Christians “Should be Eradicated”: Researchers Document Anti-Christian Agenda Among Powerful Elite

Christians Lion den
Feb 4, 2016 by Selwyn Duke



A student is punished for refusing to “stomp on Jesus,” a Christian baker faces a year in jail for refusing to cater faux marriages, two men are arrested for reading the Bible aloud near a government building, a school “purges” Christian works from its library. Critics asserting the existence of an institutional anti-Christian bias, and a resultant war on the faith, have often been labeled paranoid. But now two University of North Texas sociologists have produced research showing that just such an agenda exists — among America’s most powerful people.

Professors George Yancey and David Williamson shared their findings in their newly released book So Many Christians, So Few Lions: Is There Christianophobia in the United States? The researchers say that while Christianophobia — which the sociologists define as “unreasonable hatred or fear of Christians” — isn’t common among common people, it does characterize those in the upper echelons of American society. It’s intense, too. The book’s title was apparently inspired by elitist interviewees lamenting how there were “so few lions,” referencing the Roman Empire’s practice of throwing Christians into an arena to be slaughtered by the wild cats. One respondent even remarked that Christians “should be eradicated without hesitation or remorse.”

This is something about which Christians “should be concerned,” reports the Christian Post, on a warning Yancey issued in an e-mail interview, “because those with ‘Christianophobia’ tend to be powerful elites with influence in certain important areas, such as higher education.” Commenting on this and the professors’ motivation for conducting their research, Yancey told the Post, “There is a lot of literature on hostility toward many different groups but just about none on hostility toward Christians. Yet when we collected qualitative data from cultural progressive activists we quickly saw some of the unnecessary vitriol and fears within many of our respondents. We also saw the social status of those who exhibited this hatred and many of them would be in positions that allowed them to at least subtly act on their anger and fears.” As for the sources of their data, the Post writes that it “comes from a large national survey, the American National Election Survey, and interviews they conducted with members of liberal advocacy organizations.”

And some of the remarks made by the “cultural progressive activists” are eyebrow-raising. The Blaze reports on a sampling referencing the “Christian right”:

“I want them all to die in a fire.” (Male, aged 26-35 with Doctorate).

“They should be eradicated without hesitation or remorse. Their only purpose is to damage and inflict their fundamentalist virus onto everyone they come in contact with.” (Female, aged 66-75 with Master’s degree).

“They make me a believer in eugenics…. They pollute good air…. I would be in favor of establishing a state for them…. If not, then sterilize them so they can’t breed more.” (Male, aged 46-55 with Master’s degree).

This brazen hatred brings us to something else motivating the researchers. Yancey in the Post again:

Another aspect that drove me to work on this project was that while I consistently saw evidence of Christianophobia in other areas of my life and in our society, unlike other types of intolerances, those who exhibited Christianophobia do not tend to think that they are intolerant. Usually those who do not like blacks or Muslims admit that they are intolerant but simply try to justify their intolerance. Those with Christianophobia tend to deny that they are intolerant but rather that they are fairly interpreting social reality. Envisioning themselves as fair and free of intolerance allows them to blame those they detest.

This reflects the common modern usage (and misuse) of the term “tolerance,” which is supposed to pertain to a person’s ability to abide a perceived negative. We wouldn’t have to “tolerate” a fine car or delectable meal; we relish those things. But we would have to tolerate bad weather or a stubborn cold. In this sense, not liking blacks, Muslims, or Christians is not indicative of intolerance; quite the opposite, only a person with such feelings could exhibit tolerance with respect to such a group because he perceives the group as a negative. If he liked the group or was indifferent to it, he couldn’t exhibit tolerance because there would be nothing for him to have to tolerate.

So there are two relevant questions here: Is the perceived negative an objective negative? And is the intolerance truly justified? Examples:

• You may dislike exercising self-discipline (emotion, remember, isn’t logical), but recognize that since it’s objectively good, your feelings are disordered; thus, when you tolerate its exercise, it’s virtuous.

• You may dislike a neighbor boy’s piano playing. But while you have a moral right to your tastes in this case, practicing an instrument isn’t objectively bad; thus, tolerating it in the name of good fellowship is virtuous.

• You will surely dislike having the flu, and it is objectively negative. Once you’ve done all you can to ameliorate the symptoms, however, keeping a stiff upper lip and tolerating it is virtuous.

• Almost all of us dislike theft, and rightly so because it’s morally wrong. And tolerating it would be a severe fault because when dealing with a remediable objective negative, the only virtue lies in wiping it out.

The same applies to belief. We may recognize someone’s First Amendment right to espouse Nazism, but should we be tolerant of Nazism itself? Likewise, should the Spaniards have been tolerant of the Aztec religion prescribing the sacrificial slaughter of thousands of innocents? Many today believe that tolerance is ever and always a virtue, but as Greek philosopher Aristotle put it, “Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” Tolerance of vice is vice itself.

So the question about the anti-Christian elitists isn’t whether they’re intolerant. By definition they are: They view Christianity as a negative and want it purged from society. The only question is whether their intolerance is justifiable. Does it serve to preserve understanding of Truth and expose lies or just the opposite? As to this, Dr. Yancey pointed out that Christianophobes claim to believe “that they are fairly interpreting social reality” but don’t “recognize how their emotions have distorted their intellectual judgments.” In other words, they don’t realize that what their feelings tell them is negative isn’t actually objectively so. But why do they have these disordered feelings?

It’s an old story. We all have had the experience of rendering some constructive criticism, only to have the object of it react with anger. No one likes having his bubble burst. And the more attached to the misbegotten idea the person is, the stronger his resistance will be — and the more viciously he may attack those who dare challenge his illusions.

In this relativistic age of “If it feels good, do it” where sin is in, Christianity upholds the absolute, unchanging, nonnegotiablestandard of morality. It tells people that their sins really are sins — not just lifestyle choices — and that they’ll be judged for them. And just as one small pin can burst a balloon, a tiny bit of Truth can shatter a rationalization.

