Quinton Jefferson, Another Nail in the NFL Coffin

By: Lloyd Marcus

I caught video of NFL player Quinton Jefferson trying to climb into the stands to attack a fan who threw food at him. Jefferson was so enraged that it took 3 huge security guys to restrain him. http://bit.ly/2C80Ra0 Obviously, the fan is an idiot and should suffer consequences for his action.

Regarding Jefferson, I thought, dude you’re a millionaire pro-athlete. Why would you risk throwing away your career over the stupid act of a nobody? Jefferson came across like an out-of-control brainless beast. Jefferson kept yelling, “You don’t disrespect me!” “You don’t disrespect me!”

Jefferson’s intolerance with anyone “dissing” him comes from the gang culture mindset embraced more and more by pro-athletes over the years; particularly black pro-athletes. Jefferson behaved like a common street thug. Thank God security restrained Jefferson, preventing him from stupidly possibly ending his football career or worse over something so trivial.

Jefferson’s unprofessional thuggish behavior was another nail in the coffin with growing disrespect and repulsion for the NFL. Folks, I love pro football. But these guys’ arrogant lack of respect for fans, our military, our police and the country which has made them millionaires turns my stomach.

Even more disgusting is watching Leftists media and power-brokers lining up to kiss NFL players’ derrieres who give America and football fans their middle finger. Colin Kaepernick who started pro-athletes kneeling during our National Anthem was named GQ magazine’s Citizen of the year. http://bit.ly/2krbXPx

NFL player Michael Bennett is also being rewarded for kneeling during the National Anthem, expressing his disdain for his country. Bennett has been nominated for the NFL’s Walter Payton Man of the Year award. http://bit.ly/2C6czSL

NFL Hall of Fame superstar Walter Payton’s bravery and integrity made him a profile in courage. Payton lost his battle with a rare liver disease, dying at age 45. Gifting Mr Payton’s Man of the Year award to Bennett for simply disrespecting our country, behaving like an anti-American Leftist operative is a disgraceful insult to Mr Payton’s legacy. Leftists find a way to urinate on and politicize every good and decent thing we hold dear in our country.

Clearly, if you want rock-star status and be promoted as a hero by the American Left, simply say, “Screw you America!” You’ll receive extra credit; overwhelmingly favorable press if you include saying, “Screw you Trump!”

Make no mistake about it folks. Leftists showering anti-American millionaire NFL players with praise and awards is the American Left’s way of giving us the finger.

Leftist media portrays Trump voters as mostly minority-hating white supremacists. In reality, we are America-loving hard-working everyday people who have been shackled in chains by political correctness; locked up in the deep dark dungeon of tyrannical Liberalism for the past 8 years.

But here is the good news. Trump opened the heavy door, liberating us. As we slowly emerged from our dark imprisonment, we shielded our eyes; sensitive to the beautiful bright sunlight of freedom. Emboldened by our new leader, Americans have begun no longer putting up with Leftists’ attacks on who we are as a people; our principles, values and Godly traditions.

Though under-reported, the NFL is paying a huge price for coddling players who behavior like criminals, anti-American activists and street thugs. Fans are tuning out the NFL on TV and not using their tickets for the games. http://bit.ly/2l3NgNc During Monday Night football, announcer Jon Gruden unintentionally exposed the truth when he said there was not a lot of people in the stadium.

Sadly, it is becoming increasingly challenging to find NFL players parents can point their finger at and tell their kids to be like him.

In my day, I loved Baltimore Orioles shortstop, Cal Ripken; a super class act on and off the field. I even wrote a song about him titled, “Ironman”. http://bit.ly/2iUda1i

One thing about Leftists is they never retreat. Despite the destruction of the NFL as a business, NFL management will continue allowing its employees to dis fans, cops and America until the NFL, in essence, dies. I pray I am wrong because I love pro-football.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd spread the Truth: http://bit.ly/2yaHw50


Russia Plans Alternate Internet, Condemns the West

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Primer: Capping off months of controversy, espionage claims and international intrigue, the U.S. government ban on Kaspersky Lab software has been signed into law. The ban, wedged into the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), would preclude all federal computers and connected networks from using antivirus software made by the Russian cybersecurity firm.

