All posts by Clayton


Affidavits regarding Donald Trump’s brutal rape of a minor


Affidavits regarding Donald Trump’s brutal rape of a minor:

Review of these documents:
Video of her testimony:


Feel free to repost this knowing that

The most common responses will refer to Bill Clinton, who hasn’t been charged with rape.
Spamming this where it’s not relevant will get the post removed, and likely banned from the sub you posted it.
“How far the left has fallen” will be something you can use to instantly identify a comment with an agenda.
These charges were NOT dismissed. The girl received threats, went into hiding, and has likely been compensated for her future silence.
There is an army of posters who seem to be dispatched whenever these links are posted.
For each popular repost, at least 10,000 new eyes will see this.


Lol, people treat me like some marxist era communist when i start soapboxing about how shitty our educational system is

Teachers wages too low?

They chose that career

No money for schoolbooks?

Well why not?

Raise taxes?

Fuck no

Buy your kids school supplies?

But those are expensive, the school can pay for that

You know your kids teacher uses their own money for things like pencils and paper for students because the school won’t/cant?

gasp how terrible

That’s kind of where i usually stop because they are so lost in their own bullshit that they will genuinely argue that the teachers should have been doctors and lawyers or sports stars or business execs if they wanted to make a liveable living… They’ll justify until their blue in the face that the system works as intended, when kids are basically at a doggie day care and not an educational system.

If you continue to disincentivize potential future educators and instead encourage them to go into accounting, then who teaches the children the way of the world?

The accountants? The instagram socialites? Propagandists? The streets? Maybe nobody?

We’re fucked, too many people wouldn’t share their last slice of bread with their dying brother unless there was something in it for them.

Just a daily reminder of how nauseatingly hypocritical Republicans in Congress are. They wanted to impeach Hillary on day one for things they’ve let the Trump administration get away with for 2.5 years.

If Clinton had won impeachment would have started Day 1. They were already planning it.

On Nov. 8, 2016, Donald Trump unexpectedly won the U.S. presidential election. Just four days earlier, however, the Washington Post published this report on Republican plans to impeach Hillary Clinton, whom they expected to win.

Senior Republican lawmakers are openly discussing the prospect of impeaching Hillary Clinton should she win the presidency, a stark indication that partisan warfare over her tenure as secretary of state will not end on Election Day.

Chairmen of two congressional committees said in media interviews this week they believe Clinton committed impeachable offenses in setting up and using a private email server for official State Department business.

And a third senior Republican, the chairman of a House Judiciary subcommittee, told The Washington Post he is personally convinced Clinton should be impeached for influence peddling involving her family foundation.

The same morning that article ran, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the then-chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told Fox News that he believed Hillary Clinton committed “treason” with her email protocols.

Two days before that, Senate House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) also suggested Clinton committed impeachable offenses. In reference to the Democrat’s email issues, the Wisconsin Republican said on Nov. 1, 2016, “I’m not a lawyer, but this is clearly written. I would say yes, high crime or misdemeanor.”

It was around this time that a National Review writer made the case that congressional Republicans should impeach Clinton before the election, while Rudy Giuliani reportedly “guaranteed” to an Iowa audience that Clinton, if elected, would be impeached within a year of taking office.

What is the argument going to be when an off duty officer eventually gets into a needless shootout with another off duty officer?


What is the argument going to be when an off duty officer eventually gets into a needless shootout with another off duty officer?

“They both acted appropriately to handle the situation. While some civilians were killed in the crossfire, both officers hit each other, neutralizing the active shooter threat. We’re very proud of both officers, who will be taking paid leave while we take as long as possible to investigate. Oh yeah, also, while we haven’t investigated anything yet and we know close to nothing, we can say with absolute certainty that guns were not the cause of death. Wasn’t guns. The civilians appeared to drop dead from a case of aggressive E. coli that they most likely picked up while shopping in the produce section. You all are safe now. You’re welcome.”

My live copypasta about Russia’s crimes

Your friendly reminder:

My live copypasta about Russia’s crimes



EU says Russia conducted ‘sustained’ election interference campaign

The European Union already suspected that Russia was trying to disrupt its parliamentary elections through hacks and other online interference, and now it’s directly pointing a finger at the country. EU officials have published a report accusing Russia of orchestrating a “continued and sustained” misinformation campaign during the late May election similar to ones the country tried in the US, France and other countries. It used fake stories to “promote extreme views,” stoke political tensions and, sometimes, discourage voter turnout.

There was a change in strategy this time around, the EU added. Instead of launching large efforts online, the Russians and the political figures linked to them preferred “smaller-scale,” more regional influence campaigns that would be harder to catch.

The report writers credit Facebook, Google, Twitter and others with doing a better job of cracking down on misinformation that could have made Russia’s meddling more effective. However, the EU also said that “more needs to be done” on the part of internet giant, including greater transparency for ad hosts and more cooperation with fact checkers. The Union planned to study the effectiveness of an existing Code of Practice and propose further efforts, possibly including regulations, if the current rules weren’t deemed adequate.

Russia has historically denied interfering in foreign elections despite evidence to the contrary. It’s not always effective, according to past reports, but the EU findings suggest that the country isn’t about to give up any time soon.

Japan demands more proof from U.S. that Iran attacked tankers

Some important details from the Japanese ship owner and the crew who were witnesses to the attack

“The crew are saying it was hit with a flying object. They say something came flying towards them, then there was an explosion, then there was a hole in the vessel,” he told reporters. “Then some crew witnessed a second shot.”

Both attacks were witnessed by people on board. Both times they saw a flying object, discrediting the US first claim that it was a torpedo, and their second claim that it was a mine. The most convincing part is that they saw the second attack too. After the first attack, the crew would have been on alert looking for potential danger around them eg who launched the attack? Where did it come from? etc. The fact that they saw a flying object hit them while they were already on the lookout demonstrates they are likely to be accurate eyewitnesses.

“To put a bomb on the side is not something we are thinking,” he said. “If it’s between an explosion and a penetrating bullet, I have a feeling it is a penetrating bullet. If it was an explosion, there would be damage in different places, but this is just an assumption or a guess.”

On top of that, the damage on the ship is not consistent with the damage that would have occurred had it been a mine or explosion from outside. It was a penetrative attack, thus an artillery shell seems to be more likely. This is coming from the people who own and inspected the ship.

These inconsistencies explain why Japan (a very close and strong US ally) are asking for more evidence from the US. They are not convinced by the US’ story. They have access to the ship and the way it was damage. Their experts have looked over the damage and dont find it consistent with what the US is saying happened. They have access to the crew members who were first hand witnesses. Their stories do not corroborate with what the US is saying happened. All the US has said is that only Iran is capable of such a sophisticated attack, which is nonsense. The Japanese summarised it best themselves.