It’s no surprise Yancey found that anti-Christian elitists are generally “white, educated [miseducated, actually] and wealthy.” These are not just the “idle minds” that are the “Devil’s playground” or, to echo George Orwell, the kind of people who could believe truly absurd ideas: intellectuals. They also invariably are advocates for some anti-Christian movement, such as feminism or our Great Sexual Heresy. They not only usually indulge sin (people tend to push what they’re attached to), but have come to believe that their very happiness depends on the realization of their social vision — and Christianity stands in its way. And there’s something that is often a corollary of “If it feels good, do it”:

If it feels bad, destroy it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Donald Trump: America Is Currently in a ‘Jobs Recession,’ when ‘Bubble’ Pops ‘It’s Going To Be Ugly

Bull and-TrumP

6 Feb 2016  by< MATTHEW BOYLE

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire — Billionaire and national 2016 GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump pushed back on the notion put forth by President Barack Obama that America is doing well economically.

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News on Friday, Trump laid out how he believes the United States is currently in another recession—something that proves President Obama’s economic policies have failed, as have those of his GOP enablers in Congress.

“I think you’re sort of in a recession now, you’re certainly in a jobs recession now,” Trump said when asked to react to a new report from the Financial Times detailing the potential rising risk of a new recession. “We have millions of people out of work, and the jobs they have are bad jobs. We’re in a bubble. We’re in a bubble. The sad part is it may not pop now, it may pop two weeks into the new administration and the new administration will be blamed for it. One of those things, right? But we’re in a bubble and it’s going to be ugly.”

The Financial Times piece, written by John Authers, details how there is a rising risk of another major recession in the United States.

“The dollar is falling sharply, while the market bets ever more confidently that there will be no rate increases from the Federal Reserve in 2016,” Authers wrote. “This is driven by a rising belief that the U.S. could be slipping into a recession this year — a possibility that only a few weeks ago was regarded as negligible. In response, brokerages and investment banks have started to pump out research, trying to assess the risk of a recession. Almost universally, they conclude that the risks remain low — but that they are rising.”

In January, according to another report from CNBC, layoffs in the United States surged to a six-month high of 75,114. Asked to respond to that news, Trump said that it’s foreign nations like China, Japan, and Mexico—and Ireland, which is taking pharmaceutical giant Pfizer away from the United States now—that are to blame. Under a President Trump, he says, this job drain is going to be plugged. Trump said:

We’re going to bring our jobs back, we have to bring our jobs back. We’re losing our jobs to Mexico and China and Japan and every country. Everybody is taking our jobs. We have an open policy on losing jobs. And we have to bring our jobs back—the jobs we have, that phony 5.2 percent, the jobs that we have are terrible jobs. They’re considered bad jobs. We’re going to bring the jobs back, and it’s not even going to be hard. We’re going to lower taxes and get these companies to start coming back here. We’re losing companies. Pfizer is leaving now, you know, Pfizer, because taxes are too high. Many companies are leaving the United States—and I’m going to stop it. I will stop that very quickly.

On Friday morning, news broke from MarketWatch that U.S. exports fell in 2015 — the first time exports from the U.S. fell since the last recession — and that the U.S. trade deficit has risen 2.7 percent in December, 2015 alone.

“It shows you where we’re going,” Trump said in response to the breaking news. “We’re going in the wrong direction. We’re a debtor nation and we’re going to get worse and worse. We’re losing our jobs. We’re losing our businesses. They’re leaving. And I’ll stop it.”

The MarketWatch report painted a grim picture of the U.S. economy on the world stage.

MarketWatch’s Jeffry Bartash wrote on Friday morning:

The nation’s trade deficit rose 2.7% in December as exports fell again, capping the first year since 2009 in which U.S. exports have declined. The U.S. trade gap increased to a seasonally adjusted $43.4 billion from $42.2 billion in November, government data show. That was in line with the MarketWatch forecast. U.S. exports dipped 0.3% to $181.5 billion. They fell 4.8% in 2015 to mark the largest decline since the final year of the Great Recession. Exports have tumbled because of a weak global economy and a strong dollar that’s made American-supplied goods and services more expensive. The worsened trade picture contributed to slower U.S. economic growth in the second half of 2015.

Imports rose 0.3% to $224.9 billion in December. They decreased 3.1% in 2015, largely reflecting lower costs of imported oil. For the full year, the U.S. trade deficit climbed 4.6% to $531.5 billion compared with 2014.”

Trump’s interview with Breitbart News on this topic of the U.S. economy, his biggest strength because of his business background — and on trade and immigration policy, covered already in previous articles — came as President Obama painted a different picture about the U.S. economy on Friday. The official U.S. unemployment rate, numbers announced Friday show, fell to 4.9 percent as U.S. employers added 151,000 jobs.

Obama himself took a victory lap Friday, declaring that his policies have taken America back from the financial brink that loomed in the recession he rode into the White House.

“We should be proud of the progress we have made,” Obama said at the White House press briefing. “We have recovered from the worst economic crisis since the 1930s.”

But Trump doesn’t see it that way. He thinks America’s economy is on the brink of another crash and is warning people that his business acumen is what’s needed to fix it.

“I’ve employed tens of thousands of people over the years,” Trump replied when asked why he’s better to fix the broken economy than anyone else in either political party. “I’ve built an unbelievable company. You saw how good it is when I did my filings. I built an unbelievable company. I have done an amazing job with employment, with healthcare, with education for my employees. The greatest assets anywhere in the world. So what’s going to happen is—these politicians don’t know where to start. They don’t know about stopping companies from going out, leaving, like Pfizer. I will be the greatest jobs-producing president that God ever created. I’ll do a great job.”

obama care jobs

trump flag

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

VIDEO Had Tricky Dick, Don’t Want Tricky Ted, Carson Was Correct, Data Miner Cruz Worker Spread Rumor Carson Was Out

Cruz-Connected Data Miner Aims to Get Inside U.S. Voters’ Heads – Sen. Ted Cruz, Take Off Your Goodie-Good Two Shoes…

Feb 6, 2016 by Anita Hodge


Quit psychoanalyzing your supporters according to atheistic Freudian principles of neuroticism and fear.

Headline news in The Guardian, UK, looks somewhat different than in the United States concerning Sen. Ted Cruz and his electioneering. Has “Trust” Ted created a fake PhD psychologist post-nominal title behind his lawyerly Harvard initials?