The Kaspersky ban, which appears in Section 1634 of the 2018 NDAA, reads as follows:

“No department, agency, organization, or other element of the Federal Government may use, whether directly or through work with or on behalf of another department, agency, organization, or element of the Federal Government, any hardware, software, or services developed or provided, in whole or in part, by—

(1) Kaspersky Lab (or any successor entity);

(2) any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with Kaspersky Lab; or

(3) any entity of which Kaspersky Lab has majority ownership.”

Last week, Kaspersky Lab announced that it would close its Washington, D.C. offices, which it stated were “no longer viable.”


Since the founding of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in 2009, Russian and Chinese officials have frequently discussed joint cybersecurity initiatives. A relatively substantial degree of collaboration was formalized in the context of heightened Russo-Chinese cooperation in 2014 and 2015, with both countries signing an agreement that included cybersecurity cooperation provisions in May of last year. In the words of the agreement’s signatories, its purpose was to limit the use of informational technology designed “to interfere in the internal affairs of states; undermine sovereignty, political, economic and social stability; [and] disturb public order.”

Digital Sovereignty

This emphasis on digital sovereignty remains a central tenet of both countries’ cyber policies, even as cooperation on the issue has ebbed and flowed. The non-aggression elements of the 2015 agreement floundered in the implementation stage, in part due to ambiguous language but largely as a result of continued Chinese cyberespionage. This activity rose to unprecedented levels in 2016, with Russian cybersecurity company Kaspersky Labs reporting 194 Chinese cyberattacks in the first seven months of the year alone—compared to just 72 in 2015. These attacks targeted Russian government agencies, the defense and aerospace industries, and nuclear technology companies. And they’re probably underreported: A Kaspersky Labs spokesperson told Bloomberg that only around 10% of their corporate clients exchange data related to hacks with their security network. More here.

Russia Seeks to Build Alternative Internet

TJF: Numerous Russian sources report that efforts are underway to produce a new and independent internet that would align Russia more closely with the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India China and South Africa) while giving Russian political authorities greater control over what they refer to as “digital sovereignty.” In late November, the RBK news agency reported on the proceedings of a recent meeting of the Security Council of the Russian Federation (SCRF), which underscored the national security threats posed by the increasing vulnerability of the global Internet (RBK, November 28). The publicly available SCRF website confirms that a high-level meeting on cyber security did take place, but it does not expand upon it in detail (Scrf.gov.ru, October 25). Russia’s state-managed propaganda mouthpiece RT, however, cited “members of the Security Council” as stating that “the increased capabilities of Western nations to conduct offensive operations in the informational space as well as the increased readiness to exercise these capabilities pose a serious threat to Russia’s security” (RT, November 28). RT also noted that President Vladimir Putin set August 1, 2018, as the deadline for creating an alternative to the Internet.

The creation of an alternative internet—which would allow the governments of Russia and the BRICS countries to control the addressing and routing of electronic communications within their territory—raises many complex questions. For one thing, the establishment of a disjointed and competitive sphere of cyberspace threatens to disrupt and potentially fragment the existing conventions of global Internet practice. Moreover, the creation a “counter-net” would necessitate the establishment of an alternative system of identification, addressing and routing information through a new information network operating in a new “domain name system,” a new DNS. The existing DNS is based on a unique number associated with each originating and terminating point for every Internet transmission, coded in the form of a packet of digital information. The idea of the “RU NET” has long been discussed in post-Communist countries. But until now, this idea has only referred to the Russian-language-speaking Internet activities originating from servers in Russia or in other post-Soviet countries where Russian is recognized as an official language—not to a separate internet architecture (APN, December 14, 2016).

