Here’s What Trump ACTUALLY Thinks of Haitians

LevinTV host Mark Levin corrected the record Friday night on his radio show by playing audio of President Trump speaking fondly of Haitian-Americans.

Trump had been under intense scrutiny for reportedly alluding to Haiti as a “sh*thole” country in an Oval Office meeting with lawmakers Thursday. On Friday, Trump denied making any disparaging remarks.

Levin called the rampant criticism of the president “such an overreaction” and suggested that Democrats are the real racists. Listen to the clips he played of racially-charged statements by Democrats:

(For more from the author of “Here’s What Trump ACTUALLY Thinks of Haitians” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fighting Fake News: Back Door Trick to Enact Censorship

Fighting fake news is the new pretext given by the ruling cabal in many nations to enact censorship via the back door. Amid the rallying cries of “We must fight fake news!” both France (under would-be dictator Macron) and now Brazil are attempting to pass legislation to ban political content on the Web that the government deems to be fake news. There is a theme to this, as it follows on from many acts of censorship in 2016 and 2017. Whether it’s Twitter shadowbanning, Facebook rolling out fake news checkers or deleting entire accounts, YouTube embarking upon soft censorship through forced sign-ins or hard censorship by deleting entire channels, Google’s search engine hiding websites (by de-ranking them) or – worst of all – Google demonetizing content and sites not to its liking, censorship is clearly getting worse and threatening to overtake a free and open Internet.

All in the Name of Fighting Fake News

The big corporations of the Internet have shown their true colors on the issue of censorship vs. free speech. Amazon has been caught banning certain books from being sold on its platform . . . In reaction to the whole “Russian meddling in the US election saga”, which is itself fake news and a tempest in a teapot, Facebook decided to get tough and enlist the help of international fact checkers to do your thinking for you and decide for you what is real news and what is fake news. Funnily enough, it was recently reported that the rollout didn’t go so well, so for the time being Facebook has canned the idea because it was making things worse! Facebook has also been caught banning posts on certain topics (e.g. with and their posts on gun control) or even deleting entire accounts of users it didn’t like (as recently happened with David Icke, whose 700,000+ follower account just got reinstated after being down for 6 days due to an “error” – yeah right).

Twitter is no stranger to censorship either, with its employees boasting of shadow banning (aka stealth banning, ghost banning or comment ghosting), meaning blocking a user or their content from an online community without the user realizing they have been banned. At one point Google publicly floated the idea of deranking and delisting certain sites (they mentioned Russian sites RT and Sputnik), but they later did a U-Turn and claimed they would not be doing that. Obviously, it is easily within their power to tamper with algorithms to include or exclude anything they want, and virtually no one would ever know the search results were being skewed due to Google’s own ideological bias. Google was caught doing this in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 US presidential elections. Indeed, after the firing of ex-Google employee James Damore (who has now initiated a class action lawsuit due to his dismissal), we have to wonder whether bias isn’t already coded into Google’s algorithms just as a result of their orthodoxy and culture (left-wing and promoting diversity at all costs). Recently, Breitbart reported that Google’s fact-checking almost exclusively targets conservative or right-wing media.

It’s not just Google itself. Google-owned YouTube has been embarking on campaigns of both soft censorship and hard censorship. In many ways, soft censorship is more insidious, because then the company can claim plausible deniability and refuse to admit they are even engaged in censorship. In this case, soft censorship refers to when YouTube technically allows people to watch a video, but makes it difficult by putting barriers in the way, e.g. by claiming the content is “age-restricted” (forcing you to open an account, give your details to YouTube and prove that you are of mature age) or using other ways to force you to sign in before being allowed to watch the video. The adpocalypse of 2017 as it was called was perhaps closer to hard censorship, and involved a sweeping demonetization of videos due to “inappropriate content” for advertisers. Finally, YT has actually deleted entire channels on occasion, such as the deletion of Activist Post’s account last year in 2017.

It’s Not Just Fighting Fake News; Censorship Also Thriving under Pretext of Fighting Terrorism, Fighting Hate Speech and Being Political Correct

Fighting fake news gives would-be tyrants a great excuse to censor; however, free speech is also being eroded by the equally vague and nebulous concepts of terrorism and hate speech. The term fake news rose to prominence right around the time that Donal Trump was elected in November 2016, yet there is hardly a clear and widely-agreed upon definition for the phrase. It often gets used by people who seek to criticize information they don’t like, dismiss allegations against them, or even to defend themselves when faced with an unflattering report about themselves. As Glenn Greenwald writes:

Yet, as many have long been warning, few people, if any, ever bothered to define what the term [fake news] actually means. As a result, it’s incredibly vague, shifting, and devoid of consistent meaning. Do any news articles that contain false, significant assertions qualify? Is there some intent requirement, and if so, what is it and how is determined (does recklessness qualify)? Can large mainstream outlets such as the Washington Post, Le Monde, and Globo be guilty of publishing “fake news” and thus subject to this censorship, or is it — as one expects — reserved only for small, independent blogs and outlets that lack a powerful corporate presence?