“Ted Cruz using firm that harvested data on millions of unwitting Facebook users Exclusive: Documents reveal donor-funded US startup embedded in Republican’s campaign paid UK university academics to collect psychological profiles on potential voters.”


Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign is using psychological data based on research spanning tens of millions of Facebook users, harvested largely without their permission, to boost his surging White House run and gain an edge over Donald Trump and other Republican rivals, the Guardian revealed.

A little-known data company, now embedded within Cruz’s campaign and indirectly financed by his primary billionaire benefactor, paid researchers at Cambridge University to gather detailed psychological profiles about the US electorate using a massive pool of mainly unwitting US Facebook users built with an online survey.

As part of an aggressive new voter-targeting operation, Cambridge Analytica – financially supported by reclusive hedge fund magnate and leading Republican donor Robert Mercer – is now using so-called “psychographic profiles” of US citizens in order to help win Cruz votes, despite earlier concerns and red flags from potential survey-takers. (Ibid)

While Ted and company (Cambridge Analytica) celebrate his Iowa victory because of data-mining, attributed to his “Big Data” by the news media, others are not as ecstatic as the Cruz Crew. In fact, many people are wondering why this creepy psychographic collection of personality profiling on American citizens would have any Cruz supporter cheering.

There are two facets of Ted’s data collection endeavors. First, Ted started with harvesting a base of voters using questionable privacy-invading activities. This was done by collecting personal data that he scraped off of Facebook and/or other personal and social data sources. And, second, realize that Ted is building his own sophisticated psychological model beyond those questionable sources,
based on each individual user’s personalities, but without their knowledge or consent.

Virtually Cruz has set up door-to-door psychotherapy, coffee shop couches, email diagnoses, and psycho phone sessions. Here is how it works. Someone sharing a conversation with you at a coffee shop, or a phone solicitor, or a knock by a pollster at your front door, will diagnose and SCORE your “mental condition” surreptitiously, without your knowledge. So, without a person knowing your background or what you think, and without your permission, a digital psychographic profile is created on you. Meanwhile, back at the ranch the data-mining from other data sources is collected about you – e.g., are you a soccer mom? A working dad? What did you purchase last month? And do you own a gun? Add in your demographics and purchasing habits, including census data, and you begin to realize the full scope of 50,000 separate data points. Big Data is adding up your life and forming a Big Picture ABOUT you.

But, have you seen your profile? Is this really YOU? Someone is assuming what you’re thinking. But, WOW! Someone has also put a number and a score on your personality – and then continually micro-targets your perceived weaknesses or strengths with ads, focus groups, radio, and a ca-zillion email blasts daily, not to mention social media. Plus, you have to ask: where is all this Big Personal Data about ME going?

Cruz tells voters exactly what they want to hear, blurring the lines of truth into outright lies.

This is the manipulation of wholesome America. Citizens are being drugged with Cruzalizing diatribes. Meanwhile in your backyard he has been rubbish gathering and snooping, and then busily painting each person separately into a micro-whitewash of psychological profiling.

An article appeared in Bloomberg Politics, November 12, 2015 entitled, “Cruz-Connected Data Miner Aims to Get Inside U.S. Voters’ Heads,” by Sasha Issenberg, who traveled to the UK to investigate this futuristic phenomenon of Ted’s psychographic data mining. Issenberg even said, “The firm [Cambridge Analytica] promised to tell me things I might not even know about myself.”


Cambridge Analytica brags that they can predict your future behavior of voters by analyzing 5 big personality traits they called OCEAN. They have devised a plotted description attached to a numerical assessment that targets individual voters, based on a “psychographic score” of your presumed personality traits.

Here is what the not-so-complimentary acronym, OCEAN, stands for:








The Cruz campaign modified the Cambridge template, renaming some psychological categories and adding subcategories to the list, such as “stoic traditionalist” and “true believer.” The campaign then did its own field surveys in battleground states to develop a more precise predictive model based on issues preferences.

‘The Cruz algorithm was then applied to what the campaign calls an “enhanced voter file,” which can contain as many as 50,000 data points gathered from voting records, popular websites and consumer information such as magazine subscriptions, car ownership and preferences for food and clothing.’

‘An email will be tweaked based on the personality of the recipient. If a respondent were a “stoic traditionalist,” the conversation would be very direct and to the point. If a potential supporter was labeled “temperamental,” the language and approach would change, according to Chris Wilson, the campaign’s director of research and analytics, who has taken a leave from the polling firm he leads, WPA Opinion Research. “The tone would be inspiring and become more and more positive as the conversation progresses,” he said.’

Cruz has largely built his program out of his Houston headquarters, where a team of statisticians and behavioral psychologists who subscribe to the burgeoning practice of “psychographic targeting” built their own version of a Myers-Briggs personality test. The test data is supplemented by recent issue surveys, and together they are used to categorize supporters, who then receive specially tailored messages, phone calls and visits. Micro-targeting of voters has been around for well over a decade, but the Cruz operation has deepened the intensity of the effort and the use of psychological data. The personality and political scores applied by the campaign are used to tightly tailor outreach to individuals. For example, personalities that have received high scores for “neuroticism” are believed to be generally fearful, so a pro-gun pitch to them would emphasize the use of firearms for personal safety and might include a picture of a burglar breaking into a home.’ (Source [Emphasis added])

Christians especially and all other American citizens should be fuming. So, let’s get this straight. If you are a conservative and are fearful about the direction of this country, you are “neurotic.” If you are a gun owner, you are “neurotic.” If you fear immigration, you are “neurotic.” Are you confident in your beliefs? Are your fundamental personality traits characterized by anxiety, fear, moodiness, worry, envy, frustration, jealousy, or loneliness? You are “neurotic.”

“Cruz had a London-based firm on call to tell him which Iowans were introverted and which were neurotic.” (Source)

Demographics are one thing, but are we to assume that the Cruz psych team can do all this legally? Can these amateurs actually analyze our subconscious mind and stuff it into a computer – where it can travel far and wide?