If having expertise sophisticated enough to conduct the attack could be a reason to conclude that the attacker was Iran, “That would apply to the United States and Israel as well,” said a source at the Japanese Foreign Ministry.


Trump claims today that without him the economy will crash

So you created an economy so fragile that without you it crumbles down? In the business world that’s the sign of a poorly made company.

Too bad 1/3 of the country just nodded yes with glazed eyes and gaping maws

And none of them benefited from the strong economy. All they got out of it was to say “the market is strong!”.

Fuck the stock market. Only 20% of rich Americans really care about it. Trumps tax break only helped those with wealth. Thats why he wants to tax the money people are making now. When the market crashes and people lose all their savings, they will see what many of us already see in Trump. Unless, people wake up, they will doom us all.

Now, every taxpayer threw in $200 to subsidize the farmers that voted for this shitgibbon.

You see the fundamental problem is that the people who are brainwashed by trump have 2 core beliefs, one is that when they die, they wilk go to heaven, the second is that the quicker they get there the better.

The internal poll that Donald Trump said didn’t exist was just leaked And surprise! The numbers are just as bad for Trump as everyone thought.

Donald Trump's own internal poll numbers have been...deflating. Credit: Tolga AKMEN / AFP
Donald Trump’s own internal poll numbers have been…deflating.

ABC News on Friday published the results of an internal poll conducted by President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign in March, a survey that Trump himself denied even existed.

The poll found Trump trailing Joe Biden by huge margins in states he carried in 2016, including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In Texas, which has voted for Republican presidents by wide margins for the last 43 years, Trump holds just a two point edge against the former vice president.

The existence of the poll and its damning findings were first reported by the New York Times earlier this week. It aligns closely with several independent surveys which have consistently found Trump trailing virtually every Democratic presidential contender in head-to-head matchups, findings which Trump himself has repeatedly denied. He also suggested the very existence of internal polling was a fabrication, and when that was proven to be a lie, instructed his staff to deny the results.

“They were fake polls that were released by somebody that is — it’s ridiculous,” he told the media during a typically meandering press conference on Wednesday. “No, we are winning in every single state that we’ve polled.”

In Florida, the Trump campaign’s internal poll shows him losing to Biden by seven points. In Wisconsin, the margin is 10 points. In Pennsylvania, it’s 16. Trump won all three states in 2016, and desperately needs all of them in order to win reelection in 2020.

“They’re giving out phony polls,” Trump insisted on Wednesday. “These are polls that we have, that nobody saw. We do very little polling because I’m not a huge believer in polling…But we have some internal polling — very little — and it’s unbelievably strong. The strongest I’ve ever been is exactly today.”

Brad Parscale, Trump’s campaign manager, confirmed the authenticity of the internal poll obtained by ABC News while simultaneously arguing that the numbers in that poll are outdated.

“These leaked numbers are ancient, in campaign terms, from months-old polling that began in March before two major events had occurred: the release of the summary of the Mueller report exonerating the President, and the beginning of the Democrat candidates defining themselves with their far-left policy message,” said Parscale in a statement to ABC News.

As the network noted, the poll was still being conducted several days after Mueller’s report first became public. The report also explicitly did not exonerate Trump, but rather outlined as many as 10 instances of criminal obstruction of justice.

Just as his boss instructed, Parscale claimed there is other, more recent internal polling showing Trump doing significantly better in the same 17 states the campaign polled. He declined to share those figures with ABC News.

The leaked internal poll only focused on a hypothetical matchup against Joe Biden, who is currently leading the field of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. But recent independent polling suggests that Trump would fair only marginally better against a number of other Democratic contenders.

He trailed Bernie Sanders (by 9%), Kamala Harris (by 8%), Elizabeth Warren (by 7%), Pete Buttigieg (by 5%), and Cory Booker (by 5%) in the recent survey by Quinnipiac University.

Trump administration providing ‘false’ information about Gulf of Oman attack, says Japanese tanker owner

The owner of the Japanese tanker attacked on Thursday said US reports have provided “false” information about what happened in the Gulf of Oman

The ship operator said “flying objects” that may have been bullets were the cause of damage to the vessel, rather than mines used by Iranian forces, as the US has suggested. 

Yutaka Katada, chief executive of the Japanese company operating the ship called Kokuka Courageous, one of two vessels attacked near the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday, said the damage could not have been caused by mines or torpedos that are shot underwater, since the damage was reportedly above the ship’s waterline. 


“It seems that something flew towards them. That created the hole, is the report I’ve received,” Mr Katada said at a press conference in Tokyo on Friday, the Financial Times reported. Mr Katada also described reports of a mine attack as “false” according to several outlets in attendance at the press conference.

Donald Trump’s administration has meanwhile insisted the attacks were carried out by Iran, which has denied having any involvement in either of the two incidents. 

In case anyone still doubts the US is running concentration camps at the border….

New Tent Camps Go Up In West Texas For Migrant Children Separated From Parents

Surely, the United States of America could not operate concentration camps. In the American consciousness, the term is synonymous with the Nazi death machines across the European continent that the Allies began the process of dismantling 75 years ago this month. But while the world-historical horrors of the Holocaust are unmatched, they are only the most extreme and inhuman manifestation of a concentration-camp system—which, according to Andrea Pitzer, author of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps, has a more global definition. There have been concentration camps in France, South Africa, Cuba, the Soviet Union, and—with Japanese internment—the United States. In fact, she contends we are operating such a system right now in response to a very real spike in arrivals at our southern border.

“We have what I would call a concentration camp system,” Pitzer says, “and the definition of that in my book is, mass detention of civilians without trial.”

Historians use a broader definition of concentration camps, as well.

“What’s required is a little bit of demystification of it,” says Waitman Wade Beorn, a Holocaust and genocide studies historian and a lecturer at the University of Virginia. “Things can be concentration camps without being Dachau or Auschwitz. Concentration camps in general have always been designed—at the most basic level—to separate one group of people from another group. Usually, because the majority group, or the creators of the camp, deem the people they’re putting in it to be dangerous or undesirable in some way.”

“Things can be concentration camps without being Dachau or Auschwitz.”

Not every concentration camp is a death camp—in fact, their primary purpose is rarely extermination, and never in the beginning. Often, much of the death and suffering is a result of insufficient resources, overcrowding, and deteriorating conditions. So far, 24 people have died in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the Trump administration, while six children have died in the care of other agencies since September. Systems like these have emerged across the world for well over 100 years, and they’ve been established by putative liberal democracies—as with Britain’s camps in South Africa during the Boer War—as well as authoritarian states like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Camps set up with one aim can be repurposed by new regimes, often with devastating consequences.

History is banging down the door this week with the news the Trump administration will use Fort Sill, an Oklahoma military base that was used to detain Japanese-Americans during World War II, to house 1,400 unaccompanied migrant children captured at the border. Japanese internment certainly constituted a concentration-camp system, and the echoes of the past are growing louder. Of course, the Obama administration temporarily housed migrants at military bases, including Fort Sill, for four months in 2014, built many of the newer facilities to house migrants, and pioneered some of the tactics the Trump administration is now using to try to manage the situation at the border.

