7 Reasons to Oppose Red Flag Guns Laws

7 Reasons to Oppose Red Flag Guns Laws

The Associated Press reports Congress is seriously considering red flag gun laws.

These laws, also called “extreme risk protection orders,” allow courts to issue orders allowing law enforcement to seize firearms from people who’ve committed no crime but are believed to be a danger to themselves or others.

President Trump has signaled his backing of bipartisan Senate legislation sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

“We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do those firearms can be taken through rapid due process,” Trump said in a White House speech.

Red flag laws have garnered support from several conservative intellectuals, as well, including David French of National Review and Ben Shapiro.

Here are seven reasons red flag laws should be opposed, particularly at the federal level.

1. There’s No Evidence Red Flag Laws Reduce Gun Violence
Most people haven’t heard of red flag laws until recently—if they have at all—but they aren’t new.

Connecticut enacted the nation’s first red flag law in 1999, followed by Indiana (2005). This means social scientists have had decades to analyze the effectiveness of these laws. And what did they find?

“The evidence,” The New York Times recently reported, “for whether extreme risk protection orders work to prevent gun violence is inconclusive, according to a study by the RAND Corporation on the effectiveness of gun safety measures.”

The Washington Post reports that California’s red flag went basically unused for two years after its passage in 2016. Washington, D.C.’s law has gone entirely unused. Other states, such as Florida and Maryland, have gone the other direction, seizing hundreds of firearms from gun-owners. Yet it’s unclear if these actions stopped a shooting.

With additional states passing red flag laws, researchers will soon have much more data to analyze. But before passing expansive federal legislation that infringes on civil liberties, lawmakers should have clear and compelling empirical evidence that red flag laws actually do what they are intended to do.

2. Congress Lacks the Authority
The Founding Fathers clearly enumerated the powers of the federal government in the Constitution. Among the powers granted in Article I, Section 8 are “the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office.”

Regulating firearms is not among the powers listed in the Constitution (though this has not always stopped lawmakers from regulating them). In fact, the document expressly forbids the federal government from doing so, stating in the Second Amendment that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

3. We Have Federalism
Unlike the federal government, whose powers, James Madison noted, are “few and defined,” states possess powers that “are numerous and indefinite.”

Indeed, 17 states and the District of Columbia already have red flag laws, and many more states are in the process of adding them. This shows that the people and their representatives are fully capable of passing such laws if they choose. If red flag laws are deemed desirable, this is the appropriate place to pursue such laws, assuming they pass constitutional muster. But do they?

4. Red Flag Laws Violate Due Process
The Constitution mandates that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

Seizing the property of individuals who have been convicted of no crime violates this provision. Gun control advocates claim due process is not violated because people whose firearms are taken can appeal to courts to reclaim their property. However, as economist Raheem Williams has observed, “this backward process would imply that the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right.”

Depriving individuals of a clearly established, constitutionally-guaranteed right in the absence of criminal charges or trial is an affront to civil liberties.

5. Red Flag Laws Could Lead to More Violence
In 2018, two Maryland police officers shot and killed 61-year-old Gary Willis in his own house after waking him at 5:17 a.m. The officers, who were not harmed during the shooting, had been ordered to remove guns from his home under the state’s red flag law, which had gone into effect one month prior to the shooting.

While red flag laws are designed to reduce violence, it’s possible they could do the opposite by creating confrontations between law enforcement and gun owners like Willis, especially as the enforcement of red flag laws expands.

6. It’s Not Just the “Mentally Ill” and Grave Threats Who Are Flagged
In theory, red flag laws are supposed to target individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others. In practice, they can work quite differently.

In a 14-page analysis, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island explained that few people understand just how expansive the state’s red flag law is.

“It is worth emphasizing that while a seeming urgent need for [the law] derives from recent egregious and deadly mass shootings, [the law’s] reach goes far beyond any efforts to address such extraordinary incidents,” the authors said. Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel.

“As written, a person could be subject to an extreme risk protective order (ERPO) without ever having committed, or even having threatened to commit, an act of violence with a firearm.”