Where does this junk science come from? You got it. Straight from Sigmund Freud, Carl Rogers, and Carl Jung, the psychotherapy mental psychosis junkies. In Freud’s, The Future of an Illusion, he described believing in God as a collective neurosis: he called it “longing for a father.” Neurosis was a popular term coined by Freud and used by other psychoanalysts. Freud thought if a person believed in a supernatural God, they were neurotic.

So here we have an evangelical Christian politician utilizing atheistic/humanistic theories of psychological fear and feelings, which are being unethically collected and diagnosed by whomever. And upon this faulty foundation he is sorting through personal information about your unconscious thoughts, feelings, and behavior, in order to identify your personality – and especially your motivation so he can get your votes – all of which will be stored into some deep, dark databank. Is this for real? Are you feeling uncomfortable yet?

It gets worse. It turns out to be not just any old databank, but the RNC’s. This is because the RNC made Republican voter file databanks available to Republican candidates, with a promise in return. You guessed it… the candidate must give it all back, plus what they may have covered up. The list-sharing agreement reveals a new level of cooperation between the GOP and any Republican running for President, something which they believe could be highly beneficial to all sides.

For any candidate who signs an agreement with the RNC, that candidate will have access to a database containing a trove of information on more than 200 million Americans, which can be used to power a get-out-the-vote effort. And for the RNC, it means that any information a candidate collects from his supporters, many of whom may not even be traditional Republicans, will be fed back into the database for future use by the party and its candidates.


Now, here’s a little background about Ted’s psych business partner, a Brit named Alexander Nix, Cambridge Analytica CEO, who worked on “psychological warfare” as an international specialist in military disinformation campaigns prior to joining SLC, the parent UK company of Cambridge Analytica. Nix brought his mind-bending business to America.

“Your behavior is driven by your personality and actually the more you can understand about people’s personality as psychological drivers, the more you can actually start to really tap in to why and how they make their decisions,” says Cambridge CEO Alexander Nix. “We call this behavioral microtargeting and this is really our secret sauce, if you like. This is what we’re bringing to America.” (Emphasis added.)

“After the 2012 election, Nix found an American marketplace far more receptive to his entreaties. The overseas work in conflict zones amounted to a promising calling card, a new comparative advantage over entrenched American political firms. “This is really trying to use psychology to understand why hostile audiences do what they do, and to use this methodology to deconstruct that behavior and then use communication to try and change attitudes and ultimately behavior,” Nix says. “Persuading somebody to vote in a certain way,” he goes on, “is really very similar to persuading 14- to 25-year-old boys in Indonesia to not join Al Qaeda.” (Source)

Read that last sentence again. Just wondering by now if this makes you feel all warm and fuzzy….

To make matters worse, Mercer, the hedge fund magnate and owner of Cambridge Analytica, is also Cruz’s main benefactor that bankrolled his Make The Promise I Super PAC. But there is a little quirk in that slippery slope. Last June, Keep the Promise I Super PAC (the same PAC bankrolled by Robert Mercer of Cambridge Analytica) gave Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina a half million bucks. So the big question here is why would Ted Cruz give an opponent running for the White House $500,000? (Source)


Yet another twist and turn in this data-mining story reveals that Carly knows how to crunch data, too. After 9/11, a report showed that Carly, as CEO of Hewlett-Packard, was hired by NSA Director Gen. Michael Hayden to set up surveillance apparatus on Americans. The result was the world’s “most extensive” spy network, capable of intercepting every phone call, text message and email on each American. Hayden called Carly Fiorina and purchased spy equipment that would make the story of released security papers by Eric Snowden famous.

Carly worked with the CIA during the Bush administration, making recommendations for national security policy and developing a close working relationship with some of the most powerful officials in the administration. Hayden was named director of the Central Intelligence Agency by President Bush. He created an external advisory board, in which Fiorina was selected by Hayden to be chairman of the board. Carly knows how to crunch data. But did she share her secrets with Ted for a tip? We don’t know, but a fishy $500,000 comes to mind. (Source)

When Edward Snowden released and exposed the world-wide NSA data snooping interceptions, world leaders were alarmed. Americans were alarmed. It was found that NSA had a backdoor access, not only through Verizon, but to Microsoft and its Skype division; Google and its YouTube division; Yahoo; Facebook, AOL, Apple and PalTalk – a lesser known chat service owned by AVM Software. Then NSA had eavesdropped on German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone, an act for which she demanded a full explanation. Germans are extremely nervous about past surveillance by secret police. Mrs. Merkel grew up in the former East Germany, where the Stasi spied on millions of citizens.

Americans have not yet faced the full adverse affects of their government spying on their every move, except for the unusual activity over Tea Party 501(c)(3) applications. But, has Ted Cruz changed all of this by taking the beginnings of NSA snoop files and adding to them his psychographic details on 220 million Americans, lined up in digitized files? If Ted would become President, he would surely have enough made-up personality files on Americans to do a much better snooping job than the Stasi. What should make you uneasy is that Ted is identifying all “neurotic” Christians and God fearing people, and placing them as a target in one big data pot. Think about it.

Americans are very passionate about their privacy. But now, behind your back psychographics?! I’m sure citizens will not like this new Ted Cruz “Minority Report” resembling the famous other Cruise movie about monitoring and predicting your future behavior.

Wouldn’t you like to see Ted’s OCEAN profile? Is he comfortable with lying? Does he cling to his guns? Does he fear losing the White House? Let’s ask the question, “Is Ted neurotic?”

Senator Ted Cruz, the flaming Christian politician, who doesn’t act like one, turns out to be just a politician with a bent toward unethical principles. Freud would be proud of him. So, what are you thinking?

How can anyone “Trust” Ted?!


Ben Carson Campaign Releases Tape of Ted Cruz Worker Spreading Rumors


Senator Ted Cruz greeted supporters in Des Moines after winning the Iowa caucuses on Monday night.
Senator Ted Cruz greeted supporters in Des Moines after winning the Iowa caucuses on Monday night.CreditStephen Crowley/The New York Times

Ben Carson’s campaign raised the ante Friday in its battle with Ted Cruz’s campaign, releasing an audio recording in which a Cruz staff member tells Iowa caucus precinct captains that Mr. Carson was dropping out of the presidential race.