Ill-defined terms that become popularized in political discourse are, by definition, terms of propaganda rather than reliable, meaningful indicators of problems. And invariably, they wreak all kinds of predictable havoc and inevitably give rise to abuses of power. More than anything else, such terms — which, by design, mean whatever the powerful groups wielding them want them to mean — so often produce arbitrary censorship in the name of combatting them. Just consider two similarly ill-defined but popular propagandistic terms — “terrorism” and “hate speech” — which have been appropriated by governments all over the world to justify the most extreme, repressive powers.

The fake war on terror has given the West – especially the US and UK – lots of mileage to suppress its own citizens. Egypt and Saudi Arabia also jumped in on the act with censorship laws based on terrorism. As for hate speech, it has been used to silence all sorts of opinions . . .

Political correctness is nothing but censorship at the end of the day. It is intolerance disguised as tolerance. As George Carlin said: it is fascism pretending to be manners. There is no right “not to be offended.” It is becoming more and more ludicrous as each year passes, with groups making lists of approved and non-approved terms and insisting that people using the non-approved, “politically incorrect” terms are therefore committing microaggressions against the people who hear them. How much more are we going to take before our range of “permissible” thoughts has been utterly diminished?

When you put all these nebulous but lethal terms together – national security, war on terror, terrorism, hate speech and fake news – it pretty much allows the government to do anything it wants to you, anytime, anywhere, including searching you, robbing you, jailing you and killing you!

Watch out any time politicians invent a new talking point term which is vague and indefinable. That vagueness can be used against you. Fighting fake news is a joke. People are people. As long as humans have had free will and the ability to speak or write, there has always been the possibility of people lying, omitting, distorting or making false claims. It’s part of being alive to develop your discernment and work out what is true or false. Never allow government to pretend it can do this, for the result will always be that the ruling class filters out what its doesn’t want you to know out of self-interest and a desire for more power and control. (For more from the author of “Fighting Fake News: Back Door Trick to Enact Censorship” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pot Is Dangerous, Not Funny — a Doctor Tells Us Why

As a physician, my doctoring knowledge tells me that making marijuana legally available is a bad idea, except perhaps for certain medical conditions. Marijuana is a potent mind-altering drug that can cause serious harm, as I explain below. It will be just one more substance we have to warn our children to stay away from . . .

The growing acceptance of legalized pot is an alarming trend. It has quickly spread in the past few years and today seven states and Washington, D.C., allow recreational marijuana. A total of 29 states and the District of Columbia allow some form of medical marijuana.

Too often, marijuana is treated as a harmless substance – something to joke and giggle about, and something that we see the people we admire on TV, in movies and elsewhere enjoying as a break from the workaday world. The message? Treat yourself to an ice cream cone, a piece of cake, a beer or some pot. It’s OK to enjoy yourself . . .

What is especially concerning is the fact that the marijuana of today is not the same as it was back in the 1960s or 1970s. Over the past few decades, the concentration of THC in the cannabis plant has been increasing, making it more potent than ever . . .

What causes the “high” people experience is marijuana’s effect on over-activating parts of the brain containing specific brain cell receptors. This leads to feelings of an altered sense of time, other altered senses, changes in mood, impaired body movement, impaired memory and difficulty in thinking and problem-solving. (Read more from “Pot Is Dangerous, Not Funny — a Doctor Tells Us Why” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New England’s Absurd Energy Policy

The cold blast hitting the U.S. is exposing the absurdity of left-wing energy policies in New England. Natural gas prices are skyrocketing in the region as the gas demand for both heating and electricity exceeds supply.

ISO New England — the non-profit that runs the region’s power grid — issued a “cold weather watch” for January 5 to alert the wholesale power market to a surge in demand for the weekend, as temperatures are expected to plummet. The grid operator believes it has enough power, but the demand could exceed supply.

Don’t blame the weather for soaring energy prices and possible electricity shortages; blame the left-wing politicians and radical environmentalists for engineering a system certain to fail. Instead of promoting an energy policy focused on reliability with a diverse array of power sources for electricity generation, New England adopted a command-and-control energy policy built on feeling good, not reality.