Roll call is taken by the army at Japanese internment camp, Tule Lake, CA.
Roll call is taken by the army at a Japanese-American internment camp during World War II in Tule Lake, CA in 1944.

The government of the United States would never call the sprawling network of facilities now in use across many states “concentration camps,” of course. They’re referred to as “federal migrant shelters” or “temporary shelters for unaccompanied minors” or “detainment facilities” or the like. (The initial processing facilities are run by Border Patrol, and the system is primarily administered to by the Department of Homeland Security. Many adults are transferred to ICE, which now detains more than 52,000 people across 200 facilities on any given day—a record high. Unaccompanied minors are transferred to Department of Health and Human Services custody.) But by Pitzer’s measure, the system at the southern border first set up by the Bill Clinton administration, built on by Barack Obama’s government, and brought into extreme and perilous new territory by Donald Trump and his allies does qualify. Two historians who specialize in the area largely agree.

Many of the people housed in these facilities are not “illegal” immigrants. If you present yourself at the border seeking asylum, you have a legal right to a hearing under domestic and international law. They are, in another formulation, refugees—civilian non-combatants who have not committed a crime, and who say they are fleeing violence and persecution. Yet these human beings, who mostly hail from Central America’s Northern Triangle of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador—a region ravaged by gang violence and poverty and corruption and what increasingly appears to be some of the first forced migrations due to climate change—are being detained on what increasingly seems to be an indefinite basis.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration continually seeks new ways to stop people from applying for asylum, and to discourage others from attempting to. The current regime has sought to restrict the asylum criteria to exclude the exact issues, like gang or domestic violence, that these desperate people often cite for why they fled their homes. The administration has sought to introduce application fees and work-permit restraints. They have tried to prohibit migrants from seeking asylum “if they have resided in a country other than their own before coming to the U.S.,” which would essentially eliminate anyone who traveled to the border through Mexico. Much of this has been struck down in federal court.

But most prominently, Trump’s Department of Homeland Security has used “metering” at the border, where migrants are forced to wait for days or weeks on the Mexican side—often sleeping in makeshift shelters or fully exposed to the elements—until they are allowed across border checkpoints to make their asylum claims and be processed. That processing system is overwhelmed, and the Obama administration also used metering at various points, but it remains unclear whether the wait times need to be as long as they are. (DHS did not respond to a request for comment.) There are no guarantees on how long migrants will have to wait, and so they’ve increasingly turned to crossing illegally between checkpoints—which constitutes “illegal entry,” a misdemeanor—in order to present themselves for asylum. This criminalizes them, and the Trump administration tried to make illegal entry a disqualifier for asylum claims. The overall effort appears to be to make it as difficult as possible to get a hearing to adjudicate those claims, raising the specter that people can be detained longer or indefinitely.

All this has been achieved through two mechanisms: militarization and dehumanization. In her book, Pitzer describes camps as “a deliberate choice to inject the framework of war into society itself.” These kinds of detention camps are a military endeavor: they are defensible in wartime, when enemy combatants must be detained, often for long periods without trial. They were a hallmark of World War I Europe. But inserting them into civil society, and using them to house civilians, is a materially different proposition. You are revoking the human and civil rights of non-combatants without legal justification.

USA - Immigration Detention Center in Nogales
A migrant family sits inside an Immigration Detention Center in Nogales after they were detained by border patrol agents.

“In the origins of the camps, it’s tied to the idea of martial law,” says Jonathan Hyslop, author of “The Invention of the Concentration Camp: Cuba, Southern Africa and the Philippines, 1896–1907,” and a professor of sociology and anthropology at Colgate University. “I mean, all four of the early instances—Americans in the Philippines, Spanish in Cuba, and British in South Africa, and Germans in Southwest Africa—they’re all essentially overriding any sense of rights of the civilian population. And the idea is that you’re able to suspend normal law because it’s a war situation.”

This pairs well with the rhetoric that Trump deploys to justify the system and his unconstitutional power grabs, like the phony “national emergency”: he describes the influx of asylum-seekers and other migrants as an “invasion,” language his allies are mirroring with increasing extremism. If you’re defending yourself from an invasion, anything is defensible.

That goes hand-in-hand with the strategy of dehumanization. For decades, the right has referred to undocumented immigrants as “illegals,” stripping them of any identity beyond an immigration status. Trump kicked off his formal political career by characterizing Hispanic immigrants as “rapists” and “drug-dealers” and “criminals,” never once sharing, say, the story of a woman who came here with her son fleeing a gang’s threats. It is always MS-13 and strong, scary young men. There’s talk of “animals” and monsters, and suddenly anything is justifiable. In fact, it must be done. Trump’s supporters have noticed. At a recent rally, someone in the crowd screamed out that people arriving at the border should be shot. In response, the president cracked a “joke.”

Trump’s rhetoric about the border has served the purpose of militarizing the system and dehumanizing its subjects.

“It’s important here to look at the language that people are using,” Hyslop says. “As soon as you get people comparing other groups to animals or insects, or using language about advancing hordes, and we’re being overrun and flooded and this sort of thing, it’s creating the sense of this enormous threat. And that makes it much easier to sell to people on the idea we’ve got to do something drastic to control this population which going to destroy us.”

In a grotesque formulation of the chicken-and-the-egg conundrum, housing people in these camps furthers their dehumanization.

“There’s this crystallization that happens,” Pitzer says. “The longer they’re there, the worse conditions get. That’s just a universal of camps. They’re overcrowded. We already know from reports that they don’t have enough beds for the numbers that they have. As you see mental health crises and contagious diseases begin to set in, they’ll work to manage the worst of it. [But] then there will be the ability to tag these people as diseased, even if we created [those conditions]. Then we, by creating the camps, try to turn that population into the false image that we [used] to put them in the camps to start with. Over time, the camps will turn those people into what Trump was already saying they are.”

Spanish Refugees At The Camp In Perthus, France 1939
Spanish Republican refugees are held at a concentration camp in Perthus, France, in 1939. Tens of thousands fled the Spanish civil war and were kept in French camps, which were turned over to the Nazis when France fell a few years later.

Make no mistake: the conditions are in decline. When I went down to see the detention facility in McAllen, Texas, last summer at the height of the “zero-tolerance” policy that led inevitably to family separation, Border Patrol agents were by all appearances doing the very best they could with limited resources. That includes the facilities themselves, which at that point were mostly built—by the Clinton administration in the ’90s—to house single adult males who were crossing the border illegally to find work. By that point, Border Patrol was already forced to use them to hold families and other asylum-seekers, and agents told me the situation was untenable. They lacked requisite staff with the training to care for young children, and overcrowding was already an issue.

