Portland cops using Alinsky tactics on rioters

Here you have the basic Alinsky tactic of isolating and demonizing anyone who doesn't kow tow to the leftist position.

Rob Reiner: Trump ‘Unearthed’ Racism of Uneducated White Male Supporters

The hidden forces behind paid protests. These funds and foundations need to be outed and shamed. Paid protestors should be made to wear a sign indicating they are paid and not organic.

Next time you see Maile Hampton or any protester in a yellow shirt with ACCE across it or the logos of other familiar or unfamiliar organizations, remember, those efforts are likely not coming from the heart, but from an invoice, and a check

The Artificial Outrage of Paid Protestors and Rent-A-Mobs

By Katy Grimes -- Bio and Archives  May 19, 2016

Every day on the news there are stories of well-organized protests. I report from the California State Capitol which almost daily is ground zero for some group protesting a grievance.  As a political journalist, I am skeptical of most protests. It does not matter if the protestors are wearing hard hats and orange vests and stand all day in front of an office building under construction, or a prominent restaurant feigning outrage showcasing a giant inflatable rat to passersby.

The recipe is always the same whether it’s a faculty walkout, a nurses walkout, minimum wage protests, Wall Street protesters, union members, or recently, students protesting University of California, Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi.

While every citizen is entitled to his or her own voice for a cause, the professional paid protesters who appear at protests all across the state and even across national borders are mercenaries.

The average employed American does not have the time to protest, yet we often see the same people at different protests around the state. Where does the funding for these rent-a-mobs come from?

Wealthy Foundations Fund Unrest

Recently, at anti-Trump protests, protesters admitted they answered ads on Craigslist and were getting paid to protest Trump. Orchestrated by supporters of Hillary Clinton, the protests are largely paid for by George Soros, MoveOn.org, reclusive billionaire Jonathan Lewis, and pushed by David Brock at Media Matters for America, the Daily Caller reported.

We also see protests coordinated by a few wealthy foundations bent on changing public policy. Even more disturbing is the foundation grants aren’t disclosed publicly the same way campaign contributions are reported. Foundation nonprofit tax filings often do not become public until two years after money is spent.

While nonprofit organizations are legally allowed to do this, there are tax rules and restrictions on activities, which many manipulate and violate. But voters have a right to know what interest is trying to get them to vote a certain way.

The California Way

Only paid professional activists and those paid to organize by their employers have time to protest. Most protests we see are not naturally occurring events, but highly orchestrated, well-funded actions designed to push a political agenda for powerful special interest groups.

One example is a young woman named Maile Hampton, who in the span of only ten days, led protests against UC Davis Chancellor Katehi, then two days later appeared in Mexico protesting labor conditions for Mexican farmworkers, and a week later was seen on the steps of the State Capitol with the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment,  protesting in favor of a $15 minimum wage. Hampton, who goes by the name KwameKahlo on Twitter, and is a self-described “Marxist Leninist” is either a trust fund baby, a highly committed cause omnivore, or a pro who is paid by the protest. (Hampton has recently limited access to her Twitter page)

As an added bonus, this past month, Hampton was burning the American Flag (Warning:  Explicit Language Used):

When you pay people to show up at your protest, how sincere can your cause really be? The travel, food and countless hours holding a protest sign, marching and screaming with a bullhorn or at a reporter’s camera has an associated cost.  Who, in the end, has time to protest—unless it is as a paid profession?

To understand how the other two percent lives, though, just follow the money.  Much of the money for these protests flows from so-called charitable and “philanthropic”  foundations, endowments, unions or wall street and hedge fund billionaires like Tom Steyer and George Soros (see charts below). They distribute money to one organization—or to many—that then funnel their millions of dollars downward to other groups and individuals, (the same way ACORN did) from non-profit causes to church groups and a few for profit entities that take care of details like arranging transportation, printing signs, taking out permits, and the like.

Continued below...

---

Professional protester Maile Hampton March 21

Many of these people are hired to help build the movement and protest for the specific causes listed in grant proposals and invoices long before the news crews arrive.

Here is a quick look at Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment Action, or ACCE, a successor organization to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) making millions with organizers focused on housing, paid sick days, minimum wage, voter registration, health care and raising taxes.

The next time you see Maile Hampton or any protester in a yellow shirt with ACCE across it or the logos of other familiar or unfamiliar organizations, remember, those efforts are likely not coming from the heart, but from an invoice, which is attached to a check.