In the tape, the Cruz campaign urged supporters of Mr. Carson to back the Texas senator rather than waste a vote for Mr. Carson. The tape, along with texts and Twitter messages by Cruz supporters, suggests a coordinated effort by the Cruz campaign to discourage Carson supporters from voting for their favored candidate on caucus night.

“Hello, this is the Cruz campaign with breaking news: Dr. Ben Carson will be suspending his campaign following tonight’s caucuses,” a Cruz campaign staff member said, according to the recording. “Please inform any caucusgoers of this news and urge them to caucus for Ted instead.”

Mr. Carson planned to head home to Florida to get fresh clothes after the caucuses instead of traveling to New Hampshire or South Carolina, the next primary states. This led to rumors that he was planning to suspend his campaign.

Mr. Cruz, who won the Republican caucuses on Monday night, personally called Mr. Carson to apologize this week. His campaign has said it was responding to erroneous news reports when it made a last-minute effort to court backers of Mr. Carson.

It remains unclear how widely the Cruz campaign distributed the false information about Mr. Carson or what affect it had on his supporters.

Since Mr. Carson rose to the top of Iowa polls last year, his campaign has faced major upheavals. After finishing fourth in the Iowa caucuses, Mr. Carson shed staff this week to cut costs. He had refrained from attacking rivals throughout his campaign, but he has latched on to the “dirty tricks” employed by Mr. Cruz to garner attention and raise money.

“Monday night was a rough night, as the Cruz campaign spread false rumors to voters across Iowa that Dr. Carson was pulling out of the race, and instructed them to vote for Senator Cruz,” Bob Dees, chairman of Mr. Carson’s campaign, wrote in a fund-raising email on Friday afternoon.

At a news conference in Washington this week, Mr. Carson said that Mr. Cruz had not gone far enough in addressing the situation and called on him to fire the staff members who spread the rumors. Invoking the Bible, Mr. Carson said it would reflect poorly on Mr. Cruz’s character if he stood by employees who engaged in such behavior.

Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for the Cruz campaign, reiterated on Friday that the senator was sorry for the misunderstanding. She said that the campaign believed the reports about Mr. Carson were true because it so was unusual for a candidate to leave the campaign trail between the first two nominating contests. And, she said, the calls did not appear to have any effect on the outcome in Iowa.

“The senator has already apologized for not more quickly making that clarification, and there is no evidence that our sharing of this news story impacted Carson’s campaign — he well outperformed expectation,” Ms. Frazier said.


We already had Tricky Dick who resigned the office of president.

We do NOT want to elect someone who is predisposed to dirty tricks whether it is Hillary or Ted.

Matt Flegenheimer contributed reporting

Find out what you need to know about the 2016 presidential race today, and get politics news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the First Draft newsletter.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

VIDEO Hillary’s Whitewater missing docs, testimony – Feds fight FOIA request for Hillary’s WW draft indictments – Todays Emails

hillary truth


Yesterday I posted Feds fight FOIA request for Hillary Clinton’s White Water draft indictments. [below] Since this issue has arisen once again, I thought for a Saturday post a bit of a review would give us some fun. First, the amazing thing that amazingly Whitewater records suddenly appear after missing for months. What a surprise!. Then, a bit of parody with the second clip. I will list the pardons her hubby handed out as the door kicked their sorry asses as they collected anything that moved as they exited the White House door for the last time. Sit back, put up your feet, and enjoy.


Then a bit of humor :

Now the lucky ones who were convicted then pardoned by Bill Clinton.

Ultimately the Clintons were never charged, but 15 other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including Bill Clinton’s successor as Governor, who was removed from office.[44]

Hillary Clinton’s Whitewater missing documents, testimony


Feds fight FOIA request for Hillary Clinton’s White Water draft indictments

If we got lucky and got a decent judge, this could be a hoot. Really. How many even know about the White Water scandal? How many Presidential candidates had draft indictments? Seems a worthy lookie look. But then again, after her tap dance last night during the Dem’s debate, how much would anyone care? Here we go:

The National Archives is fighting a lawsuit trying to force disclosure of several draft indictments of Hillary Clinton prepared by a Whitewater prosecutor in the 1990s.

In a brief filed late Tuesday, Justice Department lawyers and the Archives argue that disclosure of the draft indictments would lead to an unwarranted invasion of Clinton’s privacy and violate a court rule protecting grand jury secrecy.

The conservative group Judicial Watch, which filed suit for the records in October under the Freedom of Information Act, is arguing that Clinton’s ongoing bid for the presidency reinforces the public interest in records about her alleged misconduct.

“She’s one of the most well-known women in the world, seeking the office of the presidency and her privacy interests outweigh the public interest in knowing what’s in that indictment? It’s absurd and it’s shameful that the administration is proposing this,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an interview. “This is a political decision to protect her candidacy—because it is laughable, legally.”

Read more: Politico

Feds fight FOIA request for Hillary Clinton’s White Water draft indictments




Feb 5, 2016 by ROGER ARONOFF




The media’s double standard has been on full display with a number of softball interviews and a staged CNN town hall held for the Democratic presidential candidates. The left-wing mainstream media are waiting to crown Hillary Clinton, even before the votes are in. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, in particular, recently interviewed Hillary Clinton about her close victory in the recent Iowa caucuses.

At the very least you would have to say that the thrill up his leg that Matthews used to get for President Obama is now firmly in place for Mrs. Clinton. Matthews’ performance was no journalistic interview. Instead, it was a mutual love-in with Hillary, and the Democratic Party in general. It was as if Matthews was unaware of any of the developments in EmailGate or the Benghazi scandal, both of which have been very public. Yet Matthews uttered nary a word on his sycophantic network, MSNBC, about the substance of any of Hillary’s scandals.

Instead, he showered Mrs. Clinton with praise. “You know I think everybody should’ve been impressed, maybe I wasn’t impressed as I should have been—but everybody should have been about the way you handled New Hampshire last time around,” said Matthews to Mrs. Clinton.

Despite the fact that Matthews, and the rest of the mainstream media, would prefer to ignore the latest revelations in EmailGate, the drip, drip, drip of scandal continues. The day after Matthews’ interview with Mrs. Clinton, Fox News’ Martha MacCallum interviewed Republican Congressman Chris Stewart (R-UT) about Mrs. Clinton’s email controversy.