The global Internet is already a network of networks, consisting of a broad common space but with some segmented spheres of activity. Gaining complete control over a specific domain in the cyber-sphere, however, would require gaining autonomy. Full control over the Internet (or any segment therein) could only be achieved by creating “the ability to set policies for naming, addressing and routing” transmissions (Milton Mueller, Will the Internet Fragment?, 2017, p. 22). That, in turn, would require establishing control over the domain name system.

Earlier attempts by Russian authorities to gain control over the digital sphere focused on taking charge of the physical hardware of the Internet, such as transmission facilities, and asserting authority over the places where data resides, particularly web servers. In 2014, Russia’s Ministry of Communications and Mass Media specified data localization requirements in the federal communications legislation (Federal Law No. 242) (Minsvyaz.ru, accessed December 13). The law requires data operators in Russia to store all personal data of citizens of the Russian Federation in databases located inside Russia. This legislation was further extended in December 2016 by a set of measures by President Putin to establish a “digital economy” in Russia (Kremlin.ru, December 1, 2016). The most recent Law on “Security of Critical Infrastructure” was passed in July 2017, and is scheduled to go into effect January 1, 2018 (Pravo.gov.ru, July 27).

In order to control the flow of information not in compliance with the legislation, the idea of blocking transmission through physical facilities located on the territory of the Russian Federation led to the establishment of a single register of websites, maintained by the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor). In an effort to conduct this “filtering,” Roskomnadzor developed and implemented a so-called “blacklist” (Rkn.gov.ru, accessed December 13). But while the blacklist succeeded in blocking some websites it identified as unwanted, it also had the effect of blocking websites linked to those, effectively creating a self-censoring network. Roskomnadzor has now stepped back from this practice, correcting many of those problems of excessive blockage but has nonetheless reasserted the intention to more vigorously pursue the policing of websites (Rkn.gov.ru, December 8). Creating the establishment of a separate domain naming system goes considerably further than efforts to “filter” websites, even though Igor Shchyogolev, the staff member of the President’s Office assigned to mass communications, has insisted the idea is not to fragment the Internet (TASS, March 27, 2017)

The robustness of the current Internet naming conventions probably can be attributed to the fact that the Internet emerged in its early days more as a computer science experiment than as an effort to create a new format for global communication, commerce and governance. The identification of parties communicating on the Internet was established through naming protocols established for convenience and by convention, not for control. But the Internet grew so quickly that management responsibility was turned over to a new body, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), in September 1998, which, on October 1, 2016, was re-chartered as a fully independent, non-governmental organization.

The functions of ICANN quickly attracted international competition. Some governments sought to promote a government-centric framework for addressing and naming conventions, while other parties sought to maintain a multiple-stakeholders approach. The failure of the Russian government and others to prevail in winning greater control for states is what has led to Moscow’s intention to create a “counter-net.” The question of whether an autonomous and detachable “segment” of cyberspace could be fashioned by the Kremlin without resulting in self-imposed isolation is an issue with far-reaching implications.

–Gregory Gleason


Our Countless Federal Investigative Committees – Where Scandals Goes to Die

By: Denise Simon | Political Vanguard

Congressional “oversight” is nearly as old as our Constitution. It started with James Madison, our fourth President.  In 1816, while he was President, the House of Representatives established a committee to oversee parts of the Federal government. Its focus was where and how money was spent.

That committee is still around today. Since 1927, the committee has had several names and mandates. In 1952, it became known as the Committee on Government Operations. At that time, its mission was to communicate and determine government economy and efficiency.

Today, the committee is officially known as the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee – no small task. Oversight of the cesspool that is the Federal government requires behind the door testimonies, swearing in and often subpoenas. When it comes to the ‘reform’ part…well that part is a lot harder to find.