Time to take a look at who is behind the protests.

COMMUNISTS ARE BEHIND THE ANTI-POLICE PROTESTS IN NEW YORK

Beginning way back in 2002, we wrote about International A.N.S.W.E.R., a Communist organization that was founded in September 2001 and that organized substantial antiwar demonstrations during the Bush administration. A.N.S.W.E.R. embodied within itself the seeming contradiction between the far left and Islamic extremism: it enthusiastically supported both Kim il Jung and Saddam Hussein, and is directed in part by the Muslim Student Association. Our earliest posts on A.N.S.W.E.R. have been lost in our various database moves; the first one that survives is this brief post from January 2003. At one time I did some research to try to figure out where A.N.S.W.E.R.’s money comes from. From publicly available filings I could deduce that they are supported by a handful of rich benefactors, but I couldn’t identify who they were.

We haven’t paid attention to A.N.S.W.E.R. for a while, but their current web site suggests that the Islamic element has become more pronounced:

A distinguishing feature of the organizing principles and work of the answer coalition, in contrast with the traditional U.S.peace movement was its uncompromising support in defense of the rights of the Palestinian people.

In April 2002, the ANSWER Coalition organized the largest demonstrations in solidarity with the Palestinian people in U.S. history, of more than 100,000 people.

ANSWER, which at its core included a partnership between Arab and non-Arab activists, fought a long and successful battle against excluding the Palestinian struggle for self-determination from the anti-war and peace movement. In the years since, we have mobilized across the country to stop the repeated assaults against and massacres of the people of Gaza.

Most recently ANSWER lead a march of 50,000 people in Washington, D.C. on August 2, 2014 to protest the Israeli massacre against people in Gaza.

ANSWER has mobilized against the illegal coup and UN occupation of Haiti, against the illegal blockade of Cuba, and the illegal ‘regime change’ war on Libya.

We are actively fighting against the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan, the renewed assaults on Iraq and Syria, the drone attacks on Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, among others.

But that doesn’t mean that A.N.S.W.E.R. has given up on Communism. The front page of its site currently celebrates Barack Obama’s collaboration with the Castro regime with the banner headline “The Cuban Five Are FREE!”

Given all of that, we shouldn’t have been surprised to see that the current demonstrations in New York against the police are being led by the Communist, pro-terrorist International A.N.S.W.E.R. This is from the organization’s Twitter feed:

A.N.S.W.E.R. is close to unique, in that it advocates for pretty much every form of evil in the world. Who pays for it, what masters it serves, remains unknown. But that evil infuses its every act, is obvious.

Democrat technique of arrogance, condescention and the dismissive laugh

WH Laughs: 'It Doesn't Tear Up the Constitution'

8:47 AM, NOV 20, 2014 • BY DANIEL HALPER

White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri defended President Obama's planned executive amnesty by saying it "doesn't" shred the Constitution:

Asked the MSNBC host, "What's your response to the Washington Post editorial that said that the president's frustration with Congress 'doesn't grant the president license to tear up the constitution'?"

"Well, it doesn't," Palmieri said as she laughed, "and that's not what he's doing. And whatever the steps he's going to take, you'll see, are well within his authority to do that and we'll have the legal justification to show that."

Palmieri, when asked the question again, went on to defend the president in a similar manner: "But it doesn't tear up the constitution. And you will see -- everyone will see that it doesn't."

Herein follows the lesson of how an alinskyite deflects, denies, producers no facts, takes a victim stance and harrumphs in your direction

Al Sharpton Criticizes New York Times Report on Unpaid Taxes

By RUSS BUETTNERNOV. 19, 2014

Photo

The Rev. Al Sharpton, at a news conference on Wednesday, sought to refute the assertion that there are $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls.CreditChester Higgins Jr./The New York Times 

Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Email
• Share
• Tweet
• Save
• More

Continue reading the main story

The Rev. Al Sharpton on Wednesday sharply criticized a New York Times article that explored his history of unpaid taxes, rent and other bills, calling the report “misleading and totally out of context.”

During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the article’s assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was “current on all taxes” he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities.

“We’re talking about old taxes,” he said, adding: “We’re not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if I’m not paying taxes while I’m doing whatever I’m doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true.”

Continue reading the main story

RELATED COVERAGE

• 

  As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid Taxes NOV. 18, 2014

State and federal tax records show, however, that the liens against Mr. Sharpton and his businesses remain active, meaning they have not been completely paid off. The article also noted that Mr. Sharpton had said in an interview that he had paid off some of the debt.

Continue reading the main story

Document: Federal Tax Liens Against Sharpton and Raw Talent 

The accuracy of Mr. Sharpton’s assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers.

As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharpton’s assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased, to $916,000.

In addition to the liens and warrants against him and his businesses, the advocacy group Mr. Sharpton founded, the National Action Network, owed the federal government more than $800,000 in payroll taxes at the end of 2012, the date of the group’s most recent tax filing. On Wednesday, he repeated an assertion he made in The Times’s article that the debt stemmed from a disagreement with the I.R.S. on how to classify certain workers.

Continue reading the main story

Document: New York State Tax Warrants Against Sharpton and Revals 

He did not address financial statements reviewed by The Times in which the group’s accountants indicated that for at least two years the National Action Network was sustaining itself in large part by not turning over money to the federal government for payroll taxes.

Mr. Sharpton said the group’s tax debt might soon be paid off, thanks to the more than $1 million raised at his birthday party last month, but he added that the organization had asked the federal government to lower the amount it owed in penalties.

Mr. Sharpton said he saw a political motivation in the timing of the article, which noted his rise in influence, in part as a result of his relationships with, and role as an informal adviser to, Mayor Bill de Blasio and President Obama. Mr. Sharpton said he had also had relationships with former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and former President George W. Bush, without drawing any notice.

“A lot of people don’t like the fact that President Obama is the president; a lot of people do not like the fact that Bill de Blasio won for mayor,” he said. “And they certainly don’t like the fact that I’m still here. And I ain’t going nowhere.”

Democrats racist campaigning on display... get back on the plantation black man or we'll demonize you!

GOP Senate Candidate Called 'Uncle Tom' at Hillary/Hagan Rally in N.C. 

Daniel Halper

October 28, 2014 9:15 AM

Republican Senate candidate Thom Tillis was called "Uncle Tom" at a recent Senator Kay Hagan rally in North Carolina. Hillary Clinton was also on hand to help rally Democrats in support of Hagan--and the possible presidential candidate specifically praised the speaker who made the questionable comments. 

The remarks were from Alma Adams, who is running for Congress from North Carolina's 12th Congressional District. Here's audio:

"We need to send Uncle Tom -- Tillis, that is -- home," she told the crowd to cheers and applause.

When it was Hillary Clinton's turn to speak, she had the highest praise for Adams, who just moments earlier used the questionable phrase about Hagan's Republican opponent. 

"Let me add Alma Adams," Clinton said after praising Hagan at length, "because we need more women like her in Congress. We need her compassion and her common sense. We need her sartorial excellence. She's going to shake things up. I think the Kay-Alma combination is really going to put North Carolina ahead of the parade."

The comments were made over the weekend, but went unnoticed.

Here's the latest Executive Order: You may not criticize Allah or Obama. Both punishable by death.

Dem. Rep. Cuellar: WH Called Me For Speaking Out against President

Representative Henry Cuellar (D., Texas) hasn’t been shy about speaking out against the Obama administration’s handling of the border crisis, and that apparently earned him a phone call from someone at the White House.
“Yes, I have,” Cuellar said on Fox & Friends on Wednesday when asked if he had received a talking-to. “But let me just say that I’m more concerned not about who gets angry at me at the White House; I’m more concerned about my constituents who want to find a practical solution to this question that we’re facing down there at the border.”
“Who called you?” host Brian Kilmeade asked.
“We’ll just leave it like that,” Cuellar responded.
“Did they tell you to pipe down?” Kilmeade pressed again.
“We’ll just leave it like that,” the congressman repeated. “But notice what I’m doing: I’m still talking about it.”

Do you think the fascists in the WH called to ask his opinion or for advice? Bwahaha. 

Dissecting leftism or how the left vilifies anyone not on their team

Huffington Post: Too many Catholics on the Supreme Court

You scratch a progressive and you find an fascist. That has been the lesson learned from the Hobby Lobby decision. One of the most notable bits of fascist commentary appeared in the Huffington Post by an anti-religious bigot named Ronald A. Lindsay, The Uncomfortable Question: Should We Have Six Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court?

