‘They had a backup plan to basically frame Donald Trump and that’s what’s been going,’ says Kallstrom

Former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom suggested Sunday morning that the constant shifting of high-ranking government officials over the last year is related to an internal plot to help Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election.

“I think we have ample facts revealed to us during this last year and a half that high-ranking people throughout government, not just the FBI, high-ranking people had a plot to not have Hillary Clinton, you know, indicted,” Kallstrom said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo.”

Kallstrom, who worked at the FBI for 27 years, was responding to Bartiromo’s question about whether he thought that someone in the FBI was directing officials to protect Clinton.

“Do you think somebody was directing them or do you think they just came to the conclusion on their own, this leadership at the FBI and the Department of Justice, that they wanted to change the outcome of the election?” Bartiromo asked.

Kallstrom also said officials had a scheme to blame Trump for the Russian interference during the 2016 election.

“They had a backup plan to basically frame Donald Trump and that’s what’s been going,” Kallstrom said.

Clapper News Network? CNN Pays Source for Leaking With Paid On-Air Gig

By Tim Graham

George Neumayr at The American Spectator made hay with the new House Intelligence Committee report that accuses former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper of leaking to CNN in January as CNN’s Jake Tapper broke the story that senior intelligence officials briefed President Obama and President-elect Trump on the Christopher Steele “dossier.” That would make sense…considering CNN is now paying Clapper to be a yapper to Tapper on TV. 

Neumayr began:

The late pundit Robert Novak used to say that government officials can choose to be either “a source or a target.” In other words, leak information to reporters and you can count on flattering coverage and protection from them. An added bonus to leaking, as former Intelligence Director Jim Clapper discovered, is that the network to which you are leaking will turn you into a paid contributor.

According to Congressman Jim Jordan, speaking to Fox News, “Clapper was actually the guy leaking information” to CNN about the presidential briefing on the Steele dossier that served as the pretext for the media feeding frenzy over possible Russian blackmail of Trump.

One can only laugh at the utter fraudulence of CNN: it pads its panels with government officials who leak to it, then presents them to its audience as “nonpartisan” experts commenting on the aftershocks of the very stories they leaked.

Trump’s intuition about a politicized intelligence community is confirmed daily by the rantings of its former members who treat the studios of television news like a retirement center. Eager to get in on this act, NBC recently hired former CIA director John Brennan, who also ingratiated himself to reporters through leaks. On his Twitter account, he describes himself as “nonpartisan” and NBC supports that con by letting him comment on the investigation his partisan manipulation of intelligence instigated.

Sara Carter made the point that Clapper denounced his own leak in a press release on January 11: “I expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press, and we both agreed that they are extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security.”

Now that Clapper’s been exposed by the House Intelligence Committee, it’s not at all surprising that Clapper is denouncing as “so partisan” it has “zero” credibility (wow, the chutzpah is amazing):

ANDERSON COOPER: I mean, do you think we can trust anything in the report?

CLAPPER: Well, unfortunately, and this is sad for me is that the credibility of the committee is basically about zero because they are so partisan. I have been around, Anderson, since those two committees were stood up. Let’s say in 1976 and the Senate intelligence committee a year later.

So I’ve watched them over the years. And the only time the committees are effective is when they are bipartisan. And the House Intelligence Committee is paralyzed because of the partnership that is emerged over this and the politicization of intelligence which they are supposed to safeguard against.

COOPER: Director Clapper, I so gained some access to some raw intelligence tonight and I just want to wish you a very Happy Birthday today.

Scientific American: ‘Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns?’ Because They’re Uneducated Racists?

By Newsbusters Sunday, March 18, 2018

Scientific American continues on its activist leftward path, diluting its scientific brand by transmitting biased anti-gun propaganda under the cover of academic sociology.

The latest entry was posted Wednesday and has become a popular post: “Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns? — Research suggests it’s largely because they’re anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market and beset by racial fears.”

If that headline wasn’t a giveaway, writer Jeremy Adam Smith’s bio left little hope for an objective take: “….author or co-editor of four books, including The Compassionate Instinct and Are We Born Racist?”

After pointing out that “Since the 2008 election of President Obama, the number of firearms manufactured in the U.S. has tripled….” Smith asked “So, who is buying all these guns — and why?”

His answer, boiled down: Dumb racists.

….The American citizen most likely to own a gun is a white male — but not just any white guy. According to a growing number of scientific studies, the kind of man who stockpiles weapons or applies for a concealed-carry license meets a very specific profile.

These are men who are anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market, and beset by racial fears. They tend to be less educated….

Assumptions of racism were made:

But Stroud also discovered another motivation: racial anxiety. “A lot of people talked about how important Obama was to get a concealed-carry license: ‘He’s for free health care, he’s for welfare.’ They were asking, ‘Whatever happened to hard work?’” Obama’s presidency, they feared, would empower minorities to threaten their property and families.

Smith forwarded the same lazy gun-as-potency metaphor that has served as a smug liberal pop psychology nugget for decades:

For these economically insecure, irreligious white men, “the gun is a ubiquitous symbol of power and independence, two things white males are worried about,” says Froese. “Guns, therefore, provide a way to regain their masculinity, which they perceive has been eroded by increasing economic impotency.”

Again, Scientific American skipped actual evidence and illogically assumed a racial explanation:

Both Froese and Stroud found pervasive anti-government sentiments among their study participants. “This is interesting because these men tend to see themselves as devoted patriots, but make a distinction between the federal government and the ‘nation,’ says Froese. “On that point, I expect that many in this group see the ‘nation’ as being white.”

Even worse than the accusations is the condescension. White men need “restrictive gun laws” for their own protection.

Unfortunately, the people most likely to be killed by the guns of white men aren’t the “bad guys,” presumably criminals or terrorists. It’s themselves — and their families…. As a new study published this month in JAMA Internal Medicine once again shows us, restrictive gun laws don’t prevent white men from defending themselves and their families. Instead, those laws stop them from shooting themselves and each other.

These arguments generally, misleadingly lump in suicides as gun deaths (though one doesn’t need a gun for that) and misses the deterrence aspect of guns – the sound of a shtogun being “racked” can serve as a deterrent to a crime without being fired, though such instances may not show up in statistics.


Modern Newspeak: How Internet Censors Are Making Sure You Hear Only One Side of the Story

By Daisy Luther

It’s not breaking news that the Internet censors have been hard at work to silence voices that are in opposition to the mainstream media agenda. But after the influence that social media had on the last election, things are going to a whole new level. The Internet, that last bastion of truly free speech, isn’t very free anymore.

We’re watching the evolution of Newspeak right before our very eyes as the Internet strives to silence any voices that oppose their carefully crafted stories of how guns are bad, there are 291 genders, and anyone who isn’t a liberal is an evil Nazi racist.

If you aren’t familiar with the term “Newspeak,” it’s from George Orwell’s prophetic novel, 1984.

Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thought-crime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now? (source)

YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook have all been participating in a full-on purge of not just conservative voices, but the voices of anyone who is loudly anti-establishment. Any Internet personality who is pro-gun or anti-socialism can fully expect to be censored. If you go against the agenda, you will be silenced.

Apparently, we have become too discerning for their liking and we can’t be trusted to hear both sides of the story and decide what seems most accurate.

Let me preface this: It isn’t about being a fan of websites like Infowars or Natural News. It’s about being a fan of free speech. It’s about getting the truth instead of a carefully scripted narrative.

In this video, Ben Swann, who is mercifully back from a long, unexplained hiatus, gives us the facts on how the Internet censors are striving to ensure we hear only one side of the story.

I’m certainly not in the same category as Mike Adams or Alex Jones, who have hundreds of thousands of followers, but even I have experienced this censorship. Facebook frequently refuses to allow me to pay to boost posts that might be controversial in nature, Back in 2016, I posted an article containing 2 videos, one of which was quickly removed from YouTube. It was about the threat of civil unrest to the Milwaukee suburbs after a cop killed a black man. The media portrayed the man’s sister as warmly trying to prevent the unrest, urging people not to burn down their own neighborhoods. But they cut her rant right before she urged people to burn down the suburbs instead. I quoted her as saying:

Burnin down sh*t ain’t going to help nothin! Y’all burnin’ down sh*t we need in our community. Take that sh*t to the suburbs. Burn that sh*t down! We need our sh*t! We need our weaves. I don’t wear it. But we need it. We need our food. We need our gas. Y’all wanna hurt somebody you take that sh*t further out! (source)

But somehow, I was the one who was in the doghouse for quoting what she said and showing both of the videos. My article was reported as “hate speech” a number of times and Facebook removed it. Not only did they remove it, they banned me from posting for a week, giving me a “warning” about hate speech. I also got put in Facebook jail once when someone asked what Godwin’s Law was and I used the word Nazi because it hurt someone’s feelings who was from Germany when I said the word “Hitler.” I could not make this stuff up.