Though comprehensive information is thin, and laws differ from state to state, anecdotal evidence suggests Rhode Island’s law is not unique. A University of Central Florida student, for example, was hauled into proceedings and received a year-long RPO (risk protection order) for saying “stupid” things on Reddit following a mass shooting, even though the student had no criminal history and didn’t own a firearm. (The student also was falsely portrayed as a “ticking time bomb” by police, Jacub Sullum reports.) Another man, Reason reports, was slapped with an RPO for criticizing teenage gun control activists online and sharing a picture of an AR-15 rifle he had built.

Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel, civil libertarians point out.

7. They’re Basically Pre-Crime
As I’ve previously observed, red flag laws are essentially a form of pre-crime, a theme explored in the 2002 Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report, based on a 1956 Philip K. Dick novel.

I’m not the only writer to make the connection. In an article that appeared in Salon, Travis Dunn linked red flag laws “to the science fiction scenario of The Minority Report, in which precognitive police try to stop crimes before they’re committed.”

That government can prevent crimes before they occur may sound like sci-fi fantasy (which it is), but the threat posed to civil liberties is quite real.

If this sounds far-fetched, consider that the president recently called upon social media companies to collaborate with the Department of Justice to catch “red flags” using algorithmic technology.

The idea that governments can prevent crimes before they occur may sound like sci-fi fantasy (which it is), but the threat such ideas pose to civil liberties is quite real.

Compromising civil liberties and property rights to prevent acts of violence that have yet to occur are policies more suited for dystopian thrillers⁠—and police states⁠—than a free society.

It’s clear that laws of this magnitude should not be passed as an emotional or political response to an event, even a tragic one.


THE TRUTH MUST BE TOLD
Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Freedom Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute to our ground-breaking work here.Please contribute to our ground-breaking work here please send all contributions to Joseph F Barber 5309 Murfreesboro Rd La Vergne,TN,37086 suite,1113

Email:jfbarbertradesmen@yahoo.com

Phone: 760-261-9122

Study Shows Growing Hemp is a Powerful Tool to Fight Bee Population Decline

Study Shows Growing Hemp is a Powerful Tool to Fight Bee Population Decline

As the world population of honeybees continues to decline at a dangerous rate, a new study from Colorado State University purports to have found the answer to quell the decline—hemp. The reason hemp is such a boon to the bee population is simple, it is a great source of pollen.

Because the hemp plant provides such a massive amount of pollen, it will provide them with the resources they need to sustain and grow their populations.

As Forbes points out:

• According to researchers, most hemp crops flower between July and September, coinciding with a lack of pollen production from other farm crops.
• Over 2,000 bees (and 23 different types of bee, including the European honeybee) were collected during the study. The 23 bee types represent 80% of all types in the region.
• This discovery points to hemp as a new pollen source for bees and could help sustain their populations.
• Bee colonies have been declining in the U.S. due to stressors such as pests, pesticide exposure and poor nutrition from a lack of pollen, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Researchers noted that although “hemp does not produce any nectar, the pollen-rich nature of the flowers can make hemp an ecologically valuable crop.” However, they also noted that as “cultivation of hemp continues to expand, we expect insect pests on hemp to also become prevalent. Our results documenting bee diversity in flowering hemp provides the impetus for the development of integrated pest management plans that protect pollinators while controlling pests.”

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

I am Joseph F Barber I am an American Patriot...part of the grassroots movement of bloggers spreading the truth the media will not. A Freelance syndicated writer ,editor and author activist and Blogger,Tradesmen , veteran and PTSD survivor, Gas and diesel Mechanic



THE TRUTH MUST BE TOLD
Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Freedom Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute to our ground-breaking work here please send all contrabutions to Joseph F Barber 5309 Murfreesboro Rd La Vergne,TN,37086 suite,1113 
Email:jfbarbertradesmen@yahoo.com
Phone: 760-261-9122

Here’s Facebook’s Process to Label You a ‘Hate Agent’

Here’s Facebook’s Process to Label You a ‘Hate Agent’

Orwellian.

EXCLUSIVE: FACEBOOK’S PROCESS TO LABEL YOU A ‘HATE AGENT’ REVEALED

FACEBOOK MONITORS THE OFFLINE BEHAVIOR OF ITS USERS TO DETERMINE IF THEY SHOULD BE CATEGORIZED AS A “HATE AGENT,” ACCORDING TO A DOCUMENT PROVIDED EXCLUSIVELY TO BREITBART NEWS BY A SOURCE WITHIN THE SOCIAL MEDIA GIANT.