But according to a report from Trump’s own government—specifically, the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security—the situation has deteriorated significantly even since then. The facilities are overcrowded, underfunded, and perhaps at a perilous inflection point. It found adult detainees are “being held in ‘standing-room-only conditions’ for days or weeks at a border patrol facility in Texas,” Reuters reports. But it gets worse.

Single adults were held in cells designed for one-fifth as many detainees as were housed there and were wearing soiled clothing for days or weeks with limited access to showers, the report said. Pictures published with the report show women packed tightly together in a holding cell.
“We also observed detainees standing on toilets in the cells to make room and gain breathing space, thus limiting access to toilets,” the watchdog wrote.

This was at Paso del Norte, a facility near El Paso, which has a stated capacity of 125 detainees. But when DHS inspectors visited, it was holding 900. For a period, Border Patrol tried housing migrants in cage under a nearby bridge. It was ultimately scrapped amid public outcry. When migrants and asylum-seekers are transferred to ICE, things can get worse. Queer and trans migrants face exceptionally harsh treatment, with reports of high levels of physical and sexual abuse, and the use of solitary confinementconsidered torture by many psychologists—is widespread. As a reminder, by DHS’s own assertion, these detainments are civil, not criminal, and are not meant to be punitive in the way of a prison. Many of these people have not even been accused of a crime.

U.S. Customs And Border Protection Agency Holding Detained Migrants Under Bridge In El Paso
Migrants awaiting processing are held in temporary fencing underneath the Paso Del Norte Bridge on March 28, 2019 in El Paso, Texas.

Again: these are inhuman conditions, and crystalize the dehumanization. So, too, does the Trump administration’s decision, reported by The Washington Post, to cancel classes, recreational programs, and even legal aid for the children held at facilities for unaccompanied minors. Why should these kids get to play soccer or learn English? Why should they get legal assistance? They’re detainees.

The administration is citing “budget pressures” related to what is undoubtedly a dramatic spike in arrivals at the border last month: 144,000 people were detained in May. It remains unclear how much of this is tied to the Trump administration’s border policies, like metering, which have severely slowed the process of declaring oneself for asylum and left people camped on the Mexican border for days or weeks after a thousand-mile trek through Mexico. Or Trump’s recent all-out push to seize money for a border wall and declare “we’re closed,” which some speculate led to a surge of people trying to get over the line before that happened.

It’s also in dispute how many of these people actually need to be detained. Vox‘s Dara Lind suggests releasing migrants from Guatemala or Honduras isn’t straightforward as “many newly arrived asylum seekers aren’t familiar with the US, often speak neither English nor Spanish, and may not have appropriate clothing or funds for bus fare.” But release with ankle bracelets has proven very effective as an alternative to detention: 99 percent of immigrants enrolled in one such program showed up for their court dates, though ICE claims it’s less effective when someone is set to be deported. Those subjected to the bracelets say they are uncomfortable and demeaning, but it’s better than stuffing a detention cell to five-times capacity. Unless, of course, that’s exactly what you want to happen.

“Over time, the camps will turn those people into what Trump was already saying they are.”

“At one point, [the administration] said that they were intentionally trying to split up families and make conditions unpleasant, so the people wouldn’t come to the U.S.,” Beorn, from UVA, says. “If you’re doing that, then that’s not a prison. That’s not a holding area or a waiting area. That’s a policy. I would argue, at least in the way that [the camps are] being used now, a significant portion of the mentality is [tied to] who the [detainees] are rather than what they did.

“If these were Canadians flooding across the border, would they be treated in the same manner as the people from Mexico and from Central and South America? If the answer is yes, theoretically, then I would consider these places to be perhaps better described as transit camps or prison camps. But I suspect that’s not how they’d be treated, which then makes it much more about who the people are that you’re detaining, rather than what they did. The Canadian would have crossed the border just as illegally as the Mexican, but my suspicion is, would be treated in a different way.”

It was the revelation about school and soccer cuts that led Pitzer to fire off a tweet thread this week outlining the similarities between the U.S. camp system and those of other countries. The first examples of a concentration camp, in the modern sense, come from Cuba in the 1890s and South Africa during the Second Boer War.

“What those camps had in common with what’s going on today is they involved the wholesale detention of families, separate or together,” Pitzer says. “There was very little in the way of targeted violence. Instead, people died from poor planning, overloaded facilities and unwillingness to reverse policy, even when it became apparent the policy wasn’t working, inability to get medical care to detainees, poor food quality, contagious diseases, showing up in an environment where it became almost impossible to get control of them.

Boer War Camp
A camp for British prisoners of war during the Boer War.

“The point is that you don’t have to intend to kill everybody. When people hear the phrase ‘Oh, there’s concentration camps on the southern border,’ they think, ‘Oh, it’s not Auschwitz.’ Of course, it’s not those things, each camp system is different. But you don’t have to intend to kill everyone to have really bad outcomes. In Cuba, well over 100,000 civilians died in these camps in just a period of a couple years. In Southern Africa during the Boer War, fatalities went into the tens of thousands. And the overwhelming majority of them were children. Fatalities in the camps ended up being more than twice the combat fatalities from the war itself.”

In-custody deaths have not reached their peak of a reported 32 people in 2004, but the current situation seems to be deteriorating. In just the last two weeks, three adults have died. And the Trump administration has not readily reported fatalities to the public. There could be more.

“There’s usually this crisis period that a camp system either survives or doesn’t survive in the first three or four years. If it goes past that length of time, they tend to continue for a really long time. And I think we have entered that crisis period. I don’t yet know if we’re out of it.”

Camps often begin in wartime or a crisis point, and on a relatively small scale. There are then some in positions of power who want to escalate the program for political purposes, but who receive pushback from others in the regime. There’s then a power struggle, and if the escalationists prevail over the other bureaucrats—as they appear to have here, with the supremacy of Stephen Miller over (the reliably pliant but less extreme) Kirstjen Nielsen—the camps will continue and grow. Almost by definition, the conditions will deteriorate, even despite the best intentions of those on the ground.

“It’s a negative trajectory in at least two ways,” Beorn says. “One, I feel like these policies can snowball. We’ve already seen unintended consequences. If we follow the thread of the children, for example, the government wanted to make things more annoying, more painful. So they decided, We’re going to separate the children from the families. But there was no infrastructure in place for that. You already have a scenario where even if you have the best intentions, the infrastructure doesn’t exist to support it. That’s a consequence of policy that hasn’t been thought through. As you see the population begin to massively increase over time, you do start to see conditions diminishing.

President Trump And Japanese Prime Minister Abe Hold Joint Press Conference At Mar-a-Lago
Stephen Miller appears to have persevered in the power struggle.