Left-wing politicians concerned about global warming and an aggressive EPA regulatory agenda combined to reduce use of coal in New England from almost 20 percent in 2000 to about 2 percent in 2016. Natural gas is now the primary source of power, providing about 50 percent of electricity, up from about 15 percent in 2000. Burning natural gas emits about half the carbon dioxide emitted by coal.

The dependence on natural gas is a problem in New England because radical environmental activists are blocking construction of new natural gas pipelines needed to keep up with the increase in demand. Predictably, the law of supply and demand kicked in, resulting in an explosion of natural gas prices with plummeting temperatures.

During the first round of severe winter weather at the end of December, the surge in demand made New England “the world’s priciest” natural gas market, where the energy commodity jumped threefold on the spot market.

The so-called “bomb cyclone” storm that hit the East coast is pushing natural gas futures prices up significantly in New England. The Wall Street Journal reported the price for natural gas on January 3 rose almost 90 percent from the prior day and was about 1,200 percent higher than in early December.

The sharp rise in natural gas prices will eventually be passed on to consumers and businesses in New England, which already has the highest electricity prices in the nation. The problems in New England will get worse. Power companies switched to burning heating oil in order to keep the limited supply of natural gas for heating homes and businesses.

The loss of natural gas is forcing electricity providers to change the energy mix to generate power. Recently (based on real-time data January 4), oil-fueled power plants are providing about 30 percent of New England’s electricity, up from less than 1 percent, while natural gas is down to about 25 percent from almost 50 percent. Nuclear energy remains at about 30 percent, and renewable and coal provide a minor amount at 13 and 6 percent, respectively.

However, the use of oil for electricity will likely run into a problem in Massachusetts, where the state issued stricter carbon dioxide limits that came into effect on January 1. In 2008, Massachusetts passed The Global Warming Solutions Act, mandating a total reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors to 25 percent below the 1990 level in 2020 and at least an 80 percent reduction in 2050.

To avoid breaking the limits set for the power sector, the oil-fired units in Massachusetts could shut down, placing more stress on other states to supply electricity for the regional power grid. Relying on other states may also run into problems, because all New England states participate in The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — a program designed to reduce emissions from power plants.

Compounding the energy supply challenge, a number of power plants including nuclear, oil, and coal have closed or are set to close, reducing the availability of energy in the region, and renewable energy is unable to adequately fill the energy void.

Left-wing politicians and their radical environmentalist activist allies designed an energy policy that makes them feel good, but it comes at financial cost for the residents of New England. The impact on the carbon dioxide emission reductions for the entire country from the EPA’s Clean Power Plan under former President Obama was found to have no meaningful impact on global temperatures, so New England’s global warming regulations are meaningless except for political feel-good rhetoric.

Ignoring the reality of supply and demand and the importance of a diverse energy mix, including nuclear energy and fossil fuels such as coal, has consequences. (For more from the author of “New England’s Absurd Energy Policy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Iranian People Are the Real Anti-Fascists

In 2017, Antifa took American campuses by storm. Radically Left, vehemently anti-Trump, black-clad vandals swarmed last year to protest conservative speakers like Ben Shapiro and to declare their contempt for free speech. Violence and property destruction were their calling cards, all supposedly in the name of “anti-fascism.”

As 2018 begins, a different kind of protest has captured the attention of the world. For days now In Iran, anti-government demonstrators have taken to the streets. Rising prices, high unemployment, and the brutality of the government have stirred discontent. On Thursday, a protest began in the city of Mashhad. Reports say most gathered were adults under 40. And this spark, aided by social media, ignited a fire across Iran.

This long-suffering people cries out for liberty in opposition to the Islamist regime led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his cohorts. The few videos of the demonstrations that have escaped the regime’s tyrannical suppression of social media show mass demonstrations against Khamenei, against President Hassan Rouhani, and against true oppression. “Death to the Islamic Republic!” brave freedom fighters cry.

This was just the beginning. According to Al Jazeera, the protests are escalating “much faster than anticipated.”

“It wasn’t expected to be anything beyond the slogans against the administration and the president,” said Negar Mortazavi, a journalist for self-described independent online news service Iran International. “But, it seems like the dissent within the Iranian population is so much deeper; that this has gone beyond the presidency and all the way up to the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei], which is very worrisome for all factions of the establishment.”

Khamenei has blamed the unrest on “enemies” of the state. The police have been mobilized and are using force and tear gas to quash the demonstrations. The Iranian government has severely restricted internet access amid the violence, making exact reporting on the extent of the protests and the reaction by the government difficult. The estimates from Iranian state media indicate that at least 20 people have died and more than 450 people have been arrested, with many to face the death penalty.

The regime’s response is in character. This is a government that is regularly condemned for numerous human rights abuses. Crimes such as “insulting the Prophet,” apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, and drug-related offenses are all punishable by death. Those jailed are often tortured. Freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and other natural rights are denied in the Islamic “Republic.”

This is, in a very real sense, a true fascist regime. That makes the bravery of these real anti-fascist Iranian protesters all the more admirable in contrast to the absurdity of leftist Antifa.

While Antifa radicals in America cosplay with black masks, while they scheme to do harm and reveal themselves as petty thugs with each swing of a bike chain, the Iranian people suffer. In America, the radical Left decries speech as violence. In Iran, speech is silenced with violence.

Iranians are dying for the cause of liberty. Those protesting understand what it means to live under a government that has abdicated its responsibility to secure their rights and has instead inflicted oppression upon its people. The moral stand taken by the these Iranians ought to put Antifa to shame and inspire all lovers of freedom to make common cause with the Iranian people.

Ironically, the most consequential voice in support of the Iranian anti-fascists is Antifa public enemy number one: President Donald Trump. Whereas the 2009 Green Movement uprising went ignored by the Obama administration, President Trump has declared, “The world is watching,” insisting that the “brutal and corrupt” regime in Iran will come to an end, as “oppressive regimes cannot endure forever.”

When the time came, President Trump, leading America, stood with the anti-fascist Iranian people in support of freedom. This is proper for an American president, and the whole world should follow his example in demanding freedom for the Iranian people and an end to the fascist, terrorist-supporting, Islamic Iranian regime. (For more from the author of “The Iranian People Are the Real Anti-Fascists” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Is the New York Times Pushing out Story After Story on UFO’s?

The first thing to understand is that the New York Times broke the latest UFO story.

The story about: a secret Pentagon UFO research group; a US fighter jet that encountered a UFO off the coast of San Diego; and the recovery of “UFO metals.”

The Times broke the story, and then it quickly went global.

On the subject of UFOs, that never happens.

But it did.

Furthermore, the Times expressed no doubts about the information it was disclosing. There wasn’t the usual “he said, he said” treatment.

No detractors and harsh critics were quoted. This was a straight-from-the-Pentagon to the Times pipeline.

The Times story had all the earmarks of a government gift, not a leak.

This, too, never happens.

But it did.

The conclusion: the Pentagon wanted this story to come to light. Someone high up in the Pentagon, or someone outside the Pentagon, with major clout, gave the green light to the Times. He assured the Times the story was real. Perhaps he even gave an “order” to release the information.

As discussion and vetting of the UFO story occurred at the Times, before they went to print, the overriding and decisive factor was: “somebody big wants this to move forward.” Case closed.

But we shouldn’t assume the motive for disclosure was, at the top, generous and benign and innocent. Because we’re talking about the Pentagon and the CIA, the people who always have a concealed agenda.

If they give the public a few bread crumbs, or even a steak, there is a 15-course meal behind that, and the meal is never served.

Long-time UFO researcher, Grant Cameron, has pointed out that the American strategy for hiding secrets (for decades) has been: partial disclosure. Periodically, now and then—“Here’s a small piece. Chew on it.”

This is the US government approach.

Except—the recent Pentagon offerings haven’t been leaked via some small-press book published in a print shop—they’ve been shot out of information-guns directly to the most prestigious mainstream news outlet in the world: the New York Times.

That’s different. Very different.

And just now, the Times has published two more UFO articles. The first, by senior reporter Dan Barry, is headlined: “Dad Believed in UFOs. Turns Out He Wasn’t Alone.” Barry’s father was a veteran UFO watcher. He died before the Pentagon finally admitted UFOs are real. That’s the hook of the article. It’s a human interest piece. And it’s overwhelmingly positive re UFOs. Again, you don’t see this sort of thing from the Times—not ever—but there it is.

“UFOs: Is This All There Is?” is the second Times piece, by Dennis Overbye. It’s a soft back and forth: something is happening in the sky but we don’t know what it is. No harsh naysaying. No nastiness.

Both of these pieces lend support to the original Times blockbuster about the secret Pentagon UFO program.

All this could very well mean that what is being hidden, now, is much larger than what has been hidden in the past. For example, new technological discoveries and advances have been made in the areas of propulsion systems and energy production, beside which the old discoveries pale by comparison.

In that case, the latest partial disclosures needed to be stronger, in terms of their impact. Impact as diversion from the deeper truth.

And the NY Times would carry the ball.

Who was the paper’s main source for the breaking UFO disclosure? Luis Elizondo, the man who headed up the Pentagon UFO program, until he resigned. Elizondo is now part of rock musician Tom Delonge’s team at his newly formed To the Stars Academy. Elizondo’s new association hardly qualifies as a “good source” for an outlet like the Times.

Further, anyone who reads Elizondo’s bio at the Academy website would have reason to pause for thought:

“Luis Elizondo is a career intelligence officer whose experience includes working with the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, the National Counterintelligence Executive, and the Director of National Intelligence. As a former Special Agent In-Charge, Luis conducted and supervised highly sensitive espionage and terrorism investigations around the world. As an intelligence Case Officer, he ran clandestine source operations throughout Latin America and the Middle East.”

Excuse me? The number one mainstream news operation on the planet accepts what Elizondo is saying at face value? On the verboten subject of UFOs? When everyone knows career intelligence officers are trained to lie at the drop of a hat?

The Times has suddenly become a “UFO site?”

Having received Elizondo’s assertions, the Times would have gone to its long-time sources at the Pentagon, and the Word would have come back: this is rock solid fact. Which, again, tells you the Pentagon wanted this story to be published. Strongly wanted.

If Donald Trump holds a water bottle in two hands and puckers his lips as he takes a sip, the Times would wonder aloud whether he was suffering from Alzheimer’s. But all of a sudden, on the topic of UFOs, the story the Times is being fed is honest and accurate, and there is no need to consult the usual experts who provide “balanced” criticism and “negative reactions.”

One conclusion: the Times is prepared to publish more UFO stories. Quotes from other military/intelligence sources. Unless the blowback from rival news outlets is too severe.

Another inference: the Times already has other videos of UFOs and other “irrefutable” interviews in the can.

Whatever they eventually publish, no matter how shocking, it will be a very, very small fragment of what the government (and those who control the government) is hiding.

If, five years ago, you polled the most competent and knowledgeable independent UFO researchers, and asked them whether they thought the New York Times would ever publish a major positive UFO story, who among them would have predicted what we are seeing now?

Finally, this could now happen: someone at the Times, a senior editor, or even the publisher, goes to the Pentagon and says, “Look, we’re begging off. We’ve done our job. We did what you told us to do. But now, other news operations are going to have to carry the freight. We can’t afford to incur a stain on our reputation. We broke the barrier. You’ll have to find other people to move your story forward…”

But the Times will forever be remembered as the first—they took their marching orders and delivered. They fronted for, and sold, a limited hangout, against all odds. (For more from the author of “Why Is the New York Times Pushing out Story After Story on UFO’s?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Everything Wrong With Toxic Charity and Welfare Statism in a Single Perfect Quote

Should helping the poor merely make poverty more comfortable, or should it actually help people get out of it? A recent debate over how best to deal with California’s growing homeless problem offers some insight into the old question.

This lengthy story from the Associated Press details how forms of charity for California’s exploding homeless problem are fomenting concerns that the “charity” given helps people remain homeless more than it helps them improve their circumstances. It begins with a lawyer and activist being denied permission to install toilets on the site of a 400-person homeless encampment in an Orange County riverbed.

While he calls the matter “a question of basic empathy,” others are concerned that this particular brand of charity is doing more harm than good for the Golden State’s homeless population.

One local resident, 46-year-old Shaun Dove, a policeman from Anaheim nearing retirement, put it best:

“If the ultimate goal is to get them under a roof, why on Earth are you giving all the advantages you would have under a roof on the riverbed? … There’s no doubt that giving them stuff there prevents them from a desire to move.”

Mr. Dove puts the issue in a nutshell: Helping the poor is actually supposed to help them out of poverty, not just make long-term poverty more comfortable.

This is nothing new. I saw the same kinds of problems while spending a summer during college studying international development in east Africa.

If you talk to anyone who has been in the field of international development, they too rail against forms of toxic charity administered with the same do-gooder mentality that does everything to create dependence and apathy in the populations it seeks to help. A quick search of any academic database on the subject turns up paper after paper featuring case studies of what works to create sustainable growth in the developing world and what only works to create a never-ending stream of short-term do-gooders flown in from developed economies.

The subject is complex, but it all comes down to one basic contrast: Do acts of charity really seek the long-term benefit of those they try to help? Or do they benefit the giver’s sense of accomplishment more than the recipient’s long-term well-being?

The latter looks a lot like what folks are now concerned about in California. But this problem of toxic charity has been in place in the United States for a long time, through our ever-growing, poorly-managed welfare state.

There’s a ton of literature on this subject as well. But one need only look at the documented, discouraging effects that our current welfare structure has on things like work and marriage (yes, the infamous “benefits cliff”) — things proven to cut down on poverty rates — in the populations it ostensibly seeks to help to get the picture: Charity that doesn’t prudently seek the betterment of its object only creates more poverty.2

Yet, over and over again, those who seek to reform our demonstrably broken system — as the GOP plans to do next year — are routinely demonized as hurting the poor, though nobody in that particular peanut gallery ever seems to ask how well the poor are being truly helped out of poverty by the current design of the social safety net.

Yes, creating more amenities for down-on-their-luck folks in a riverbed in California, or handing out benefits via a faceless federal government program, may assist the poor in the short term while providing “givers” with a case of the warm fuzzies, but in the long run, all they really do is just ensure more poverty. (For more from the author of “Everything Wrong With Toxic Charity and Welfare Statism in a Single Perfect Quote” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top Ten Conspiracy Theories That Turned FACT in 2017

In 2013, Professor Lance Dehaven-Smith—in a peer-reviewed book published by the University of Texas Press—showed that the term “conspiracy theory” was developed by the CIA as a means of undercutting critics of the Warren Commission’s report that President Kennedy was killed by Oswald. The use of this term was heavily promoted in the media by the CIA. And—up until recently—it has served its purpose.

Now, however, in 2017, those who were once called “conspiracy theorists” are being vindicated as they watched instance after instance get exposed all year long. To be clear, we are not talking about outlandish, unprovable, and off the wall theories that completely lack evidence. We are talking about well-researched cases that were deliberately dismissed and ridiculed by the mainstream as a means of oppressing the information and protecting the establishment.

Ironically enough, 2017 is the year the conspiracy theorists were proven right as the mainstream media and government began pushing wild conspiracy theories without evidence to back them up.

To show just how vindicated the well-informed are, below is a list of the top 10 conspiracy theories that were proven as real in 2017.

1. Hollywood and the political elite have been exposed for their rampant and horrifying sex abuse against men, women, and children alike

Just last year, as good people tried to point out that although Pizzagate may not have taken place in some restaurant in DC, the idea of sex abuse among the elite was no laughing matter. However, anyone who mentioned sex abuse among the elite was scoffed at and ridiculed by those in the mainstream.

This ridicule was in spite of the fact that the former speaker of the house admitted to raping multiple little boys and was sentenced to prison last year. This ridicule was also in spite of the fact that whistleblowers have been shouting from the mountain tops about the rampant abuse—for decades—only to have their cries fall on deaf ears.

This year, however, it was different. With Harvey Weinstein as the catalyst, former victims came forward and began publicly naming their abusers and even getting the police involved. The American people also learned that their ostensible representation in D.C. was spending millions to silence the victims of their apparent uncontrollable sex abuse.

No longer will companies like Disney be able to hire convicted pedophiles as the world looks the other way—nor will sicko politicians be allowed the immunity to rape and pillage as they see fit. 2017 will be known as the year the victims fought back.

2. Weather modification just jumped from “chemtrail” conspiracy theory into mainstream reality, as Congress began holding hearings on geoengineering

Geoengineering is finally going mainstream as the U.S. House Subcommittee on Environment and Subcommittee on Energy Hearing, in November, held the first House hearing about the science that until now has generally been considered a “conspiracy theory” and relegated to the fringes of society by the Praetorian Guard mainstream media — controlled by the ruling power-elite oligarchy.

The controversial subject of climate engineering or weather modification – which was popularized, and oversimplified with the term “chem-trails” – is stepping from the shadows and into the light of public scrutiny for the first time.

The congressional hearing, titled “Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology,” was attended by members of the House committees as well as representatives of think tanks, academics, and researcher scientists to discuss the future of geoengineering research.

During the first hearing, the potential need to set up a regulatory structure within which experiments would be allowed, at a set scale, was discussed. Now, those who deny the fact that government is involved in geoengineering will be the conspiracy theorists.

3. 20,000 documents were released in August proving the EPA conspired with chemical companies to unleash deadly toxic substances on the public

Highly toxic chemical compounds made by Dow, Monsanto, DuPont and other companies were being developed and marketed in ever greater quantities, and federal agencies were rubber-stamping their approval based on fraudulent safety testing.

The Poison Papers reveal that, instead of acting to protect the public and reassess the chemicals, EPA held a secret meeting with chemical companies to assure them that their products would continue being sold.

The secret meeting between EPA and chemical companies is the most poignant example of a long history of collusion at the expense of human and environmental health.

4. US media giant Sally Quinn admitted she practiced the occult to murder people—and she was praised for it

Although her husband Ben Bradlee died in 2014—who was good friends with former President John F. Kennedy, and executive editor of the Washington Post from 1968 to 1991—Quinn has since taken the time to give insight into the glamorous life lived by the media’s royal couple. Some of the practices she describes are ones that would normally be written off as crazy conspiracy theories by outlets such as their beloved Washington Post.

However, WaPost actually praised it.

In her latest publication titled, Finding Magic: A Spiritual Memoir, Quinn reveals that she believes she has killed at least three people in her lifetime. She claims that while she did not harm anyone physically, she believes strongly in the occult, and has used hexes on people who got on her bad side.


5. Mainstream media finally admitted the United States has been aiding terrorists in Syria

In November, the BBC released a bombshell report confirming that the US and Syrian Defense Forces knowingly aided thousands of ISIS fighters.

According to the bombshell BBC report:

The BBC has uncovered details of a secret deal that let hundreds of Islamic State fighters and their families escape from Raqqa, under the gaze of the US and British-led coalition and Kurdish-led forces who control the city. A convoy included some of IS’s most notorious members and – despite reassurances – dozens of foreign fighters. Some of those have spread out across Syria, even making it as far as Turkey.

Then in December, an investigation concluded that 97 percent of the weapons used by the Islamic State were supplied illegally by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

The weapons and ammunition were originally purchased by the United States and Saudi Arabia and then distributed to rebel groups. While the U.S. claimed to be fighting ISIS, the fact is that ISIS was one of the Syrian rebel groups opposing Assad, and as the report noted, nearly all of their weapons came from those purchased by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

6. The Federal Reserve bank was exposed in June to be a working arm of US Intelligence

Confidential accounts within the Federal Reserve have been used by the U.S. Treasury and other departments “several times a year to analyze the asset holdings of the central banks of Russia, China, Iraq, Turkey, Yemen, Libya and others,” according to a report from Reuters that cites more than a dozen current and former senior U.S. officials.

The U.S. central bank keeps a tight lid on information contained in these accounts. But according to the officials interviewed by Reuters, U.S. authorities regularly use a ‘need to know’ confidentiality exception in the Fed’s service contracts with foreign central banks.

7. Declassified document proved the conspiracy that the CIA planned and carried out the 1953 Iranian Coup

The newly declassified documents, titled “Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954, Iran, 1951–1954,” provide a notable difference from the State Department’s 1989 version of the coup, which left out any involvement from American and British intelligence.

A memorandum from Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles to President Eisenhower, dated March 1, 1953, serves as a reminder that internally, “the elimination of Mossadeq by assassination or otherwise,” was used as a method in repairing ties with Iran, restoring oil negotiations, and stopping a “Communist takeover.”

8. Billionaire elitists openly admit to Ingesting the blood of young children

Once the talk of conspiracy theorists — the rich ingesting the blood of the young to foster longevity — is now a reality and an actual business in the United States. Not only is it a business but billionaires are actually admitting their interest in it.

As Vanity Fair reports, Ambrosia, which buys its blood from blood banks, now has about 100 paying customers. Some are Silicon Valley technologists—like Peter Thiel, the billionaire co-founder of PayPal and adviser to Donald Trump.

9. CIA drug trafficking conspiracy was blown wide open in an explosive History Channel series

A&E Networks addressed the government’s role in the drug war in a four-part documentary series on the History Channel, titled, “America’s War on Drugs.”

“America’s War on Drugs” is an immersive trip through the last five decades, uncovering how the CIA, obsessed with keeping America safe in the fight against communism, allied itself with the mafia and foreign drug traffickers. In exchange for support against foreign enemies, the groups were allowed to grow their drug trade in the United States.

10. Mainstream science showed Vitamin C’s ability to fight cancer

According to researchers from the University of Iowa, ascorbate, derived from Vitamin C, was successfully observed increasing hydrogen peroxide levels in cancer cells, which in turn had a toxic result with cancer cells, killing the cancer cells in lab rats yet not damaging normal cells in the process. The researchers concluded that Vitamin C might, indeed, be lethal to some cancers.

According to the scientists, “These results indicate that an in vivo measurement of catalase activity in tumors may predict which cancers will respond to pharmacological ascorbate therapy.” Once the exact cancers are identified, which are killed by vitamin C, the researchers concluded, “this information can also be used in finding combination therapies that may increase the efficacy of treatment for those tumors with higher catalase activities.” In other words, extremely high doses of the Vitamin C derivative may potentially be added to conventional cancer therapies to help kill more cancer cells.

In 2017, the world has learned that truth is indeed stranger than fiction as the light continues to shine into the darkness. With all the proven conspiracies in 2017, we can’t help but remain optimistic for 2018 to become the year the world begins to wake up.

(For more from the author of “Top Ten Conspiracy Theories That Turned FACT in 2017” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

For the Media: Nothing but Coal This Christmas

“He’s making a list. He’s checking it twice. He’s gonna find out who’s naughty or nice.” When it comes to the mainstream media, Santa definitely has them on the naughty list. The whole biased crew of them should expect nothing but coal in their stockings this Christmas.