The document, titled “Hate Agent Policy Review” outlines a series of “signals” that Facebook uses to determine if someone ought to be categorized as a “hate agent” and banned from the platform.

By: Allum Bokhari, June 24, 2019:

Those signals include a wide range of on- and off-platform behavior. If you praise the wrong individual, interview them, or appear at events alongside them, Facebook may categorize you as a “hate agent.”

Facebook may also categorize you as a hate agent if you self-identify with or advocate for a “Designated Hateful Ideology,” if you associate with a “Designated Hate Entity” (one of the examples cited by Facebook as a “hate entity” includes Islam critic Tommy Robinson), or if you have “tattoos of hate symbols or hate slogans.” (The document cites no examples of these, but the media and “anti-racism” advocacy groups increasingly label innocuous items as “hate symbols,” including a cartoon frog and the “OK” hand sign.)

Facebook will also categorize you as a hate agent for possession of “hate paraphernalia,” although the document provides no examples of what falls into this category.

The document also says Facebook will categorize you as a hate agent for “statements made in private but later made public.” Of course, Facebook holds vast amounts of information on what you say in public and in private — and as we saw with the Daily Beast doxing story, the platform will publicize private information on their users to assist the media in hitjobs on regular American citizens.

Breitbart News has already covered some of the individuals that Facebook placed on its list of potential “hate agents.” Paul Joseph Watson eventually was categorized as “hateful” and banned from the platform, in part, according to the document, because he praised Tommy Robinson and interviewed him on his YouTube channel. Star conservative pundit Candace Owens and conservative author and terrorism expert Brigitte Gabriel were also on the list, as were British politicians Carl Benjamin and Anne Marie Waters.

The Benjamin addition reveals that Facebook may categorize you as a hate agent merely for speaking neutrally about individuals and organizations that the social network considers hateful. In the document, Facebook tags Benjamin with a “hate agent” signal for “neutral representation of John Kinsman, member of Proud Boys” on October 21 last year.

Facebook also accuses Benjamin, a classical liberal and critic of identity politics, as “representing the ideology of an ethnostate” for a post in which he calls out an actual advocate of an ethnostate.

In addition to the more unorthodox signals that Facebook uses to determine if its users are “hate agents,” there is also, predictably, “hate speech.” Facebook divides hate speech into three tiers depending on severity and considers attacks on a person’s “immigration status” to be hate speech.

Here’s how “hate speech” — both on and off Facebook — will be categorized by the platform, according to the document:

Individual has made public statements, or statements made in private and later made public, using Tier 1, 2, or 3 hate speech or slurs:

3 instances in one statement or appearance = signal
5 instances in multiple statements or appearances over one month = signal

If you’ve done this within the past two years, Facebook will consider it a hate signal.

Other signals used by Facebook to determine if its users should be designated as hate agents include carrying out violence against people based on their “protected or quasi-protected characteristics,” attacks on places of worship, and conviction of genocide.

REVEALED: Facebook makes the wrong call on nearly HALF of posts reported as offensive

REVEALED: Facebook makes the wrong call on nearly HALF of posts reported as offensive

For months, Facebook has been censoring, scrubbing and banning posts deemed to be hate speech. And despite the claim in this article that “anti-Muslim rhetoric” was left up, in reality, it is quickly and efficiently scrubbed. I’m not talking about comments such as the ones quoted below, calling for mass murder and genocide — those are never acceptable under any circumstances, directed at any group, and should be removed.

No, Facebook acts swiftly to shadowban or block or flag as “hate speech” essentially all comments and users who dare violate the sharia. And it’s getting worse. Posts, links, comments critical of jihad and sharia violate Facebook’s sharia terms of service.

My feed has been blocked and banned. Facebook daily referrals were 90K plus back in February; today they are under 2k. My feed is blocked from my millions of followers on Facebook, and I have seen my circulation drop precipitously in the past few months. For news publishers, Facebook is the motherboard of link traffic. No news site can survive without them. None of us are immune, which is why my traffic is down upwards of 95% since the block. My Facebook page has well over a million followers; add my organizations to that, and it is roughly two million people.

And all this is because what I write is deemed “hate speech” by leftist Facebook censors who don’t even consistently apply their own rules, except when it comes to foes of jihad terror. Look at a post they flagged as hate speech: it was calling for defense of Jews against a Nazi rally:

This has all been arranged at the highest levels. A chief officer from a major American communications company went to the terror state of Pakistan to assure the Pakisstani government that Facebook would adhere to the sharia. The commitment was given by Vice President of Facebook Joel Kaplan, who called on Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. “Facebook has reiterated its commitment to keep the platform safe and promote values that are in congruence with its community standards.”

Why the block? Because under Islamic law, you cannot criticize Islam. Facebook adhering to the most extreme and brutal ideology on the face of the earth should trouble all of us, because Mark Zuckerberg has immense power. He controls the flow of information. He controls what you see and don’t see on Facebook. We did not give him the power to abridge our unalienable freedoms.

The US government used anti-trust laws to break up monopolies. They ought to break up Facebook. Section 2 of the Sherman Act highlights particular results deemed anti-competitive by nature and prohibits actions that “shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.” Why shouldn’t the same be applied to information? The United States government took down Standard Oil, Alcoa, Northern Securities, the American Tobacco Company and many others without nearly the power that Facebook has. President Clinton sued Microsoft. And the USG broke up Ma Bell. Isn’t yesterday’s telephone number today’s IP address?

President Theodore Roosevelt sued 45 companies under the Sherman Act, while William Howard Taft sued 75, and the fact that the US government used these vicious anti-capitalist laws to destroy huge industrial giants must be used in defense of free speech?

“Facebook apologises for its moderation ‘mistakes’ after investigation reveals it makes the wrong call on nearly HALF of posts reported as offensive,” by Phoebe Weston, Mailonline, December 29, 2017:

Facebook has apologised after an investigation revealed moderators make the wrong call on almost half of posts deemed offensive.

The site admitted it left up offensive posts that violate community guidelines despite being armed with 7,500 content reviewers.

One such post was a picture of a corpse with the words ‘the only good Muslim is a f****** dead one’ which was left up by moderators despite being flagged to them.

Another showed a woman passed out on a bed, with the caption ‘what would you do?’.

According to the investigation, content reviewers do not always abide by the company’s guidelines and interpret similar content in different ways.

Users reported both posts but received an automated message from Facebook saying it was acceptable.

‘We looked over the photo, and though it doesn’t go against one of our specific Community Standards, we understand that it may still be offensive to you and others’, the message read.

In the case of the woman passed out, Facebook defended its choice to leave it on the site as the caption by a feminist and activist, condemned sexual violence.

The caption read ‘women don’t make memes or comments like this #NameTheProblem’.

However, another anti-Muslim comment – ‘Death to the Muslims’ – was deemed offensive after users repeatedly reported it.

All comments on the reported posts were violations of Facebook’s policies but only one was caught, according to the full investigation by independent, nonprofit newsroom ProPublica.

The non-profit sent Facebook a sample of 49 items containing hate speech, and a few with legitimate expression from its pool of 900 crowdsourced posts.

The social network admitted its reviewers made mistakes in 22 of the cases.

Facebook blamed users for not flagging the posts correctly in six cases.

In two incidents it said it didn’t have enough information to respond.

Overall, the company defended 19 of its decisions, which included sexist, racist, and anti-Muslim rhetoric….

THE TRUTH MUST BE TOLD

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Freedom of expression is the matrix

“Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.” ~ U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut (1937)

Is freedom of expression absolute?

In the case of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Minnesota statute prohibiting individuals from wearing political apparel at a polling place violated the First Amendment.

An airplane is not a polling place.

Near the end of last year, American Airlines issued an apology to a woman after flight attendants objected to her “Hail Satan” shirt that she wore on the plane.

Back in October, Swati Runi Goyal of Key West was on board an American Airlines flight from Florida to Nevada when a crew member told her to change her shirt or leave the plane because the flight crew found her shirt to be “offensive.” According to a page on the American Airlines website titled “conditions of carriage,” under “passenger responsibilities,” passengers are required to, among other things:

• Behave appropriately and respectfully with other passengers on board
• Dress appropriately; bare feet or offensive clothing aren’t allowed

Passengers who fail to comply by being “uncooperative or show the potential to be uncooperative on board” may not be allowed to fly.

Goyal maintains that “she’s worn the T-shirt many times in the past without incident, including on airplanes.”

Although Goyal claims to be an atheist, she is a member of the Satanic Temple—an organization that’s “become well-known for its activism on issues such as separation of church and state, free speech, and religious freedom.” “It’s an ironic shirt,” she said. “People usually laugh at it, or they give me a thumbs-up because they understand the meaning behind it.”

The flight went on to Nevada as scheduled after the woman put on one of her husband’s shirts over her “Hail Satan” shirt. Goyal said that she was “humiliated” by the situation and contacted American Airlines after her flight to file a complaint. Only after she voiced her displeasure on Twitter did American Airlines apologize.

As a Christian, I find the “Hail Satan” shirt offensive. But since I recognize that I have no right to not be offended, what are my options?

If I see someone wearing a “Hail Satan” shirt out in public and don’t want to confront him, I can ignore him and just keep walking or I can go home and pray for him. If I see someone wearing a “Hail Satan” shirt out in public and want to confront him, I can stop and tell him that his shirt offends me and ask him not to wear it or I can tell him why I think we should hail Jesus instead of Satan. Those are my options. Forcing him to remove the shirt or seeking the government to force him to remove the shirt are not options.

If I see someone wearing a “Hail Satan” shirt that I have invited into my home, then I have other options. Why? Because it is my property. Now I can tell him to change his shirt or leave. Now I can preach to him, yell at him, insult him, or seek to embarrass him in front of my other guests for as long as he is willing to listen. He is, after all, free to leave on his own.

But it’s not just the wearing of a “Hail Satan” shirt that I can regulate in my home. I find almost as offensive the wearing of a “Bernie 2020” shirt. If one of my invited guests shows up wearing such a shirt, I have the same options. Why, because it is my property. And because it is my property, if I demand that all of my guests wear or not wear red shirts, Trump hats, or LeBron jerseys, then that is my right.

It is no different when it comes to American Airlines. Although it may be a dumb thing to do from a business perspective, if American Airlines wants to require all passengers to wear formal attire or prohibit all passengers from wearing Delta shirts, then the company should have the right to do so.

The case of the woman on the airplane with the “Hail Satan” shirt has nothing to do with free expression and everything to do with property rights.

Free Expression and Property Rights

Free Expression and Property Rights

“Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.” ~ U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut (1937)

Is freedom of expression absolute?

In the case of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Minnesota statute prohibiting individuals from wearing political apparel at a polling place violated the First Amendment.

An airplane is not a polling place.

Near the end of last year, American Airlines issued an apology to a woman after flight attendants objected to her “Hail Satan” shirt that she wore on the plane.

Back in October, Swati Runi Goyal of Key West was on board an American Airlines flight from Florida to Nevada when a crew member told her to change her shirt or leave the plane because the flight crew found her shirt to be “offensive.” According to a page on the American Airlines website titled “conditions of carriage,” under “passenger responsibilities,” passengers are required to, among other things:

• Behave appropriately and respectfully with other passengers on board
• Dress appropriately; bare feet or offensive clothing aren’t allowed

Passengers who fail to comply by being “uncooperative or show the potential to be uncooperative on board” may not be allowed to fly.

Goyal maintains that “she’s worn the T-shirt many times in the past without incident, including on airplanes.”

Although Goyal claims to be an atheist, she is a member of the Satanic Temple—an organization that’s “become well-known for its activism on issues such as separation of church and state, free speech, and religious freedom.” “It’s an ironic shirt,” she said. “People usually laugh at it, or they give me a thumbs-up because they understand the meaning behind it.”

The flight went on to Nevada as scheduled after the woman put on one of her husband’s shirts over her “Hail Satan” shirt. Goyal said that she was “humiliated” by the situation and contacted American Airlines after her flight to file a complaint. Only after she voiced her displeasure on Twitter did American Airlines apologize.

As a Christian, I find the “Hail Satan” shirt offensive. But since I recognize that I have no right to not be offended, what are my options?

If I see someone wearing a “Hail Satan” shirt out in public and don’t want to confront him, I can ignore him and just keep walking or I can go home and pray for him. If I see someone wearing a “Hail Satan” shirt out in public and want to confront him, I can stop and tell him that his shirt offends me and ask him not to wear it or I can tell him why I think we should hail Jesus instead of Satan. Those are my options. Forcing him to remove the shirt or seeking the government to force him to remove the shirt are not options.

If I see someone wearing a “Hail Satan” shirt that I have invited into my home, then I have other options. Why? Because it is my property. Now I can tell him to change his shirt or leave. Now I can preach to him, yell at him, insult him, or seek to embarrass him in front of my other guests for as long as he is willing to listen. He is, after all, free to leave on his own.

But it’s not just the wearing of a “Hail Satan” shirt that I can regulate in my home. I find almost as offensive the wearing of a “Bernie 2020” shirt. If one of my invited guests shows up wearing such a shirt, I have the same options. Why, because it is my property. And because it is my property, if I demand that all of my guests wear or not wear red shirts, Trump hats, or LeBron jerseys, then that is my right.

It is no different when it comes to American Airlines. Although it may be a dumb thing to do from a business perspective, if American Airlines wants to require all passengers to wear formal attire or prohibit all passengers from wearing Delta shirts, then the company should have the right to do so.

The case of the woman on the airplane with the “Hail Satan” shirt has nothing to do with free expression and everything to do with property rights.

Facebook: The Truth Exposed...Part 2 of 2

Investigative Report

Facebook: The Truth Exposed...Part 2 of 2

Authors Note: The information we are about to disclose is based upon our research and reflects our opinions and beliefs alone.

In Part 1 of Facebook: The Truth Exposed, we told you about who Facebook's partners are along with which companies and countries they are connected to, and which companies Facebook bought up or into and why.

So, given everything we have told you thus far, you’re probably wondering how this also applies in the real world...a world of here and now events...and why this is all so dangerous. For the answer to that, to provide you with the end result of the big picture, allow us to bring in to this investigative report what we refer to as the Hillary/Russia/Facebook trifecta.

Over the past couple of years, we have both written, sometimes together and at other times separately, about Hillary Clinton’s Uranium One sale of American uranium to Russia. We have also written, both together and separately with regard to Hillary Clinton’s deep involvement in the Steele dossier which was pieced together in large part from bogus information culled from Russian agents.

It’s the third leg of the Hillary/Russia trifecta that is perhaps the most disturbing however, and it relates directly to Facebook and the key players we mentioned earlier.

To begin with, the name Brett Sinclair Armitage should ring a bell.

Brett Sinclair Armitage is a close friend of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, a large donor to the Clinton Foundation, and he is also a director of DST USA II Limited, which was a pre-IPO (Initial Public Offering) investor in Facebook, as per Securities and Exchange Commission Form 4 in 2012. In fact, it was Armitage himself who signed that SEC Form 4 as a managing director of a registered companies' agent in the Isle of Man named Bridgewaters IOM (Isle of Man) Limited.

Bridgewaters (IOM) Limited was also the intermediary (a go-between of sorts) for UrAsia Mining Limited, a Russian uranium mining consortium, and cover company for UrAsia Energy Ltd., a shell company run by Bill Clinton’s Canadian pal, Frank Giustra, for whom Bill Clinton secured a one day mining deal. As payback, Giustra orchestrated some $152 million dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation. It’s what Guistra later did, as in selling his shell company, UrAsia Energy Ltd. to Uranium One that raises eyebrows.

That deal, by the way, was underwritten by Goldman Sachs, another key in the Facebook monopoly we have already outlined. Also deeply involved in this leg of the trifecta are Russian oligarch, Alisher Usanov, Vladimir Skoch, and Ardavan Farhad Moshiri, an Iranian businessman who lived in Monaco and ran a Russian energy company, who also was a big money donor to anything involving Alisher Usanov. Yuri Milner, Sheryl Sandberg, and Larry Summers, names will become even more important in a moment.

Bridgewaters (IOM) Ltd, thus facilitated a stream of monies, some $3.1 billion dollars of Russian UrAsia funds, directly to Brett Sinclair Armitage in 2007, and also facilitated the movement of shadowy Russian funds into Facebook to artificially inflate its pre-IPO valuation to $100 billion, because when one is scheming to control the global dissemination of information, big money talks.

Essentially, what we have here is Facebook being directly tied to the same Russians and Russian entities via financing to the very people deeply involved in the Uranium One deal, a deal which led to the sale of American uranium through Hillary Clinton and the Department of State to Russia, and tied to the funding of Facebook itself, with both Hillary and Bill Clinton up to their Russian colluding eyeballs in the whole sordid matter.

But, it doesn’t end there...far from it in fact.

In 1993, then President Bill Clinton appointed to the Treasury Department one Larry Summers, who in 1999 became the Secretary of the Treasury. Sheryl K. Sandberg and Yuri Milner both were protégés of Larry Summers and both worked for the World Bank in 1993, as did Summers before he was appointed to the Treasury Department.

It was Summers, Sandberg, and Milner who advocated for a voucher system in Russian as that country’s economy began to collapse, all the while knowing full well that only the top organized crime figures in Russia would be capable of buying those vouchers.

We’ll get back to Milner and Sandberg in just a bit.

Now, for the second leg of this trifecta, jump ahead to the last months of the Obama years to when Obama placed harsh sanctions on Russians involved in 'supposed' meddling in our 2016 elections, and guess who was not sanctioned...Usmanov, Milner, Skoch and Moshiri. Why not? Because as we’re about to tell you, those particular Russian entities were directly involved in the real Russian meddling into our election process, but not just in 2016.

In September 2009, in the first year of the Obama regime, Hillary Clinton, through the Department of State, and using U.S. taxpayer dollars, entered into a contract with Facebook to the tune of $120,000, for the purpose of creating a "template" for “winning elections using advanced Facebook marketing.”

It appears as though, even before the 2010 midterm elections, Hillary, knowing she would run again in 2016, and with Obama facing an election in 2012, the liberals knew they couldn’t win on the merits of their platform, and realized they needed to control the information being disseminated to the public via social media giant Facebook.

About a month after the "template" contract was a done deal, in October 2009, Hillary promoted Facebook via video to a U.S. State Department-funded (that’s actually yet another U.S. taxpayer funded) Alliance for Youth Movements Summit in Mexico City for which Hillary also had a contract, but that contract was buried deep, hidden away on Hillary’s private email server in the basement of her Chappaqua home.

Obviously, Hillary didn’t want anyone to connect the dots between her, her husband, Obama, and Facebook, through racketeering and misappropriation of taxpayer dollars. In fact, it never would have seen the light of day had not Judicial Watch gotten their hands on it on April 3, 2014.

And just exactly who was managing Hillary’s and the Obama’s Department of State contracts with Facebook... one Dmitry Shevelenko, a covert Russian operative whose paper trail has now been somewhat obscured by Hillary and Obama’s deep state connections.

That’s correct, since 2009 Hillary Clinton, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, and Facebook have been colluding with Russian entities to meddle in our United States election process, all while using monies obtained via racketeering, offshore accounts, and U.S. taxpayer dollars. And they did so to build a Facebook multi-media and social media empire capable of controlling information seen by the public on both a national and international platform while developing a "template" directly tied to Facebook and managed by a Russian operative aimed at tilting the American political process to the left by employing that element of control.

As stunning and as staggering as that is, there is more.

Completing the Hillary, Facebook trifecta, is the Steele dossier. That dossier, we all now know, was compiled from false information provided to the former British spy Christopher Steel from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and by Russian operatives, but what you probably didn’t realize is that Facebook also played a key role in it was well.

One of the results of the law of unintended consequences oozing out of the Mueller investigation has been that Russian operatives had been using Facebook to spread propaganda.

The tie between the Steele dossier and Facebook goes even deeper as it turns out that George Papadopoulos, a one-time Trump campaign advisor who tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to set up meetings between the Trump campaign and the Russians and who was arrested in the summer of 2017 for making false statements to the FBI, was in direct contact with Sergei Millian, who was the Russian “source” for some of the most absurd accusations contained in the anti-Trump Steele dossier.