Stewart, a former Air Force B1 bomber pilot, is now a member of the House Intelligence Committee. He has seen the latest batch of Hillary’s emails marked Top Secret, and pointed out that there were more than just the 22 emails reported earlier. The total now comes to 29 emails that the State Department will not release.

Stewart was shocked at what he saw when he reviewed these emails.

“[These emails] do reveal classified methods, they do reveal classified sources, and they do reveal human assets,” said Congressman Stewart on Fox News. “I can’t imagine how anyone could be familiar with these emails, whether they’re sending them or receiving them, and not realize that these are highly classified.”

“Did Hillary Clinton demonstrate the judgment and the respect for protocol that would allow her to protect national security?” asked Rep. Stewart. “And when I read these emails and when I see how she has exposed some of the most sensitive information or potentially exposed that, I don’t know how we can say that she has demonstrated that judgment.”

Stuart condemned claims that the controversy over Mrs. Clinton’s private email server is a “right-wing conspiracy.”

“For heaven’s sakes, this is where Obama administration officials who have told us that these emails were so classified they can’t be released,” he said. “This wasn’t something that’s coming from the right; it’s coming from this current administration,” Congressman Stewart added. “So her argument isn’t with me, it’s with the President and with his administration regarding that.”

It was the Obama-appointed Inspector General who stated that some of Mrs. Clinton’s emails were Top Secret, and an Obama administration State Department that hasconcurred. As we reported, some of these emails contained material so highly classified that even the Inspector General’s team wasn’t originally cleared to see them.

But apparently few reporters in the mainstream media saw Rep. Stewart’s interview, or had any interest in hearing his perspective. You see, it’s only Fox News that cares about such trivial nonsense.

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker Glenn Kessler did note Stewart’s interview, but did so only in order to contradict his assertions. “Other sources who have viewed the emails do not describe the emails as strongly [as Congressman Stewart], though one official said Clinton’s aides might have put their security clearances at risk,” writes Kessler.

Kessler’s piece gave only two Pinocchios out of a possible four to Mrs. Clinton for her claims about how she handled classified materials on her private server. In the same Fact Checker column, Kessler cited a George Stephanopoulos interview with Mrs. Clinton. And while we’ve criticized Stephanopoulos in the past for his failure to note his conflicts of interest when it comes to the Clintons—including his obvious partisanship on her behalf by failing to ask her the tough questions—he does deserve some credit for a question he raised on his ABC show last Sunday. He talked about a non-disclosure agreement that Mrs. Clinton signed as secretary of state. This made it clear that whether or not the material is “marked classified” is “not that relevant,” since she has been “trained to treat all of that sensitively and should know the difference.”

Mrs. Clinton gave a nonsensical answer, stating at first that “Well of course and that’s exactly what I did. I take classified information very seriously.” And then in the same answer she reverted to her tired defense: “And when you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain thought that this was classified, and that was not the case.” She’s trying to have it both ways.

I have reported extensively on the Hillary Clinton email scandal. And, yes, Mrs. Clinton did apologize—sort of. She apologized for using one device for her emails instead of two while she served for four years as secretary of state.

“As I look back at it now, even though it was allowed, I should have used two accounts. That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility,” said Clinton in an ABC News interview last September. At a recent January town hall staged by CNN, Mrs. Clinton insisted that she wasn’t “willing to say it was an error in judgment because what—nothing that I did was wrong. It was not—it was not in any way prohibited.”

In Thursday night’s debate on MSNBC, Chuck Todd asked about the emails, but not in any substantive way. He asked her, “So can you reassure these Democrats that somehow the email issue isn’t going to blow up your candidacy if you’re the nominee?” She said, “Absolutely I can. You know, before it was emails, it was Benghazi, and the Republicans were stirring up so much controversy about that.”

He then asked, “Are you 100 percent confident that nothing is going to come of this FBI investigation?” She replied, “I am 100 percent confident.” What does Mrs. Clinton know that the rest of us don’t? Has she been assured by the Obama administration that no indictment will be forthcoming? After all, President Obama emailed directly to her private email address on a number of occasions, and could get caught up in the scandal as well. Plus, indicting Hillary would create a civil war in the Democratic Party, perhaps opening the door to a Biden run, or a massive defeat in November.

Where is the apology for failing to turn over her emails in a timely fashion when she left office, or for doing business on an unsecured “home brew” server unprotected from Chinese, Iranian and Russian hackers? Robert Gates, the former secretary of defense under both President George W. Bush and Barack Obama, said that “the odds are pretty high” that Mrs. Clinton’s home brew server was compromised by China, Russia and Iran.

Instead, Mrs. Clinton has absurdly claimed that her server was secure becauseSecret Service agents were guarding the property.

Mrs. Clinton was also caught lying about whether she had turned over all her work-related emails when Sidney Blumenthal’s testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi revealed additional business-related emails that she had not sent to the State Department.

The drip, drip, drip of scandal has only gotten worse over time. We have now learned that there were more than 1,300 emails containing classified information that were either sent to or from her email server, classified as Top Secret, and some were classified as the even more secret Special Access Programs.

“You were out there on that arena, I remember you standing in I think it was a fieldhouse,” said Matthews during his softball interview with Clinton. “And you went on and on and on, it went on for five hours. It was incredible, it was a marathon, answering every single question of everyone in that room… Are you going to try to match that performance this time?”

No doubt Mrs. Clinton will be more than happy to answer further questions from the mainstream media. If Matthews’ interview and Chuck Todd’s debate questions are any indication, she knows that pertinent questions about her worst scandals won’t even be mentioned.

Hillary 27 Watergate


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

VIDEO Glutton For Punishment, America Has Not Learned Her Lesson From MB Barrack!


Feb 6, 2016 by Bradlee Dean

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” –President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Outside of the fact that a good portion of Americans believe that The Clintons operate outside and above American Laws, the Clintons, along with other criminal players, have gotten America’s eyes off of Oregon.  They have been found to be taking massive payoffs, while promising the Hammond Ranch and other “publicly owned lands” to Russians with one-fifth of our uranium ore. This is one detail the state-controlled narrative steers clear of concerning what is taking place in Oregon.