The wide and deep responsibility of that committee includes oversight of the Post Office, Civil Service, FEMA, NASA, Obamacare, EPA, National Security, Benefits…heck all agencies and hundreds of which you have never heard.

Swell huh?

It doesn’t stop there. There are numerous sub-committees – each with its own chairperson.  They are each  supposed to shine a light on such things as waste, fraud and abuse.  It is all part of the “checks and balances” of which you have heard so much. For that Committee to truly work, it requires transparency. That transparency, however, doesn’t really exist.

Beyond that Committee, both chambers of Congress have ‘ethics’ rules and associated committees to provide guidance, rules of behavior and a ‘don’t do that’ check list. However, there are no consequences or listed punishments for violations. Without consequences, what good are those rules?

Each and every government agency is also required to have an office and a toll-free number to provide tips on activities that may be deemed questionable especially when it comes to wasteful spending and other workplace violations. Meanwhile, every major agency has a team of lawyers where conditions are checked for legality and where language of documents is carefully drafted for legal compliance.

Alright, now let’s trot over to the Department of Justice that has an annual operating budget of around $34 billion. There are more than 110,000 employees at the Justice Department where there are more than 100 offices worldwide and 10,000 attorneys just within the United States. The largest office is the Executive Office for Immigration Review with just twelve percent of the issues and cases at Justice relating to legal and policy matters.

Reporting directly to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General is the Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of Legal Counsel and the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison. You would think that with all these lawyers, agencies, offices and experience, there would be no graft, fraud, abuse or even bad behavior, right?

Remember reading that earlier part about the Oversight and Government Reform Committee that ensures efficiency and maintains caution of expending taxpayer dollars? Well, we are over $20 trillion in debt and that does not include the unfunded mandated expenses.

Wonder how we got here? Wonder where these reviews and investigations will reform?

Due to recent scandals regarding sexual harassment, the House has called for training and prevention. Questions abound. Who is doing the training and what are the standards of prevention? And why isn’t that training mandatory by the way.

The people within elected office and in government roles are civil servants and are indeed held to a higher standard much less behaving as statesmen. However, outside of elections, we can’t fire them for violations. Indeed, we can barely shame them.

Then we have the American Federation of Government Employees representing almost 1.0 million employees on the payroll. They are clearly protected. The most common violations of government employees and elected officials center on promoting an outside service or product and improper use of government property.

There is yet an office for that too – it is entitled the Office of Special Counsel Prohibited Personnel Practices. Oh, there is a toll-free number for ‘whistleblowers’ where it is noted to be a ‘hotline’ and those calls go to the Office of Inspector General.

Great, but then we needed a Whistleblower Protection Act to protect those making the complaints. Hah, well then the Department of Justice had to step in and define the program of whistleblowing for contractors, subcontractors, grantees, employees and managers to ensure there are no reprisals for filing complaints. Perhaps, this particular whistleblowing program needs lawyers to provide guidance and advocacy. Nah instead, there is a website and a video.

Surely whistleblowers are successful with viable complaints that include tangible proven evidence. Well not so much. For how the whole system has failed with the checks and balances, oversight and reform, check out this video from a hearing held in 2015.

Today we have computers, software, smart-phones, tablets, aides, staff, history, television, radio, social media, apps and 24 hour news operations. All should be a well-oiled machine in the Federal government and yet voters know little and question operations where answers are fleeting.

200 years later, trillions of dollars, subpoenas, investigations, lawyers, offices, rules, oversight and more is hardly any accomplishment in a well-oiled machine and a far departure from the days of James Madison.


Time to Understand: Accusations Are Not Convictions

By: Frank Salvato

To say that the media is knee-jerk and irresponsible is to make the understatement of the millennium. To say that the American people are gullible to their knee-jerk is to speak a sad truth. On no other subject is this more relevant than the matter of sexual harassment claims.

To be perfectly clear: Sexual harassment does happen and when it does it needs to be crushed with the weight of a thousand suns. Sexual harassment opens the door to not only compromised careers, but to sexual abuse – physical, sexual abuse, that can not only shatter dreams, but ruin lives.

That said, there are those — and many more than we, as a nation, should ever have to put up with — who will level false sexual harassment allegations to both advance their causes and destroy the agendas of those they oppose. This is especially true in politics and entertainment.

The allure of stardom in the entertainment industry often finds people who compromise their own ethics and morals for fame. To feign victimhood to sexual harassment, when one has intellectually bartered their ethics and morality for fame, is to deny that they have whored themselves for vanity.

In politics, the nefarious actors are even more despicable because they seek to destroy people for politics and ideology; for power, wealth and influence. These nefarious actors are, literally, the scum of the Earth.

As John Adams so famously said, “We are a nation of laws, not of men.” By that Adams meant that the law and judicial process must reign supreme over emotion, rumor, accusation and especially politics. If our rule of law — and our Constitution — are to mean anything, we need to be a nation of laws and not of emotionally or opportunistically charged men.

We have a judicial process in the United States that mandates a person is innocent until proven guilty. Because of this, we have due process, which means charges are brought against an individual, the evidence is presented, and arguments are made so that the matter can be adjudicated. Without that adjudication — whether guilty or innocent — the allegations made hold the same weight as rumors of gossip. In the United States, everyone is entitled to their day in court to respond and defend themselves against charges and accusations of criminal misdeeds.

But, today, we are not a nation of laws. We are a nation of knee-jerk reactions, fueled by a “gotta-break-it-first” 24/7/365 infomercial media that presents accusations as convictions, rumors, and claims as fact. Because of that, our country is more interested in someone’s sexual peccadilloes and claims of sexual impropriety than in inequitable taxation, national security and the fact that government has grossly overstepped its authority to encroach on all of our lives.

Because the media is disingenuous and the rule of law is hobbled, we elect idiots to elected office who prey on the emotions of the politically illiterate. It is for this reason, exclusively, that our political arena is tantamount to a mediocre three-ring circus and the United States stands on the path to the same inevitability seen by Cicero in the fall of the Roman Empire.

False claims of sexual harassment and the publics’ need to see these claims as convictions instead of non-adjudicated claims are simply symptoms of a much more serious illness in our Republic. Honor and honesty are dead in our society. We have become a barbaric “win-at-all-cost” Progressive (ironic that the ideology branded itself with such a polar opposite description) society where equality of opportunity is dying, and oligarchic political preference is metastasizing like an ideological cancer.

As William Shakespeare wrote in Julius Caesar, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” How fitting for a country that is going the way of the Romans.

Frank Salvato is the operating partner at Archangel Organization, LLC, a multimedia holdings group. He serves as managing editor of The New Media Journal and a partner at BasicsProject a grassroots, non-partisan, research and education initiative. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His opinion and analysis have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, The Jewish World Review, Accuracy in Media, Human Events, Breitbart.com, and Townhall.com, and are syndicated nationally. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel, and is the author of six books examining internal and external threats facing our country. He can be heard weekly on “The Captain’s America: Third Watch” radio program syndicated nationally on the Salem Broadcasting Network. Mr. Salvato is a host at The Underground podcast. His personal writing can be found at FrankJSalvato.com.


Facebook stops people from posting Breitbart article; PolitiFact changes headline to suit narrative

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

It appears that the Washington Post, Facebook, the so-called “fact-checkers,” radical left wing groups registering felons to vote and the insane amount of money from the left and the “right” that poured into Alabama has done it’s job.

Consider this disgusting quote from New Jersey Senator Cory Booker:

“My friends on the other side of the aisle have told me, and said publicly, that they’re going to try to oust him as soon as he’s there,” Mr. Booker said of Mr. Moore. “Time is wasting. There are big bills coming through, spending bills and the like. Alabama needs its share.”

Judge Roy Moore is a target. Again.

Alabama should stay as far away as possible from federal dollars, but with Doug Jones in charge, big government, massive taxes and wasteful spending will burden the citizens.

And then there is Evan McMullin, whose “recently founded non-profit organization, Stand Up Republic, jumped into the Alabama Senate race this week with a $500,000 ad buy against Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore.”

Evan McMullin and Bill Kristol and Jay Kaganoff are peas in a pod. Beware.

Now that the Alabama election is over, this author would like to shine a light on a troubling story that has received hardly any attention, and certainly none in the mainstream media:

  1. Facebook is literally prompting people to reconsider posting a Breitbart article in favor of their Facebook-approved article, and
  2. PolitiFact appears to have changed their own title to fit their narrative.

Screenshot of error message when one tries to share Breitbart article on Facebook

In what appears to be an unprecedented act, Facebook is stopping people who are trying to share a specific, and very popular, Breitbart article by John Nolte on Beverly Nelson, who has publicly accused Roy Moore of sexual assault in 1977. As proof of her accusation, Nelson used an inscription on her high school yearbook.

The Yearbook

(Skip to the next section if you don’t need the background on the Yearbook)

From the beginning, Nelson, aided with attorney Gloria Allred, maintained that the entire inscription was from Judge Moore. This is disputed by Snopes (who “fact-checked” as “false” a story earlier this week that originated from a satire site):

“Although some misunderstanding or misrepresentation certainly surrounded Nelson’s claims, the language with which they were commonly characterized in right-wing news reports was itself hyperbolic and inaccurate. Nelson didn’t ‘lie’ about the annotations (she hadn’t claimed that Moore had written them himself, although neither had she previously explained that he hadn’t), she didn’t ‘tamper’ with Moore’s signature (other than possibly appending the abbreviation ‘D.A.’ to it), and she didn’t ‘forge’ (i.e., fraudulently create) any portion of the yearbook or its contents.”

After Moore questioned the validity of the inscription last month, claiming that it appeared to be altered, the Washington Post assured us that a “forensic document examiner” named Mark Songer found that, while he was clear that he needed the actual yearbook, his initial assessment was that  “[T]he writing [meaning the entire inscription] seems consistent with one writer:”

“Looking at the yearbook entry,” he said, “it looks pretty spontaneously prepared” — that is, it doesn’t look like the writer stopped and restarted, as though someone were tentative in writing perhaps because they were trying to imitate another writer. “It looks very fluid. I don’t see any indications of unnatural writing.”

“The writing seems consistent with one writer,” he added, though he pointed out that “Old Hickory House” and the second date appear to be different stylistically — though he’d need to see examples of Moore’s hand-printed writing to be able to determine whether it’s authentic.

From an NBC report last month:

As he had with the other female accusers, Moore denied Nelson’s claim. Later, in an open letter to FOX News’ Sean Hannity, Moore said he believes there was evidence that ‘tampering has occurred’ in the inscription. His lawyer also noted that at the time of the alleged attack Moore was deputy district attorney for Etowah County, not the district attorney.

Nelson’s lawyer, Gloria Allred, said her client ‘is willing to testify under oath before the U.S. Senate that there has been no tampering.’”

When Good Morning America attempted to assist Beverly Nelson bury the fact that indeed, she altered the inscription, Nolte seized on the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy, resulting in a conniption fit from Facebook and their co-collaborators at PolitiFact & Snopes.

From the Good Morning America report:

Roy Moore accuser Beverly Young Nelson told Good Morning America today that she did add “notes” to a message she said he signed in her yearbook in 1977.

“Nelson admits she did make notes to the inscription. But the message was all Roy Moore,” ABC News reporter Tom Llamas said.

“Beverly, he signed your yearbook,” Llamas said to her.

“He did sign it,” Nelson replied.

“And you made some notes underneath,” Llamas said.

“Yes,” she acknowledged.

Nelson acknowledged she added a date and place under the message she said Moore wrote.

Importantly, Good Morning America uses the words “admit” and “acknowledged.”

John Nolte Terrifies the Media

Nolte observed:

“Beverly Young Nelson has finally admitted that she forged a portion of the infamous high school yearbook that she and attorney Gloria Allred used as proof of her accusations against U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore.

And in yet another blow to the credibility of ABC News, the disgraced, left-wing network downplayed the bombshell by presenting this admission of forgery as adding ‘notes’ to the inscription. Worse still, the reporter actually coaches Nelson, puts words in her mouth, downplay the enormous significance of her deceit.”

So PolitiFact, Snopes and Facebook evidently teamed together to do some damage control by attempting to marginalize Nolte’s observations. In an article at PolitiFact titled “No, Roy Moore accuser didn’t admit she forged his signature in her yearbook,” author Manuela Tobias writes:

“A conspiracy-minded website attempted to cast doubt on evidence presented by one of eight women who accused Roy Moore of sexual assault in a misleading headline days ahead of the Alabama Senate race.”

Tobia’s paragraph deserves an entire post. In the desperation to belittle Breitbart News, it comes across as petty and biased.

As noted above, Beverly Nelson and Gloria Allred claimed from the beginning that the entire inscription was from Judge Roy Moore. The fact that Good Morning America attempted to assist Nelson in glossing over this fact was not lost on Nolte, who called it out.

PolitiFact appears to change their headline

Interestingly, the headline of the PolitiFact piece appears to have been altered. The headline is “No, Roy Moore accuser didn’t admit she forged his signature in her yearbook,” but the Permalink still says:


At one point, the headline of the PolitiFiction piece must have been,

“No, Roy Moore accuser didn’t tamper or forge yearbook….”

Headline of the PolitiFact piece appears to have been altered

This title change takes away Beverly Nelson’s responsibility for tampering with the inscription, which she “admits” to doing. PolitiFact, in their drooling partisanship, could not bring themselves to report that Nelson tampered with the inscription.

Gloria Allred maintained from the beginning that the entire inscription came from Roy Moore. It is significant that in the face of ongoing public pressure to release the yearbook for  independent handwriting analysis, Allred must have known she was losing ground. If Beverly Nelson is telling the truth, Allred has done a deep disservice to her client for allowing this lie to continue for so long. Facebook, Washington Post, PolitiFact and Good Morning America have also done all of us a great disservice by pushing desperately for the lie to become truth.

The permalink is still there. All you need to do is hover over it to see that “tamper” was a part of the original link. Check it out.

Facebook Ramifications

The ramifications of Facebook interfering with the news users choose to post must be addressed. Clearly, Facebook is giving a massive boost to Snopes and PolitiFact by deeming them the arbiters of truth. Imagine if you were a fact-checker. Having Facebook deliberately put your website in people’s line of vision would be a dream come true. Is this an official arrangement?

Conversely, what is the criteria for news – particularly news of a political nature – to be pulled aside and given a prompt? There is fake news all over the place. Why Breitbart? Why now? It is not much of a stretch to consider that Facebook’s heart went aflutter when they saw the pro-Roy Moore Breitbart article gaining ground on their platform.

It is highly unlikely that Facebook is going to be adding prompts to everything highlighted as “Pants on Fire” or “false” by their openly partisan fact-checkers. Consider Manuela Tobias’ claim that Breitbart News is “a conspiracy-minded website.” The bias is so strong that even a fact-checking website cannot bring itself to use neutral language, much less be bothered to prove it’s claim that Breitbart is “conspiracy-minded.”

Importantly, why is Facebook more qualified to vet the news than the person who decides to post it? Why does Facebook think it has that right? Why do we allow it?

Will this loss be the launch pad for conservatives to understand the lengths at which the other side are willing to go? Will conservatives come to realize the incredible damage that RINOs are doing to constitutional conservatives running for office?