“The second piece is that the longer you establish this sort of extralegal, extrajudicial, somewhat-invisible no-man’s land, the more you allow potentially a culture of abuse to develop within that place. Because the people who tend to become more violent, more prejudiced, whatever, have more and more free rein for that to become sort of the accepted behavior. Then, that also becomes a new norm that can spread throughout the system. There is sort of an escalation of individual initiative in violence. As it becomes clear that that is acceptable, then you have a self-fulfilling prophecy or a positive feedback loop that just keeps radicalizing the treatment as the policy itself becomes radicalizing.”

And for a variety of reasons, these facilities are incredibly hard to close. “Unless there’s some really decisive turn away, we’re going to be looking at having these camps for a long time,” Pitzer says. It’s particularly hard to engineer a decisive turn because these facilities are often remote, and hard to protest. They are not top-of-mind for most citizens, with plenty of other issues on the table. When Trump first instituted the Muslim Ban—now considered, in its third iteration, to be Definitely Not a Muslim Ban by the Supreme Court—there were mass demonstrations at U.S. airports because they were readily accessible by concerned citizens. These camps are not so easily reached, and that’s a problem.

Migrants board buses to take them to shelters after being released from migration detention as construction of a new migrant processing facility is underway at the Customs and Border Protection – El Paso Border Patrol Station on the east side of El Paso on April 28, 2019.

“The more authoritarian the regime is, and the more people allow governments to get away with doing this sort of thing politically, the worse the conditions are likely to get,” Hyslop says. “So, a lot of it depends on how much pushback there is. But when you get a totally authoritarian regime like Stalin’s regime in the Soviet Union, there’s no control, or no countervailing force, the state can do what it likes, and certainly things will then tend to break down.

“It’s more of a political question, really. Are people prepared to tolerate the deteriorating conditions? And if public opinion isn’t effective in a liberal democratic situation, things can still get pretty bad.”

Almost regardless, the camps will be difficult to dismantle by their very nature—that extrajudicial “no-man’s land” Beorn mentioned. The prison at Guantanamo Bay is a perfect example. It began in the early 1990s as a refugee camp for people fleeing Haiti and Cuba. The conditions were bad and legally questionable, Pitzer found, and eventually the courts stepped in to grant detainees some rights. In the process, however, they granted the camps tacit legitimacy—they were allowed to continue with the approval of the judiciary.

Suddenly, they were enshrined in the law as a kind of gray area where detainees did not enjoy full human rights. That is actually why it was chosen by the Bush administration to house terror suspects: it was already rubber-stamped as a site for indefinite detention. By the time President Obama came into office with promises to close it, he found the task incredibly difficult, because it had been ingrained in the various institutions and branches of American constitutional government. He could not get rid of it. As courts continue to rule on the border camp system, the same issues are likely to take hold.

Border agents detain a group of migrants.

Another issue is that these camp systems, no matter where they are in the world, tend to fall victim to expanding criteria. The longer they stay open, the more reasons a government finds to put people in them. That’s particularly true if a new regime takes control of an existing system, as the Trump administration did with ours. The mass detention of asylum-seekers—who, again, have legal rights—on this scale is an expansion of the criteria from “illegal” immigrants, who were the main class of detainee in the ’90s and early 2000s. Asylum seekers, particularly unaccompanied minors, began arriving in huge numbers and were detained under the Obama administration. But there has been an escalation, both because of a deteriorating situation in the Northern Triangle and the Trump administration’s attempts to deter any and all migration. There is reason to believe the criteria will continue to expand.

“We have border patrol agents that are sometimes arresting U.S. citizens,” Pitzer says. “That’s still very much a fringe activity. That doesn’t seem to be a dedicated priority right now, but it’s happening often enough. And they’re held, sometimes, for three or four days. Even when there are clear reasons that people should be let go, that they have proof of their identity, you’re seeing these detentions. You do start to worry about people who have legally immigrated and have finished paperwork, and maybe are naturalized. You worry about green-card holders.”

In most cases, these camps are not closed by the executive or the judiciary or even the legislature. It usually requires external intervention. (See: D-Day) That obviously will not be an option when it comes to the most powerful country in the history of the world, a country which, while it would never call them that, and would be loathe to admit it, is now running a system at the southern border that is rapidly coming to resemble the concentration camps that have sprung up all over the world in the last century. Every system is different. They don’t always end in death machines. But they never end well.

“Let’s say there’s 20 hurdles that we have to get over before we get to someplace really, really, really bad,” Pitzer says. “I think we’ve knocked 10 of them down.”

Melt ponds open in Arctic as permafrost melts at levels not expected until 2090. Series of ‘anomalously warm summers’ caused ground to thaw, researchers say

Climate change: Arctic permafrost now melting at levels not expected until 2090

Melting permafrost in Alaska caused by rising global temperatures.
Melting permafrost in Alaska caused by rising global temperatures. ( Andrew Burton/Getty Images )

Permafrost has begun thawing in the Canadian Arctic more than 70 years early because of climate change, according to new research. 

A “series of anomalously warm summers” has dramatically accelerated melting rates at three sites despite average annual ground temperatures remaining low. Ponds and hillocks have formed as a result.  

It had been thought that the permafrost – ground that remains frozen for at least two years – would remain until at least 2090. 


But the study found thawing levels were above 150 to 240 per cent above historic levels.  

Researchers called this a “truly remarkable amount”. 

Mould Bay on Prince Patrick Island was the worst-affected site, according to the study, published on the journal Geophysical Research Letters.  

There, permafrost thawing levels were 240 per cent higher than historic levels and the ground sank 90cm over the course of the study which ran for over 12 years, between 2003 and 2016.

Researchers also recorded thawing at depths not expected until air temperatures rose to levels that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted it would reach in 2090.

Along with Mould Bay, researchers observed thermokarsts – a type of land surface that occurs when the ice melts in permafrost, characterised by uneven ground with low rounded hills and small ponds – at three siites along the 430 mile section of the high Arctic in Canada they were monitoring.  

When permafrost thaws, it releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases stored in or beneath it into the atmosphere. 

There in turn, cause temperatures to rise and create a perpetual cycle where more permafrost melts. 


As an atheist I find Buddism comforting

I am of the nature to grow old. There is no way to escape growing old.

I am of the nature to have ill health. There is no way to escape ill health.

I am of the nature to die. There is no way to escape death.

All that is dear to me and everyone I love are of the nature to change. There is no way to escape being separated from them.

My actions are my only true belongings. I cannot escape the consequences of my actions. My actions are the ground upon which I stand.

Fuck Republicans. Fuck Democrats. Fuck centrists. Fuck independents

Fuck Republicans. Fuck Democrats. Fuck centrists. Fuck independents. They are all back-asswards and have thoroughly and repeatedly proven they are both unfit for public office and in no way hold the common good above personal gain. As long as this country continues to operate on a profit driven mentality, socio-economic collapse is guaranteed. This is hard, mathematically and historically verifiable fact whether you choose to believe it or not. 100 years or less before humans start dying off in earnest and every bit of it caused by the greed of your so called “leaders” over the course of a century and a half.

