A political impeachment, such as the one we’re now witnessing, where lies and innuendos are substituted for facts, requires the compliance of an overwhelming majority of the media.
And, as we learned from the IG Report, the overwhelming majority of the legacy media got it wrong… on everything, E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G. Or, the media knowingly lied. That is to be determined later.
But, even with an all-out effort by the mainstream legacy media to stop him, Donald Trump was elected. So what changed?
Where once the CIA only needed to control the anchors of the evening news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC, in 2015 and 2016 hundreds, if not thousands of small publishers using Facebook, essentially served as modern-day pamphleteers, in support of Donald Trump candidacy.
We’d seen enough of trillion dollar deficits, trade deals that raped us of our assets and technology, impossible to explain immigration policies, and endless (and unwinnable) wars that depleted our military materiel and personnel.
Candidate Trump spoke for us and, we like to think, we spoke for everyday Americans who had watched everyone – corporations, bankers, foreign economies, and Washington politicians – grow rich while our buying power stagnated or diminished.
“Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt establishment with a new government, controlled by you the American people.
The Washington establishment and the financial and media corporations that fund it exists for only one reason, to protect and enrich itself.
“The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election for those who control the levers of power in Washington.
“And for the global special interests they partner with, these people that don’t have your good in mind, our campaign represents a true existential threat…
“…The political establishment that is trying to stop us is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals, massive illegal immigration, and economic and foreign policies that have bled our country dry.”
Despite an estimated $2 Billion in negative messaging against candidate Trump during the runup to the 2016 election by the legacy media, they couldn’t stop our message from reaching the people via social media.
With the release of the IG report outlining the FBI’s role in the Obama intelligence community’s plot to create a wholly imaginary picture of Donald Trump as a Russian asset, there is reason to consider what role our former Manchurian president, Barack Hussein Obama played in the current effort to remove President Trump.
Realizing the role online pamphleteers played in electing Donald Trump, shortly after the 2016 election B. Hussein Obama summoned Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to a meeting in Peru.
(Washington Post) Nine days after Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg dismissed as “crazy” the idea that fake news on his company’s social network played a key role in the U.S. election, President Barack Obama pulled the youthful tech billionaire aside and delivered what he hoped would be a wake-up call.
For months leading up to the vote, Obama and his top aides quietly agonized over how to respond to Russia’s brazen intervention on behalf of the Donald Trump campaign without making matters worse. Weeks after Trump’s surprise victory, some of Obama’s aides looked back with regret and wished they had done more.
Now huddled in a private room on the sidelines of a meeting of world leaders in Lima, Peru, two months before Trump’s inauguration, Obama made a personal appeal to Zuckerberg to take the threat of fake news and political disinformation seriously…
The admonishment had nothing to do with Russia using Facebook’s platform to interfere with the election.
No serious analysis would lead to that conclusion. Obama knew that Donald Trump had used social media to tap into the same visceral disgust with government to win the 2016 election that Obama himself had tapped into eight years earlier for his victory.
Obama also realized that if Trump were to fulfill his campaign promises the neatly structured world government, that Obama and our compliant Congress came so close to finalizing, would be dismantled by Trump – and their plans to concentrate all of the world’s wealth into the hands of only the elites would be eviscerated.
Obama refused to stand by idly. He gave Zuckerberg his marching orders to shut down any approval, or adoration of Trump on the platform.
Karin McQuillan writing for the American Thinker puts the Peru meeting in historical perspective:
“Until Obama’s intervention, Facebook corporate policy was rock solid. Zuckerberg’s entire business model was that Facebook is a platform, not a content provider. The company has always claimed they have no responsibility for content. The Jewish Press begged Zuckerberg to block Islamic Facebook pages teaching how to make ‘lone wolf’ knife attacks fatal. Zuckerberg refused. Not his problem.”
Immediately after their November 19th 2016 meeting in Lima Facebook began censoring pro-Trump and conservative websites under a number of premises including labeling them fake news or violating their terms of service for civility.
From that point forward engagement dropped precipitously for sites that supported Trump and questioned the wisdom of the Globalist movement.
Even statistically-based news reporting could not get through Facebook’s censorship.
If it challenged the one-world movement, or the wisdom of legislation promoted by Washington’s UniParty politicians, it was labeled Fake News and blocked from users news feeds. In some cases, if the facts were irrefutable, Facebook’s algorithms were employed to diminish public views.
Our engagement plummeted over 95% despite the overall accuracy of our reporting. Back on November 23, 2016, just days after Obama met with Zuckerberg, we were already witnessing the results of Facebook’s adherence to Chairman Hussein’s demands and filed this report.
Yesterday’s testimony from Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed the relative accuracy of our reporting. Unfortunately, the more damning the evidence we presented, the more onerous the censorship on Facebook.
While the legacy media lied through their teeth in support of the effort to remove President Trump, or even unfairly besmirch the president, they suffered no penalties for their deliberately inaccurate narratives.
Why? We only know that they were defending Obama’s use of widespread, and illegal, surveillance. Had they been previously compromised themselves by those same agents who opposed Trump?
After Mueller called bullshit on the Russia collusion hoax the legacy media didn’t do a mea culpa. They doubled down. Why? Who was controlling their messaging?
By contrast, the closer we got to the truth, Facebook suspended our page from its platform cutting income from advertisers to nearly zero. More importantly, where once we spoke to 23 million fans every month we were relegated to speaking to ourselves.
Americans were being arbitrarily deprived of reading, as we learned yesterday, what was essentially the truth.
This left Obama’s corruption of the intelligence community, and their plan to destroy the presidency of Donald Trump, in relatively complete control of the news cycle through their political tools in the legacy media.
Mueller told us that Russian collusion was a hoax… a criminal conspiracy to destroy a duly elected president.
Those who participated in it, either directly by “reporting” on it or by adding legitimacy to it by promoting the fake news on various platforms, or by censoring those of us who actually did the research and analysis are guilty of sedition. Or, worse.
18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
- § 2381. Treason
- § 2382. Misprision of treason
- § 2383. Rebellion or insurrection
- § 2384. Seditious conspiracy
- § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government