Unfortunately, a majority of the Supreme Court may now be resurrecting concerns about the compatibility between being a Catholic and being a good citizen, or at least between being a good Catholic and an impartial judge. In accepting the Catholic Church’s extremely expansive understanding of what constitutes a burden on someone’s religious beliefs, while simultaneously being dismissive of concerns that would be raised by minority religions, the Court majority is effectively undermining confidence in Catholic judges and forcing us to ask the uncomfortable question: Is it appropriate to have six Catholic justices on the Supreme Court?

One has to assume that Lindsay, who has been repudiated by the Supreme Court in the past, is simply trolling for traffic on behalf of Huffington Post. The easy answer to this moronic question is found in an obscure document that Lindsay seems to never have read:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

So the question asked in the article should be uncomfortable, not because you are asking a big-brained question but because you show yourself to be an imbecile. But we would also have the right to ask is it fair that a third of the Court is Jewish when they are only 2% of the population? How about two “unmarried” women (IYKWIMAITYD) on the court? Do “unmarried” women (IYKWIMAITYD) rate their own justice? What about “unmarried” men… now that Souter is retired?  How about one sorta dense Latina? I know the mediocre need representation but do the last couple of sigmas on the intelligence curve also need their own justice?

Beyond the rank, uneducated bigotry espoused by Lindsay’s article you find this:

In Justice Alito’s majority opinion, he relies squarely on Catholic teaching about “complicity” to explain the supposed burden. In doing so, he reiterates the argument that the Catholic Church has made in the dozens of lawsuits it has brought challenging the contraceptive mandate. According to the Church, it violates the moral obligations of a Catholic to do anything – anything – that would “facilitate” the provision of contraception to an individual. So even if one is not using contraception oneself, if one facilitates access to contraception by others, a grave moral wrong has been committed.

What Lindsay is doing in this article is what the Obama administration has been doing in public policy since 2009. Lindsay is making the case that religion is a private matter which has no place in the public square. Obama has been consciously attacking  religious freedom, as in theHosanna-Tabor case, and referring to Franklin Roosevelt’s Freedom of Worship rather than Freedom of Religion. These are not the same thing:

For the tradition of Hobbes, “rights,” including religion, were under the control of the state to give whatever content it chose. It is this understanding of “rights” that currently forms the core of a new civil religion that is being imposed on society against any real freedom of philosophy and religion. Religious freedom becomes “freedom to worship,” in order that religion may have no effect external to what goes on in houses of worship or in the inner souls of mankind.

This hostility towards religion as anything more than a curious artifact of a superstitious era. In fact, to the observant Christian (or Jew, or Muslim, or Buddhist, etc.) your faith exists to inform your judgment. It does you no great credit if you read the parable of the Good Samaritan on Sunday and on Monday you find a man lying battered by the roadside begging for aid and in best Democrat tradition you bludgeon him unconscious and rifle his pockets. Indeed, if you are a Christian you are required to exhibit your faith in your daily life:

14 You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.15 Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house. 16 Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father.

The fact that only five justices agreed with a decision that did nothing more than uphold the First Amendment’s right to freedom of religious practice over a mere administrative diktatissued by an administration flunky should be cause for alarm. That morality and virtue might be considered when applying the law should be a cause for celebration.

Bernie is a Statist...all power to bureaucrats and the government must be protected at all costs

Crazy Bernie Sanders Blames Koch Brothers for VA Scandal

This guy chairs the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Seriou

      

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
May 13, 2014 11:07 am

Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee Sen. Bernie Sanders (D., Vt.) appeared to blame the VA scandal on the Koch brothers last Friday at a North Hampton, MA forum with The Nation’s John Nichols.

The Department of Veterans affairs has fallen under increased scrutiny over revelations administrators in Phoenix and elsewhere created off the books waiting lists for veterans seeking care. Several veterans died while waiting on the secret lists.

Sanders forcefully defended the VA and other federal agencies at the forum, stating the VA provides “very high quality healthcare” and programs such as Medicare and Social Security are “enormously popular.”

However, Sanders’s critique of the VA scandal then took a bizarre turn.

“Right now, as we speak, a concerted effort to undermine the VA,” he said. “What are the problems? The problems are, is, that all of these are large, governmental institutions and you have folks out there now, Koch Brothers and others, who want to radically change the nature of society, and either make major cuts in all of these institutions, or maybe do away with them entirely.”

So, in Sen. Sanders’s mind the negative media coverage around the VA scandal is really just a Koch conspiracy to undermine the agency so the department can eventually be gutted.

Ridiculous as it may seem, the socialist senator’s nebulous smear connecting the billionaire philanthropists to the fallout from the VA scandal is hardly at odds with his party’s relentless Koch obsession:

Full remarks:

BERNIE SANDERS: Right now, we’re dealing with the Veterans Administration. I’m Chairman of the Veterans Committee. Let me tell you some news. The Veterans Administration provides very high quality health care. Period. It’s not perfect. It is good quality health care, according to the veterans themselves, and according to a number of independent surveys that have looked at it. It’s not perfect. It runs 151 centers. Today 200,000 veterans get health care through the VA. There is right now, as we speak, a concerted effort to undermine the VA. So the point is, you have government entity itself, Social Security, enormously popular, Medicare, enormously popular, Postal Service, popular, VA popular. What are the problems? The problems are, is, that all of these are large, governmental institutions and you have folks out there now, Koch Brothers and others, who want to radically change the nature of society, and either make major cuts in all of these institutions, or maybe do away with them entirely.

Rutgers is the pitch perfect example of liberal bigotry and intolerance. Academics practicing the Alinsky rule of demonization.

EXCLUSIVE: Rice Withdraws from Rutgers Commencement

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/377165/print

By NRO Staff

Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is withdrawing from the Rutgers commencement ceremony.
Her invitation by the school’s board of governors had sparked protests from faculty and students, and now Rice has decided not to speak to avoid creating a distraction.
In a statement to be released this morning, Rice says,

Commencement should be a time of joyous celebration for the graduates and their families. Rutgers’ invitation to me to speak has become a distraction for the university community at this very special time.
I am honored to have served my country.  I have defended America’s belief in free speech and the exchange of ideas.  These values are essential to the health of our democracy.  But that is not what is at issue here.  As a Professor for thirty years at Stanford University and as it’s former Provost and Chief academic officer, I understand and embrace the purpose of the commencement ceremony and I am simply unwilling to detract from it in any way.
Good luck to the graduates and congratulations to the families, friends and loved ones who will gather to honor them.

Opposition to Rice had focused on her support for the Iraq war and Bush policies in the war on terror. Rutgers faculty at the New Brunswick campus approved a resolution calling for Rice to be disinvited, citing her role in the Bush administration’s alleged “effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction.”
Protesting students had occupied the office of the president the other day, with signs reading “No honors for war criminals” and “War criminals out.”
Rice’s withdrawal comes after protests of her invitation to speak at the University of Minnesota recently and her placement on the board of the file-sharing firm Dropbox. Other figures who run afoul of campus orthodoxy, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Charles Murray, have been disinvited from speeches over the last few weeks.
In a statement when the controversy first erupted, Rutgers President Robert Barchi said, “We cannot protect free speech or academic freedom by denying others the right to an opposing view, or by excluding those with whom we may disagree. Free speech and academic freedom cannot be determined by any group. They cannot insist on consensus or popularity.”
Barchi had adopted a different tone this week: “I frankly wish from my point of view that this whole affair was not here right now because it’s distracting from what great things we’re doing as a university. … It does have us, for better or worse, right in the crosshairs right now.”
No longer.

These opponents of Condi are the same creeps who during the Nazi period in Germany would have gladly boycotted and picketed Jewish academics. Who are the closed minded people here? There isn't a person at Rutger who could hold a candle to the brightness that is Condi Rice.  

For the left all ideas opposing their rule are conspiratorial and illegitimate. It's an integral part of the Alinsky rules for tyranny

RELEASED! CLINTON FILES ON MEDIA ENEMIES

Learn what Hillary meant by ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’

WASHINGTON – If you want to learn what Hillary Clinton meant by “the vast right-wing conspiracy,” part of the extensive collection of dossiers the Clinton White House kept on its media enemies was released Friday by the Clinton Library.

The most important of the documents, “The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce,” originally some 331 pages, was reduced to only 28 pages in the sanitized and heavily redacted version posted by the presidential library.