Dems and Repubs BOTH need to be concerned with the fact that they won’t be immune when that collapse happens. As greedy and selfish as they all are you’d think that the prospect of their wealth losing all of its imaginary value would spur them to action but no. Any time a real world solution to one of the real world problems is presented the IMMEDIATE answer is ” well that’s nice and all but who’s going to pay for it?” And then that solution is shut down in endless debate. And no one sees the problem with this? 100 years people. A century. That’s all that the human SPECIES (white, black, brown, yellow, purple, green, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, pagan, Pastafarian, rich, poor, middle class…..EVERY-FUCKING-BODY) has left to survive if we don’t fix the problems NOW.

How this isn’t as plain as the nose on your face is beyond me.

Right wingers are fucking scum, I swear

Right wingers are fucking scum I swear.

Imagine how much more we could accomplish if they stopped with their racism, bigotry and science denial, and just focused their energies on helping build a better society with the environment and humans prioritised over corporate profits.

Zero. Zero more would be accomplished, because right wingers are fucking morons.

Sanctions are nothing but inflicting pain on innocent people

This might be totally tangential to the gist of my website, but having lived for most of my life in America as a poor dumbass white boy; I know it takes a lot more than power blackouts, gazillion percent inflation and scarcity of basic commodities to bring a regime like Trumps down. Or any wannabe dictator for that matter, be in North Korea, venezuela, whatever.

Americans are used to comfort, so they aren’t aware of how resilient human beings are, or how human beings prefer order, any kind of order, to chaos. As someone who spent some time homeless living on the street Let me clue you in to something:

The belief that sanctions or tariffs and the hardship caused by sanctions or tariffs will lead people to topple their governments or support those who do so is badly mistaken. During a period of sanctions, people are obsessed with survival, not toppling the government (it is more difficult to get three square meals, so that is what you focus on, you dont give a shit about who is or isnt in charge. Just survival).

I’ve lived through what is basically sanctions like the USA applies to other countries, and the end result is typically the same; the regime wades through, but ordinary people suffer.

This is a profile on John Bolton

This is a profile on John Bolton:

It’s good, but long. If you don’t want to read it, there’s an audio version (~1 hour, just above the text) that’s done well. It’s pretty terrifying. The man is straight-up militant about everything. He believes in punishing other countries with force.

I would recommend it, though. It’s a pretty engaging article, and you learn about all the crazy shit Bolton was involved with which includes the 2000 election Florida vote count, Bolton’s organization paid Cambridge Analytica $1.2 million between 2014-2016,

Two fun quotes:

In 2011, Bolton became the head of the National Rifle Association’s international-affairs subcommittee. Two years later, he gave a video address to a conference hosted by a Russian gun-rights group, the Right to Bear Arms. In it, Bolton offered congratulations on the twentieth anniversary of the Russian constitution, which, he said, “signalled a new era of freedom for the Russian people and created a new force for democracy in the world.”


In March, 2005, Bush nominated Bolton to be the Ambassador to the United Nations, a move that was widely seen as an expression of contempt for the institution. Bolton had a history of deriding the U.N., once saying that if the headquarters “lost ten stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.” Still, Democrats in the Senate anticipated a routine hearing; they were the minority party and could do little to resist. Tony Blinken, who was the staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told me that the members began to reconsider as they examined Bolton’s work in the State Department. “We saw a pattern of Mr. Bolton trying to manipulate intelligence to justify his views,” Blinken told me. “If it had happened once, maybe. But it came up multiple times, and always it was the same underlying issue: he would stake out a position, and then, if the intelligence didn’t support it, he would try to exaggerate the intelligence and marginalize the officials who had produced it.” After several days of testimony, Senator George Voinovich, a Republican from Ohio, declared, “John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be.”

This, ladies and gents, is our National Security Advisor, currently trying to push every political lever at his disposal to instigate a war with Iran.

The Moon is a dead end, not a gateway to Mars

I’ve seen lots of posting about how it will be more efficient to build refueling plants on the moon to send Mars missions there, because “It’s easier to reach Mars from the Moon because of it’s lower gravity” and other similar nonsense. This is all dead wrong for the following reasons.

1) It likely takes less fuel to get to Mars from Earth, than it does to get to the Moon from Earth

Here is a deltaV map of the Earth, Moon and Mars. If you add up the amount of deltaV to get to the surface of the moon and the surface of mars you get the following (using 10 km/s for earth to LEO)

Earth Surface to Moon Surface: 14.7 km/s

Earth Surface to Mars Surface: 20.2 km/s

Kind of what you expect, Mars is much farther away and takes much more fuel, right? Not necessarily. Now let’s look at what it takes to get to Mars transfer orbit, the amount of deltaV it takes to actually fly right past Mars.

Earth to Mars Intercept: 13.8 km/s

The difference between landing and intercept is the fuel needed to reduce speed so we can orbit Mars, then land on the surface. But, Mars has something the Moon doesn’t, Mars has an atmosphere.

Instead of using fuel to slow to match Mars orbit, we can use aerobraking. That means our ship skips through Mars’ upper atmosphere to burn off velocity to match orbit. Then we can use that same atmosphere to burn off more velocity to actually land, using relatively little fuel to help out.

Sure Mars takes far longer to reach and return from (and can only be visited once every two years), but using aerobraking means we can get there with much less fuel.

2) Ok, so aerobraking is great, still why not use it for launches from the Moon to Mars too?

Lets see how much deltaV we need to get from the Earth and Moon to Mars transfer orbit.

Moon to Mars Transfer: 2.9 km/sec.

Holy gee whillikers! We should start launching from the moon right way!

Wait a second, it’s not that easy. What are we going to launch from the moon? Even if we can make fuel from lunar crater ice, every part of our space-ship, every piece of cargo, all our food and drinking water, and every astronaut, is going to have to be lifted from the Earth to the Moon first, then to Mars. How much deltaV will that take?

Earth To Moon to Mars Intercept: 17.6 km/sec

That’s way more than directly flying to Mars! And the truth is right now there isn’t any magical way to make fuel on the moon. We don’t know where and how much water ice is easily available, how to efficiently process it in an automated way (separating nasty regolith from actual water) to make millions of pounds of fuel, and how many millions of pounds of equipment and fuel need to land on the moon to run the fuel processors. We may need a full nuclear reactor to do it! We are decades away from solving the problems. So right now we’d also have to take all the fuel on this roundabout journey adding massive amounts of cost and significant time to every mission.

And guess what, fuel is cheap. A Falcon 9 only uses a few hundred thousand dollars of fuel per launch. The massive BFR/Starship will take less than a half million dollars of fuel to reach orbit. It’s a huge waste to use hundreds of launches to send the components for massive fuel making plants to the moon when you can use those same launches to send cargo and people direct to Mars.

3) Mars has far more useful resources than the Moon has and is far more hospitable.

I’m not going to argue exploring the moon doesn’t have scientific merit, we absolutely should explore it. But Mars once had lakes, probably oceans, and possibly life, none of which the moon had. Actual cargo, long term habitats and fuel making equipment should go to Mars.

Atmosphere: Mars has a carbon dioxide atmosphere, which makes it easy to make methane, water ice limits the moon to H2 LOX engines.. We may be able to use helicopters and airplanes even in the thin martian atmosphere to get around (or at least fly drones).

Temperature & Day length: The moon flips between subfreezing (-280 Fahrenheit) and oven hot (+ 260 Fahrenheit), each for two weeks at a time because it has a 4 week long “days”. While Mars is farther from the sun and gets down to -195 Fahrenheit during winter nights, it actually gets up to 70 degrees Fahrenheit during the summer and averages -80 Fahrenheit. And Mars days are barely longer than earth days.

Regolith: Lunar regolith is nasty, sharp and dangerous. Mars dust is likely to be far more easier to handle and work in..

Return Trips: We are decades away from making useful amounts of fuel on the moon, but the first visitors to Mars should be able to make fuel for the return trip. We already know where massive stores of water ice on Mars are already, and so we know where to land. The Sabatier reaction is a known method that can produce methane from the martian atmosphere.

4) The SpaceX Plan

The SpaceX plan is basic engineering that requires little new inventions. The first Mars cycle (Mars trips can only be done every two years due to planetary alignments) Cargo Starships are refueled in low earth orbit and sent to the Mars landing areas full of food, supplies and equipment. The second cycle more Cargo Starships are sent along with the first manned Starships with the first explorers. They live in the Starships until they can dig habitats under the soil, and setup the fuel making equipment so on the third cycle they have enough fuel to return, while new explorers land. By not sending fuel to Mars, it drops costs at least ten-fold over a NASA style mission that requires shipping fuel to mars.

If there are problems making the fuel, more supplies and new equipment are landing every cycle to help solve the problems. Meanwhile the martian explorers will have tons of food, water and other supplies to get them through many cycles if necessary before their return.

In summary, we should explore the moon, but our main focus should be mars. Mars missions can actually cost little more than lunar missions using the SpaceX approach. And Mars is a far better place to actually build long term habitats and manufacturing.

Fuck Nancy Pelosi as well

The impeachment of Trump is going to mean a big series of disclosures that threatens large segments of the centrist wing of the Democratic party, that’s why they wont start proceedings. They don’t want their dirty laundry getting aired so publicly.

Another reason to support progressives, led by folks like AOC, Maxine Waters, Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, etc. Put all of the GOP criminals in prison. Cut off their funding, much of which is coming from foreign govts, the NRA, money laundering, etc. Cut off the corporate Dems too. Both the GOP and corporate Democrats love Saudi Arabia, the Military Industrial Complex, Israel, mass surveillance, petrodollars. Until they hear loud and clear that this is a new day, the establishment Democrats are going to side with the GOP and try to “move on” “get past this ugly chapter” etc. by pardoning the war criminals once again, just like happened under Obama.

No more eternal war. No more profit-driven policy. No more surveillance state. No more Boeing, Raytheon, GE, NBC. No more billionaires. No more weird shit like Tony Podesta working with Paul Manafort in Ukraine. It’s time for a new day. Impeach that fucker and drag this whole putrid mess into the sunlight.

Ben Shapiro Storms Out of BBC Interview: ‘I’m Popular and No One’s Ever Heard of You’

Facts did not care about Ben Shapiro’s feelings.

Right-wing commentator and “cool kid’s philosopherBen Shapiro stormed out of a contentious BBC interview on Thursday after accusing the conservative host of being a “leftist” and bragging about how popular he is.

During the pre-taped interview with BBC interviewer Andrew Neil promoting his new book, The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great, Shapiro quickly became perturbed when Neil—who is known for playing devil’s advocate in interviews—pressed him on recent attempts to roll back abortion rights, asking the editor-in-chief of clickbait rage factory The Daily Wire if those policies would take America back to the “Dark Ages.”

“You purport to be an objective journalist,” Shapiro sniped. “BBC purports to be an objective, down-the-middle network. It obviously is not, it never has been. And you as a journalist are proceeding to call one side of the political aisle ignorant, barbaric, and sending us back to the Dark Ages, why don’t you just say you’re on the left.”

This caused Neil, chairman of conservative magazine The Spectator, to chuckle and tell his guest: “If you only knew how ridiculous that statement is you wouldn’t have said it.”

In a bit of damage control, prior to the chat’s airing, Shapiro tweeted Thursday that he had taped an interview with Neil and “misinterpreted his antagonism as political Leftism,” acknowledging that it was inaccurate.

Shapiro, who is famous for saying “facts don’t care about your feelings,” continued to grow frustrated and incensed throughout the 16-minute interview, snarling that Neil was playing “gotcha” by highlighting his old tweets and comments, such as claiming “Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage.”

“You talk about undermining the public discourse,” Shapiro whined. “It seems to me that simply going through and finding lone things that sound bad out of context and then hitting people with them is a way for you to make a quick buck on BBC off the fact that I’m popular and no one has ever heard of you.” (Interestingly enough, Shapiro’s own website has heard of Neil, lovingly writing up one his segments earlier this year with the cartoonish headline “British Journalist DESTROYS Argument That U.S. Sanctions, Not Socialism, Hurt Venezuela.”)

Eventually, Shapiro said that the “whole thing was a waste of time” and he didn’t “give a damn” what Neil thought of him, declaring, “I am not inclined to continue an interview with someone as badly motivated as you,” before taking off his microphone and declaring “we’re done here.”

“Thank you for your time and for showing that anger is not part of American political discourse,” Neil cheekily replied.

The Iran saga continues

The US-Iran saga continues, as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced that on Wednesday that Iran will be partially withdrawn from the nuclear deal. Iran will keep its excess enriched uranium and heavy water, rather than sell it to other countries as previously agreed to limit its stockpile. President Rouhani also said that more drastic measures would be implemented unless the remaining signatories (the UK, China, France, Germany, and Russia) eased restrictions on Iran’s bankingand oil sectors in the next 60 days.

The irony is that Iran really does not have much choice, as the sanction waiver restriction that the US imposed recently made it impossible for Iran to export its excess enriched uranium – so they kinda are backed into a corner by the US to stockpile uranium. As a result, Europe and Russia are both attributing the blame to the US, stating that Iran has been following the guidelines of the Nuclear Deal.