Recently, the lawless Hillary Clinton even came out of the closet sharing on her Facebook account about how her beliefs are aligned with the Ten Commandments.

During a town hall meeting in Knoxville, Iowa, a young woman asked Clinton, “I’m just curious how you would say that your beliefs align with the Ten Commandments, and if that’s something that’s important to you.”

“I am a person of faith,” declared Clinton. “I am a Christian, but I do believe that in many areas, judgment should be left to God…”

It’s interesting that she would say that because The Lord said just the opposite in Leviticus 26:15-17.

She goes on to state, “…being more open, tolerant (to the issues that are destroying America) and respectful of people who’ve had different life experiences is part of what makes me humble about my faith.”

This daughter of Belial advocates what God condemns with every word that comes out of her lying mouth and wicked heart (Jeremiah 17:9).

It is also interesting to note that without fail these wicked politicians talk of their “Christian faith” during the campaigns. Barack Hussein Obama did the same thing(Matthew 24:5).

This should be a wake-up call to all those who deny that America is a Christian nation.  Today, 78% of Americans identify themselves as Christians.  However, these politicians are attempting to appeal to the majority of Americans during their campaigns and, in-between, do the devil’s biddings at every step.

Also, when I pulled up Mrs. Clinton’s Facebook account, I notice there were other pages that have been set up in opposition to her, such as “Hillary Clinton Sucks,” “Hillary Clinton is WRONG for America,” and several titled “HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRISON.”

When I finally got to her page, there were a whopping 2,355,735 likes on her page!

Even more telling was that when Clinton was in her position as Secretary of State, the Associated Press reported that the State Department was buying Facebook “likes.” 

In 2013, the State Department, which has more than 400,000 likes and was recently most popular in Cairo, said it would stop buying Facebook fans after its inspector general criticized the agency for spending $630,000 to boost the numbers.  In one case, its fan tally rose from about 10,000 to more than 2.5 million.

But that isn’t all. When Hillary opened up her campaign in Iowa, there were actually more reporters who attended than voters.

Clinton’s Iowa campaign kickoff event roused a whopping 22 people! National Journalreports: 

Gone are the soaring speeches and the big rally crowds, swapped out for roundtable discussions and meet-and-greets with local activists.

But the dozens of reporters both in the room and chasing after her van outside were a reminder of just how difficult it will be for one of the most recognizable public figures in the world to hold events that truly feel intimate.

On Tuesday, for example, Clinton was seated at a table with just seven other people for the discussion, with an audience of another 15. But those Iowans were far outnumbered by the dozens of reporters who were bunched together behind a thin yellow rope at the back of the room.

Indeed, despite some limits on the number of press credentials handed out by Clinton’s Iowa team—each outlet had one person in the room, and national television and photography was pooled—it still was a big group. Bigger yet was the press crowd outside, where reporters who weren’t admitted to the event chased Clinton’s van when it first pulled up here, contributing to the feeling of a media circus surrounding the former Secretary of State’s Iowa launch.

Clinton joked about the horde of reporters as the event opened, telling the seven roundtable participants: “Well, thank you for having me here—and a few of my friends.”

That is not all friends.  According to her Twitter account as of April 14, 2015, Clinton had 3,351,547 Twitter followers. However, as the Daily Mail reports:

According to two popular online measuring tools, no more than 44 percent of her Twitter fan base consists of real people who are active in using the social media platform.  And at least 15 percent – more than 544,000 – are completely fake.

Like her Alinsky comrade Barack Hussein Obama, who had more than 19 million fake Twitter followers56% of Clinton’s Twitter followers were created out of thin air. Simply put, they create the support that they do not have.

We know that the only ones who show up to her speeches are the state-controlled media in an attempt to make her campaign look legitimate. Remember America, this is nothing more than a Saul Alinsky tactic:  Cause the enemy to believe that that there are more of you than there really are.

Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

VIDEO Dinesh D’Souza Gets Massive Applause During Debate With Bill Ayers – Debate American Exceptionalism

BENGHAZIANNIVERSARY waiting for justice

Feb 3, 2016


Conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza faced off with retired liberal professor Bill Ayers Wednesday evening at the University of Michigan — and appeared to briefly get the better of him during a back-and-forth on the criminal justice system. The two political commentators were asked if they felt the criminal justice system “has become too political.”

Ayers responded first. “Our political justice system is a catastrophe. It’s a catastrophe,” he said. “And what was exposed in Ferguson, that the criminal just system is kind of powered … by the kind of targeting of poor people. That’s true in Ferguson, that’s true in Chicago.” “One of the things that I think is catastrophic in it, is that our political system is now for sale — it’s on the auction block,” Ayers added, referring to a campaign finance violation committed by D’Souza. “I think the criminal justice system is deeply corrupt and it’s corrupted by politics.”

D’Souza fired back with a response that prompted the crowd to erupt in applause. “The inequity of our criminal justice system is on full display right on this podium right here,” he said. “So I gave $20,000 of my own money over the campaign finance limit. I got 8 months in overnight confinement. You bombed the Pentagon and tried to bomb all kinds of other things — how much time did you do in the slammer?”


Dinesh D’Souza and Bill Ayers Debate American Exceptionalism

Feb 5, 2016 By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh


An interesting debate, sponsored by the Young Americans Foundation, took place on February 3, 2016 at the University of Michigan between author and film producer Dinesh D’Souza and the progressive retired professor Bill Ayers, a moderated debate with Q & A watched online by approximately 3,000 Americans.
Even though Dinesh D’Souza prevailed in his rational and academic arguments, inserting his brand of intelligent and at times self-deprecating humor for which he is famous, , his debater, the infamous and not so subtle “unrepentant terrorist” Bill Ayers, who bombed or plotted to bomb federal buildings in the 70s,  was occasionally applauded by the audience for his remarks.