“The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce refers to the mode of communication employed by the right wing to convey their fringe stories into legitimate subjects of coverage by the mainstream media,” explains the report. “This is how the stream works: Well-funded right wing think tanks and individuals underwrite conservative newsletters and newspapers such as the Western Journalism Center, the American Spectator and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. Next, the stories are reprinted on the Internet where they are bounced into the mainstream media through one of two ways: 1) the story will be picked up by the British tabloids and covered as a major story, from which the American right-of-center mainstream media, (i.e. the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times and New York Post) will then pick the story up; or 2) The story will be bounced directly from the Internet to the right-of-center mainstream American media. After the mainstream right-of-center media covers the story, congressional committees will look into the story. After Congress looks into the story, the story now has the legitimacy to be covered by the remainder of the American mainstream press as a ‘real’ story.”

What makes a book about Bill and Hillary Clinton so explosive that someone would steal it? It’s all here in “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton” (Hardcover)

The operation launched by the Clinton administration in response to this conspiracy theory was designed to prevent so-called “mainstream media” from picking up such stories. That effort came in several parts:

• The original 331-page report was distributed by the White House and the Democratic National Committee to select reporters in an effort to discredit those behind the critical reports on the Clinton White House – namely billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, journalist Joseph Farah, political activist Floyd Brown and the American Spectator.
• Hillary Clinton’s public relations effort to vilify what she called “the cast right-wing conspiracy.”
• A pattern of politically motivated audits of individuals and organizations by the Internal Revenue Service.

“It’s quite an amazing story,” said Farah, founder and editor of WND whose Western Journalism Center was audited after the White House sent a letter from a constituent calling for an investigation to the IRS. “It may all have a familiar ring to the tea party groups of the 21st century. Clinton got away with it, so it was bound to happen again – and it most assuredly has.”

In Bill Clinton’s memoir, curiously little is said about the many women whose lives he upended and changed forever. That’s remedied in “Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine” (Hardcover)

The document dump Friday included some 7,500 pages in all, but the focus of attention has been the mysterious Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce, as it was dubbed by the Clinton White House.

Most notable in the sections of the report released publicly is the concern the White House had for the impact of the new media, hearkening back to Hillary Clinton’s concern about the Internet that there were “no gatekeepers.”

“The Internet has become one of the major and most dynamic modes of communication,” the report warns. “The Internet can link people, groups and organizations together instantly. Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be located in one area and available to all. The right wing has seized upon the Internet as a means of communicating its ideas to people. Moreover, evidence exists that Republican staffers surf the Internet, interacting with extremists in order to exchange ideas and information.”

Four of the 28 pages in the redacted report released Friday focus on Farah – his history running daily newspapers, his religious views and his investigations into official corruption.

“Some time back in 1994 or 1995, Bill and Hillary Clinton had what I would now describe as ‘a prophetic nightmare.’” explains Farah. “Everyone who was conscious back then will remember Hillary talking about this bad dream in a television interview in which she explained that her husband’s problems were all manufactured by ‘a vast right-wing conspiracy.’ This nightmare is chronicled the complete version of the Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce, which I intend to publish later this year in its entirety. This was a report distributed to select U.S. reporters in an effort to discredit a new breed of investigative journalism into what was, until now, already emerging as the most scandal-plagued administration in the history of the United States.”

Farah points out that this concern by the White House was very early in the history of the Internet.

“No one had yet heard of Matt Drudge,” Farah says. “No one knew about the ‘blue dress.’ This was before WND, or WorldNetDaily as it was originally known 17 years ago. To keep things in perspective, I think Monica Lewinsky was a teenage undergraduate student at the time.”

Farah notes the concern expressed in the report about “unregulated data.”

“That’s Hillary, right there,” he said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if she wrote that section herself. A few years later she deplored the fact that the Internet lacks ‘any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function.’”

Catching Our Flag: Behind the Scenes of a Presidential Impeachment – (Autograped, Hardcover). It’s the ultimate insider’s story on what led a very reluctant House of Representatives to impeach a then-very-popular American president.

To put things in perspective, when this report was distributed to a few dozen key reporters by the White House, there were approximately 1 million computers connected to the Internet.

“I think the Clintons saw what was coming and feared it,” said Farah. “The free market, working through the Internet was addressing longstanding institutional problems in the media, as well as exposing fraud, waste, corruption and abuse at the highest levels of government. This was a crisis for them.”