Just a recap of the recent tension between the US and Iran:

  • The US has stopped sanction waivers for the 8 countries that still trade with Iran, meaning Iran oil export will be technically dropping to zero. The US has also named the IRGC as a terrorist organization. And as of this week, the US has moved a carrier battalion and B-52s to Persian Gulf. Mike Pompeo is changing his schedule drastically and went to Iraq yesterday.
  • Iran has named all US troops in Middle East as terrorist groups. The country has warned of drastic measures if tension continues, and there are speculations around the closing of Strait of Hormuz.

Personally, I think this is going down the path of becoming one of the greatest strategic blunders the US has committed in the last couple of decades. There is no clear justification for the US to withdraw from the Iran deal and continue pressuring Iran. Also, Iran is a much strong country than Iraq, Syria, and Afghan combine. If the US is having issues cleaning up in the previous three regions, Iran can only be worse.

The fall of Rome and DJT

It really makes me think of the end of the Roman republic. Now the Roman republic had no constitution per se but was built on precedents. Marius got a second term quickly after his first one (there was supposed to be a 10year gap between them), then he got 5 consulships in a row. Then his adversary tried to institute a dictatorship (an official magistrature) that was exceptionally long “in order to restore the republic” before retiring. In the meantime his right arm Pompey received a lot of command positions despite his young age and used them to gather political capital for his later career.

The next step is more well known and involve a secret agreement to control the main administrative positions between 3 men (the first triumvirate), one of them declaring an illegal war by continuing what was supposed to be a limited intervention into a 7 year long conquest (the conquest of Gaul) then declaring a civil war to be offered power and try to institute life long dictatorship.

Last step after the death of Caesar his adoptive son got the consulship as his first magistracy because he could rally his father’s veterans, ally then fight various people and finally reform the republic in a way that would abolish all checks and balances by granting him veto power over any law like a tribune of the plebs despite being a patrician and distant control over all the provinces with legions in it, ensuring that every military commanders (except a few exceptions) will be picked by him.

So far the US had 2 elections that lead to the numerically losing candidate winning and promoting foreign wars against ennemies in order to deal with personnal grievences of their families and entourage (Bush father and Cheney felt betrayed by Saddam Hussein). It backfired as it created years of war and promoted anti American activities, justifying longer foreign interventions. Then in 2016 the Russians helped to get another losing candidate (in the number of votes) elected. This new president would then try everything to erase the trace of that link, therefore creating traces that something fishy is going on. He also declares that it would be nice to be president for life, that his presidency had 2 great years but those were stolen and that his magistracy should be consequently extended until 2022.

That was a very very brief summary. I didn’t even mentioned that both senates were partially filled with corrupt individuals.

Fox News continues to provide propagandists prime time spots, the most infamous being Sean Hannity. Fox News is responsible for fostering and instilling a deep mistrust that’s undermining and endangering U.S. institutions.

Fox News continues to provide propagandists prime time spots, the most infamous being Sean Hannity. Fox News is responsible for fostering and instilling a deep mistrust that’s undermining and endangering U.S. institutions.

Prime time Fox News refuses to cover breaking news revelations with in depth analysis, instead they misrepresent events, obfuscate known information, and peddle debunked conspiracy theories fostering a deep mistrust that’s endangering U.S. institutions and agencies.[1] On the day of President Trump’s personal attorney’s office raids, Sean Hannity went on Fox and disparaged Special Counsel Mueller claiming that investigators had “declared war on the President of the United States.”[2] Sean Hannity vehemently defended Michael Cohen and disparaged Special Counsel Mueller when investigators raided Cohen’s properties, Hannity failed to mention that he was Cohen’s client.[3] Then we found out that Sean Hannity never disclosed this fact, it was discovered at a court hearing.[4]

Furthermore, a report has come out alleging that Sean Hannity speaks to President Trump nearly every weeknight.[5]

Sean Hannity and Fox News have pushed incredibly deceitful portrayals of events over the course of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation, omitting facts so that they create an alternate reality that doesn’t actually exist. For example when news broke that President Trump attempted to fire Special Counsel Mueller, Fox News host Sean Hannity deflected and changed his story several times within an hour on his show; first by claiming the report was fake news, then defended Trump by claiming that he didn’t do anything wrong omitting the fact that in doing so would be obstructing an ongoing investigation, and finally Hannity cut to a video of a car crash instead of discussing pertinent breaking news.[6]

Fox News has been spinning and lying to protect President Trump.

Many Americans may be surprised to find that leaders across the globe laughed at their President as Fox News edited out the laughing in the clips they initially shared.[7]

During Trump’s UN speech to the assembly, Fox News uploaded two clips that circumvented the awkward moment. In the first clip, Fox cut off Trump’s speech as soon as he finished saying that the U.S. has accomplished more than any other presidential administration.

Three minutes later, Fox posted a second excerpt for viewers, this time beginning right after the uncomfortable moment had ended. This effectively cut out the entire moment, from world leaders snickering at Trump to the entire assembly bursting out in laughter. For Fox viewers checking their Twitter timelines during the event, it was almost as if the moment had never happened at all.

The following morning Fox News attempted to spin the laughter. The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations was on Fox & Friends, Nikki Haley claimed that world leaders were laughing in admiration and support.[8] She claimed that world leaders respect and love how honest President Trump is.[9]

Following the lies and spin from Fox News President Trump held a press conference where he claimed that world leaders were laughing with him and that reporters are reporting fake news.[10] There is video evidence that world leaders were laughing at the President of the United States of America after he made outrageous statements.[11]

He said the American economy was “booming like never before” and that his administration has accomplished more in less than two years than almost any other administration.

His boast elicited laughter from the scores of heads of state and delegates in the audience for the speech.

Trump, who has long claimed that his predecessors’ weak leadership prompted other nations “to laugh” at the US. appeared flustered and responded, “I didn’t expect that reaction, but that’s OK.”

1) Politico – Fox News hosts ramp up ‘deep state’ conspiracies

2) Politico – Hannity’s ethics under fire; Fox News host’s failure to disclose his relationship with Trump attorney Michael Cohen puts his credibility on the line.

2) Fox News – Sean Hannity, Michael Cohen and the ethics of disclosure

4) New York Times – Sean Hannity Is Named as Client of Michael Cohen, Trump’s Lawyer Video

5) USA Today – Report: President Trump and Sean Hannity talk nearly every weeknight

6) Video of Fox News host Sean Hannity cutting to a car crash when news broke that Trump attempted to fire Special Counsel Mueller

7) The Daily Dot – Fox News roasted on Twitter after editing out world leaders laughing at Trump

8) GQ – Nikki Haley Assures Fox & Friends the U.N. Laughed at Trump Because They Love Him So Much

9) Fox News YouTube – Amb. Nikki Haley: World leaders respect Trump, love his honesty

10) The Hill – Trump on laughter during UN speech: ‘They weren’t laughing at me, they were laughing with me’

11) Associated Press – World leaders laugh as Trump boasts of his achievements