Unlike Dinesh D’Souza, who was professionally dressed, Bill Ayers was sporting a black with white lettering t-shirt that was advertising the Black Lives Matter logo made infamous by protesters on the payroll of a certain billionaire, protesters who disrupted civil life and learning on campuses across the country with insane segregationist demands, and violent protests in certain cities around the country that resulted in massive destruction of property, fires, looting, and chaos. Additionally, Bill Ayers was wearing a proletariat chapeau as if he had ever been part of the working class that suffered at the hands of communism in the 20th century.D’Souza was a far more intelligent, humble, and knowledgeable academic than his debater. A section of the audience agreed with Bill Ayers when he described the national militarization of police, when he named Samantha Powers for starting the war in Libya and the Arab Spring, when he criticized Common Core for its mindless standardization and testing, and when he criticized Bill Gates. Ayers questioned what gave Bill Gates the right to become Superintendent of America’s Education System and of the health of the globe.

On the question submitted prior to the debate on the impartiality of the criminal justice system in our country, D’Souza pointed out that such injustice of the criminal justice system was on full display on that very stage.

Dinesh D’Souza served 8 months in nightly confinement for giving $20,000 in illegal campaign contributions to a friend, a violation of the law in New York, while Bill Ayers, D’Souza added, bombed the Pentagon and other government buildings, and never served time nor repented for his actions and crimes.

“The inequity of our criminal justice system is on full display right on this podium right here,” he said. “So I gave $20,000 of my own money over the campaign finance limit. I got 8 months in overnight confinement. You bombed the Pentagon and tried to bomb all kinds of other things — how much time did you do in the slammer?”

Charges against Ayers were dropped based on a technicality – the government failed to obtain proper warrants for surveillance against the Weather Underground.  Ayers remarked rather obtusely that Dinesh’s crime was much bigger than his crime because Dinesh tried to influence a politician.

“The fact is that you admitted to committing a felony, which you did. And it’s a felony pretty serious in a democracy,” Ayers said. “It was an attempt to buy an election.”

D’Souza noted that Democrat fundraiser Sant Singh Chatwal committed a similar campaign finance violation but received no prison time for his crime. D’Souza reasoned:

“Here’s my point. Yes, justice is a matter of, ‘Did you break the law?’ But it’s also a matter of, ‘Does the penalty fit the crime? Do other guys who do the same thing get roughly the same offense?’ Under the Obama administration I will say that progressive justice is a complete sham.”

On the issue of illegal immigration, D’Souza explained that “Immigrants are voting with their feet against their own culture…for one [country] that is…better.” But we cannot take the whole world in by leaving borders open. He pointed out that those who come into the new club, [the United States], “must abide by the rules and must become one of us.”

Speaking with distinction, thorough knowledge of history and economics, conviction, and articulation, D’Souza mentioned his friend from India who said that “he wanted to immigrate to a country where poor people were fat,”alluding to the generous welfare system in this country.

On the remark and question from the audience that All Lives Matter and that he is a “con” man, Ayers tried to explain why Black Lives Matter more at the moment, because cops are indiscriminately killing black people. To make his point, he used the Jewish/Nazi Holocaust as an example why at the time, saying Jewish Lives Matter, would have been important.

However, D’Souza clarified why the comparison is faulty and offensive. Jews were not armed, they were sitting ducks in the face of the armed National Socialists’ (Nazis) Gestapo while black people who are killed today by both white and black cops are usually heavily armed and are pursued or caught in the process of committing crimes.


Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business,  every Wednesday to Thursday at 10:49 AM EST

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh (Romanian Conservative) is a freelance writer, author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her books, “Echoes of Communism”, “Liberty on Life Support” and “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” “Communism 2.0: 25 Years Later” are available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle.

Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education.Visit her website,

Dr. Johnson can be reached at:


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

VIDEO Highest EU Court Considers Criminalizing Website Hyperlinks


Highest EU Court Considers Criminalizing Website Hyperlinks

Feb 6, 2016 by Adan Salazar

The highest court in the European Union this week heard arguments which could impact the ability to link to content on the Internet.

Presiding over a case threatening the nature of the web as we know it, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on Wednesday debated whether website hyperlinks to content which infringes copyright laws should be permitted.

The court heard arguments regarding the GS Media case, in which a popular Dutch blog site posted links to leaked photos on a separate file hosting site.

Arguing the central role hyperlinks play in the digital environment, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) wrote that linking to content freely available online should be legal and was already ruled on by the court in earlier cases.

“If this capacity to link is put in doubt, the web would lose its universality and power,” the CCIA wrote. “The most important information medium of our time would be hobbled.”

The EU’s assault on hyperlinks was not without warning.

Last November, European Parliament member Julia Reda said the “European Commission is preparing a frontal attack on the hyperlink, the basic building block of the Internet as we know it,” and warned the commission’s decision to “break the Internet” could also affect American websites linking to European content.

“From a practical standpoint, this law would affect any news aggregator linking to and excerpting works from European content sources, not just EU based aggregators,” Reda wrote late last year.

“Each weblink would become a legal landmine and would allow press publishers to hold every single actor on the Internet liable,” said Reda.

According to the Disruptive Competition Project, the outcome of the GS Media case could affect “every web user” and place absurd burdens on content publishers.

“If the CJEU rules that every web user, in Europe and beyond, is expected to verify the copyright status of every item on a page before linking to that page, it could effectively destroy the web as we know it today,” write Matt Schruers And Jakob Kucharczyk for

“Would you have to repeatedly check back on the sites you link to, in case the content on the site you linked to has changed? Would you need to confirm that their licenses are all paid in full? Would you also have to verify the copyright status of links on the pages that you’re linking to?”

“If any of this were the case,” Schruers and Kucharczyk write, “social media, search, blogs, comment sections, online journalism could be faced with unmanageable legal liability.”

Meanwhile in the US, Internet pioneer and popular news aggregator Matt Drudge exclusively told Infowars last October that copyright laws which prevent websites from linking to news stories were being debated.

“I had a Supreme Court Justice tell me it’s over for me,” said Drudge. “They’ve got the votes now to enforce copyright law, you’re out of there. They’re going to make it so you can’t even use headlines.”

“To have a Supreme Court Justice say to me it’s over, they’ve got the votes, which means time is limited,” he said.

“That will end (it) for me – fine – I’ve had a hell of a run,” said Drudge.


H/T futuret

Highest EU Court Considers Criminalizing Website Hyperlinks

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments