were safe. In the process of saying they’re safe, they apparently forgot a story from a month earlier they had produced saying the exact opposite, highlighting a race where thousands of ballots had gone missing and suddenly showed up.

Tech companies have to make a choice: They are either neutral, at which point Section 230 shields them from being sued, but they can’t censor people — or they can censor all they want, but then they can be sued for violation of free speech, interfering with businesses, meddling with elections and a host of other things. In short, they can’t have it both ways and Trump is calling them out.

United States Attorney General Bill Barr is now on the case, along with the Federal Election Commission, which under the executive order must now hear cases filed by citizens saying the tech giants have interfered in the election. Likewise, the Federal Communications Commission — the FCC — is debating how to react since people, citizens, can now bring their complaints against Silicon Valley to Washington D.C.

The issue isn’t denying the tech tyrants their right to do business as they want. It’s the manifest unfairness of allowing Lefties unfettered access to an audience of hundreds of millions, and yet swatting down conservatives at every turn. And those decisions are being made by Marxists for Marxists, which means believers and conservatives don’t have a prayer. But they do have Trump, who Thursday became the answer to their prayers.

Now here at Church Militant, we have up close and personal experience with this. A few months back, we suddenly — out of the blue — got a notice from the company we used to host our videos. The company’s name is Vimeo.

Vimeo told us they were canceling our contract and that was that. The reason? Because the Marxist-atheist Southern Poverty Law Center — the infamous SPLC — had labeled Church Militant a “hate group” and Vimeo does not do business with hate groups. And 72 hours later, that was that — poof. Access to our videos through Vimeo was a thing of the past.

Simon Rafe here on staff worked some magic behind the scenes and managed to seize and pull down all our inventory of thousands of episodes of premium programming and save it all, but it was touch and go for a while. As an aside, the next time you watch any premium program going forward, say a thank-you prayer for Simon.

This is the reality of the tech world today. It’s controlled by Marxists, just like every other cultural institution, including important parts of the Church.

If you remember, clergy like the lying, plagiarizing Fr. Thomas Rosica as well as Bp. Robert Barron spoke in broad terms about some kind of seal of approval from the Church for catholic social media websites, in effect, censorship by non-approval. That would create an ipso facto blacklist and that is exactly how various clergy would talk about us and others — as not credible, not worth listening to — because we would not be approved. Liberals love censorship.

Vimeo canceled us — as part of the larger cancel culture — because they did not approve of what we say, to which we say “too bad.” This is America, you Marxist morons. Its called “free speech.” You don’t get to censor us. That’s how the marketplace of ideas works. All ideas get a hearing and the truthful ones disprove the false ones and rise to the top. But that presumes an even playing field, a fair game, the rules equally applied.

There are a hundred good reasons Trump should be reelected. This makes it one hundred and one.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

At Least 3 Federal Agencies Investigating Ilhan Omar

With President Trump acquitted of impeachment charges, the focus is back on at least three federal agencies investigating Ilhan Omar.

David Steinberg, who has been closely tracking Ilhan Omar’s legal controversies offers a breakdown on the latest investigations against the freshman congresswoman. Steinberg reports that Omar is under investigation by at least three federal agencies: the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Education (DOE) Inspector General, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

  • In 2019, the FBI held a formal meeting to discuss the evidence against Omar. It has since found this evidence compelling enough to share with the other agencies
  • The DOE is evaluating evidence that Omar married a UK citizen in 2009 with the possible intent to commit student loan fraud
  • ICE is looking at the marriage to a UK citizen through the lens of immigration fraud. This is in reference to the widely circulating rumor that Ilhan Omar married her brother

Possible crimes by Ilhan Omar date back to 2016 when there was already enough evidence to formally look into her background. Publicly available state records plus her own social media posts were significant first-hand evidence. Most were saved before Omar began scrubbing the evidence.

Throughout the investigations, Omar has sailed through media scrutiny because she was packaged and presented by liberals as an opportune foil against President Trump.

The most recent controversy around Omar includes accusations that, while married, she is was having an affair with her political consultant Tim Mynett, which resulted in a divorce for the Mynetts. Despite Omar denying the affair, Mynett’s wife pointed to the affair with Omar as grounds for the divorce.

In January 2020, it was also confirmed that 40 percent of Omar’s campaign fourth-quarter spending in 2019 went to Mynett’s political consulting group. Total amount to Mynett at the tail end of 2019 comes out to $216,564.64.

The only media outlets that challenge Ilhan Omar’s identity-based narrative and are doing their job as journalists are independent personalities and outlets. Those include Scott W. Johnson, Preya Samsundar, PJ MediaJudicial Watch, and Laura Loomer.

Omar’s 2020 re-election for Minnesota’s 5th district is being challenged by Dalia Al-Aqidi.