A lot of you may be wondering why alternative media sources use social media at all, and the answer is – we have to if we want to be heard. If we want to be competitive and we want our stories to be out there, we must go where the people are. And there are millions of people on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

But purges like this are why it’s particularly important that you sign up for email lists if you want to hear the real stories. (You can sign up for mine right here.) And even then, it isn’t a guarantee you won’t be the victim of censors. During the election, for research purposes, I signed up for both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s email lists. Clinton’s ended up in my inbox without fail, while Trump’s went to my spam folder, no matter how often I marked it as “not spam.”

This is something we have to stop now. We have to speak up and let these social media outlets know that we aren’t going to put up with their censorship and their control of the national narrative.

We’re watching 1984 unfold right before our very eyes.

Please feel free to share any information from this site in part or in full, leaving all links intact, giving credit to the author and including a link to this website and the following bio. Daisy is a coffee-swigging, gun-toting, homeschooling blogger who writes about current events, preparedness, frugality, and the pursuit of liberty on her website, The Organic Prepper, where this article first appeared. Daisy is the publisher of The Cheapskate’s Guide to the Galaxy, a monthly frugality newsletter, and she curates all the most important news links on her aggregate site, PreppersDailyNews.com. She is the best-selling author of 4 books and lives in the mountains of Virginia with her two daughters and an ever-growing menagerie. You can find Daisy on FacebookPinterest, and Twitter.

Also Read: YouTube Terminated Activist Post Unblemished Channel Without Warning

Google’s Search Results For Questions About Parkland Shooting Are Different From Other Search Engines

By John Vibes

Google may be the world’s most popular search engine, but it has also been the subject of a number of accusations in recent years that it is purposefully censoring searches and influencing results. In the case of search results related to the Parkland shooting, that alleged influence is becoming even more apparent.

This week, the staff at The Free Thought Project began testing various keywords related to the Parkland shooting on different search engines, and we noticed that if our search terms were controversial, the first page of Google results was filled with entirely different information than the other search engines. The information showed on Google was often not relevant to our search, and the results always seemed to support the official narrative.

The most striking of these results came when we searched for the words “girl says 3 shooters parkland,” expecting the news footage of an eyewitness from the school saying that there were multiple shooters.

This video did not come up on Google, nor did any articles about the statement that the student made to the news, despite the fact that our search was extremely specific. Don’t be fooled by the top article “Calling B.S in Parkland, Florida,” it is an op-ed promoting gun control.

Oddly enough, when we searched for the same keywords on Yahoo, Bing or DuckDuckGo, each search engine brought up exactly what we were seeking. Try this experiment yourself and see what you come up with. It does not just have to be for this story—if you find other stories and search terms that Google appears to be suppressing, let us know. Below are screenshots from DuckDuckGo and Bing. We did not post Yahoo because their results were identical to Bing.

Google became the most popular search engine on the Web because it connected people with the links that were close to their searches while offering up a wide variety of different sources. But now it is obviously far past time to move onto more trusted platforms.

In the early days of the Internet, search engines and service providers like YouTube acted as a gateway to the world. But over the years the most powerful of these companies have increasingly begun to act as gatekeepers, caving into pressure from the government.

In the last two years, censorship on the Internet has been brought to an all-time high, thanks to “fake news” hysteria and a consistent campaign from the mainstream media to silence dissenting voices during times of tragedy when the official story has come into question—like the recent shootings in Las Vegas or Parkland.

Instead of investigating stories and asking tough questions, the mainstream media simply regurgitate press releases from police and government agencies. Before the Internet gave birth to the alternative media there was only one side to every news story, the official narrative, and for the most part, everyone believed it. Even if news outlets have partisan disagreements about politics, they always sell the basic version of reality, especially when it comes to questioning information handed down from those in authority.

As the alternative media has grown in size and relevance in recent years, there has become a wide range of perspectives for people to choose from, and there is no longer just one side to the story when large news events happen. Now there are many different investigations and theories behind every event—from the brilliant to the insane—leaving it up to the reader to use their own critical thinking when reading this news.

Critics see this as some type of breakdown of reality, where everyone just adopts whatever version of the world that suits their needs. While this is a legitimate problem that does happen to some extent—in the case of online echo chambers and actual fake news—these things are far less dangerous than allowing an all-powerful media cartel to think for us.