Media bias is nothing new. But in 2017, it shifted into overdrive. Donald Trump’s inauguration as president set off a year of outright media hostility that is unprecedented in its scope.

Yes, the media have always attacked conservatives with shoddy facts and outright opinion dressed up as news. But in 2017, that morphed into something else altogether: vile hatred of those they disagree with. Sure, the media have always painted conservatives as “evil and heartless,” but it always seemed it was some sort of game they were playing.

Their treatment of Trump is different.

The media decided early on that Trump was the singular enemy who must be destroyed. The members of the media anointed themselves as just the ones to do it. And their venom has extended to anyone who dares to support the president.

Here are just a few reasons that the media deserve a stocking full of coal.

A focus on Russia, without evidence … After months of investigations, congressional hearings, and nonstop coverage in the press, there has not been any concrete evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to affect the election.

Did the Russian government try to sow discord in the United States leading up to the election? Absolutely. Did Russians do things to attack both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? Absolutely. Did the Russians collude with Donald Trump? No evidence has been presented to that effect in public, despite the attempts by the media, like Brian Ross at ABC and Manu Raju at CNN, to proffer fake news saying it happened.

Downplaying the real collusion … When stories have been published showing real collusion between agents of the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, with foreign agents liaising with the Kremlin, those stories have been glossed over by the mainstream media. Moreover, those actually covering the story have been ridiculed for the focus.

Here’s what we know that the media has glossed over: The Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC reportedly paid a law firm to hide payments from the FEC that ultimately went to Fusion GPS, a shady opposition research shop that then paid a retired foreign spy to investigate its American political rival with the help of the Kremlin.

That “investigation” found its way to the FBI through Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and reportedly formed the basis for obtaining FISA warrants for the Obama administration to spy on political opponents.

No bias by investigators … There have been scattered stories in the media about the bias of the FBI agents investigating the 2016 election and Clinton emails. We also know that some of those agents and others with outright partisan leanings have made it onto special counsel Robert Mueller’s team.

Heck, there is even a text from one of those FBI agents seeming to plot an “insurance policy” in case Trump was elected. Those are concerning developments. If the shoe were reversed and these agents were biased toward, say, Barack Obama, the media would be in overdrive. Instead, they mock those pointing it out. This approach is right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook.

Inciting violence … When a man walked onto a baseball field where Republican members of Congress were practicing and opened fire, he did so because he hated Republicans. He hated their policies and saw it as his duty to kill them.

For too long the left-wing media have painted Republicans and conservatives as heartless, evil people who want to hurt their fellow Americans. Nobody does this more so than Rachel Maddow at MSNBC. Is it any wonder, then, that a look at the social media of the killer showed that he was a superfan of Maddow and parroted her talking points? There is a very strong case to be made that the domestic terrorist was radicalized by watching the Maddow show.

There are a whole host of other reasons that the media deserve coal from jolly old St. Nick this year. These were just the main reasons.

To be sure, there are people of good will who work for outlets in the mainstream media. But taken as a whole, the media deserve nothing but coal this year. (For more from the author of “For the Media: Nothing but Coal This Christmas” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Chuck Norris Asks: ‘Tis the Season to Stress

It should be the season to be jolly, yet sadly, too many folks are describing this time of year as more stressful than magical. Welcome to what is commonly known as the “holiday blues.”

A telephone survey conducted by the American Psychological Association recently demonstrated that – compared to other times of the year — out of 786 individuals polled, 44 percent of women and 31 percent of men felt more stress during the holidays. In addition, 51 percent of women and 42 percent of men said purchasing and giving gifts only added to their distress.

Although the holidays continue to be a time of joy for many, we must also acknowledge that the holiday season can trigger symptoms of anxiety and depression. There are many contributing factors to such feelings. Just the time change alone is said to cause as many as a third of people with a history of a major depressive disorder to experience a worsening of their symptoms. Depression is the world’s most common mental ailment, affecting approximately 16 percent of adults at some point in their lives.

If we have learned anything about the stresses of this time of year, it is that we cannot force ourselves to be happy just because it is the holiday season. People are faced with a dizzying array of demands. Schedules can become overloaded; stress is at its peak. It is hard to stop and regroup.

As pointed out in a study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, any kind of stress can strain relationships and cause us to withdraw from others. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a 2015 study found daily hassles like working, running errands, and money troubles negatively influence romantic unions, causing people to feel less satisfied and more alone in their relationships. When people are anxious and fatigued, it becomes more challenging to see someone else’s point of view. This may explain why family feuds seem more likely to arise during the holidays. (Read more from “Chuck Norris Asks: ‘Tis the Season to Stress” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.