Al-Aqidi represents the same diverse identity markers the Left loves: She’s a refugee; she’s an immigrant; she’s escaped a war zone; and she’s a Muslim American. Dalia is also a journalist, bringing the same grit to the race to challenge Omar on the one thing that matters most: ideas, service to constituents and community.

Clarion Project spoke with Dalia Al-Aqidi on the issue of multiple law enforcement branches looking into Ilhan Omar’s history. Dalia shares,

“While the FBI does its job, I will continue to do my job as a congressional candidate in Minnesota’s 5th district. The constituents need someone to work for them and that’s what I’m doing. I’m here but where is she?”

While the race is on, journalists with integrity like David Steinberg continue to do the heavy lifting that mainstream media outlets have long abandoned in favor of agenda-driven journalism.

As Steinberg warns Americans of Ilhan Omar’s conduct, he underscores that, “The facts describe[d] perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history.”

RELATED STORIES:

Ilhan Omar Asks for Protection of a Somali Company Linked to Terror

Dalia Al-Aqidi: The Interview Ilhan Omar Refused to Accept

Ilhan Omar Forces New Conversation Around Somali Refugees

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews likens jihad terror mastermind Soleimani to Princess Diana and Elvis Presley [Video]

Matthews is of course correct, except for the minor detail that when Soleimani covered “Don’t Be Cruel,” he sang “Be Cruel.”

These people’s intense hatred of President Trump has driven them mad.

“Chris Matthews Compares Soleimani to Elvis Presley and Princess Diana,” by Andrew Kugle, Washington Free Beacon, January 8, 2020 (thanks to the Geller Report):

MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews on Wednesday night compared deceased Iranian terror master Qassem Soleimani to Elvis Presley and Princess Diana.

“When some people die, you don’t know what the impact is going to be. When Princess Diana died, for example, there was a huge emotional outpouring,” Matthews said. “Elvis Presley in our culture—it turns out that this general we killed was a beloved hero of the Iranian people to the point where—look at the people, we got pictures up now—these enormous crowds coming out. There’s no American emotion in this case, but there’s a hell of a lot of emotion on the other side.”

Soleimani led the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps which trained, funded, and armed Iran-sympathetic terrorist groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and around the Middle East, killing thousands, including hundreds of Americans.

“Should our leaders know what they’re doing when they kill somebody?” Matthews asked Rep. Joaquin Castro (D., Texas).

Castro replied that Trump’s strategy of pulling out of the nuclear deal and putting pressure on Iran has failed.

“They very much could have anticipated that Iranians would react in this way, both the Iranian public but also that the government would strike back,” Castro said. “This speaks to a much larger issue, Chris, which is the president has had a very chaotic and erratic foreign policy, especially with respect to Iran.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sadiq Khan’s London: Islamic Student Association brands US ‘Terrorist State’ at embassy protests

Hamas-linked CAIR claims “discrimination” over Iranian-Canadian complaints about being detained at US border

Soleimani’s Death a Body Blow to the Islamic Republic

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: How Washington Wastes Your Tax Dollars on Art

Should your tax dollars be spent on art of Che Guevara? Watch this video to learn more about how Washington is funding “art” with your money.

COMMENTARY BY

Rick Scott is a U.S. senator from Florida. Twitter: .


The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

EXPOSE CNN PART III: Field Ops Manager at CNN, Zucker’s 9am calls are ‘bullshit; ‘We’re totally Left-Leaning … [but] we don’t want to admit it’

View our latest video HERE.

This is the third video in this series so far.

Monday’s CNN Part 1 can be viewed HEREIt featured CNN Insider Cary Poarch going public and blowing the whistle on bias within the network.

Tuesday’s CNN Part 2 can be viewed HEREThis included CNN Executives and Staffers admitting to their personal and overall corporate bias against certain Democratic Presidential candidates.

Washington, DC: Today’s new video further reveals how several CNN employees really feel about the “compass” of their employer and the network’s agenda, demonstrating how CNN is not the objective news source it claims to be.

Some of the key findings of today’s video:

  • Manager of Field Operations at CNN, Patrick Davis, Complains, “We Could Be So Much Better Than What We Are.”
  • “I Haven’t Listened to a 9AM (Rundown) Call in About 15 Years…Just, I Can’t Listen to It.” Explains Davis, “It’s All Just a Bunch of Bullshit.”
  • Field Production Supervisor at CNN, Gerald Sisnette: “The Only Way This Will Go Away is When He (Trump) Dies. Hopefully Soon.”
  • “They Sold Themselves to the Devil. It’s, It’s Sad.” Laments Floor Manager at CNN, Mike Brevna.
  • “We Used to Cover News,” Complains Senior Field Engineer at CNN, Scott Garber, adding, “We Used to Go Out and Do Stories.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Project Veritas video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.