Millian was, in fact, using Facebook as a platform to portray himself as a close business partner with Donald Trump, going so far as to post pictures of himself with Trump at various events, even though there seems to be no real evidence that he ever participated in any of Trump’s real estate deals.

Facebook, as a social media giant with a long reach, was Millian’s platform to make himself appear as a legitimate source, which Christopher Steele exploited in the manufacturing of his fake dossier against then candidate Donald Trump.

Given Facebook’s unmitigated hatred of candidate and now President Trump, it is not unreasonable to believe, especially when one adds in the various aspects of Facebook’s anti-Trump agenda, that the social media entity knew the dossier was a complete fabrication, that Millian was a fraud, but allowed him to use their platform for nefarious purposes.

Now add to all of that the fact that Facebook has been increasingly clamping down on the postings by conservative activists and conservative bloggers through cutting back on the number of people on Facebook who can see posts, not to mention arbitrarily suspending such people’s posting privileges when they attempt to share the truth regarding Hillary’s actions, Obama’s actions, and the actions of liberals at large.

Okay...back to Milner and Sandberg...Sheryl Sandberg, as we have already outlined, was a key player in the Larry Summers connection to Russia and Russian operatives, is now the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Facebook. No doubt her past Russian connections and Facebook’s long history of Russian involved players is a combination that is more than a bit cozy for the social media's ever-growing mega monopoly.

And what of Yuri Milner...we already showed you how Milner is connected to Facebook as well as his past dealings and resume, but in Milner we see a man with a dire plan for the world’s future. Milner, a Russian tech entrepreneur and internet investor, envisions a future where the internet will develop into a "global brain"...an intelligent network of individuals and machines...functioning as some form of a nervous system for the planet Earth. Milner also believes that the ever increasing use of social media will also increase humans' collective intelligence.

“Collective,” as in the socialist collective, and the “global brain” of some sort of “nervous system” is just a fancy way of saying that the internet and social media (read Facebook) as the “global brain” will control the socialist collective by only allowing people access to information and propaganda it deems productive or proactive to the goal of a one world government.

And right in the middle of it all, in the middle of the Steele dossier, the direct meddling in our election process via a Facebook 'template' aimed at winning an election and the Uranium One deal that led to the sale of 20 percent of our nation’s uranium to Russia, is Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Obama cabal including such key players as James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and others in the F.B.I., Loretta Lynch, Rod Rosenstein, and Bruce Ohr along with others in the Department of Justice, Hillary’s Department of State, certain FISA court judges, the Democratic National Committee, and there can be no doubt knowing what we now know, that at the head of it all was Barack HUSSEIN Obama himself.

But they all needed a mega platform, an entity with a global reach second to none, that's relied upon by millennials...our nation’s future voters and future leaders...to effectively spread the false narratives necessary to control not only the thoughts, ideas, vision, and coordination of a global populous, but also to covertly steer our elections away from conservatism and towards a true socialist ideology.

Remember, Hillary was supposed to win, she was supposed to be Obama’s third term, and finish what he started, take it further, and leave in her wake a system of globalization from which American would never recover.

And while this Hillary/Russia trifecta with Facebook as the lynch pin failed to garner her the opportunity for total globalization and the complete destruction of American culture, do not for one minute think it’s over. It is most decidedly not, and now we believe we are about to witness Facebook and the Obama/Hillary cabal’s plan B...anarchy. Don’t think so or think that’s an over-arching conspiracy theory...consider what we’re seeing on Facebook today in concert with the liberal activists.

Anti-police postings are becoming more and more rampant, not violating any Facebook Community Standards. The ramping up of pro-islam, anti-Christianity and anti-Semitic posts also is not in violation of any Facebook Community Standards. Liberal “resistance” posts on Facebook can be as vile, violent and disgusting as any person posting wants their posts to be, and that doesn’t seem to trip the Facebook algorithms or violate their standards, but let a conservative post the truth, let a conservative share their thoughts as openly as do liberals, champion Christianity or Judaism or condemn acts of islamic terrorism or terrorists, and suddenly the Facebook doors slam shut on them.

And sometimes the conservative poster is aghast as to why said doors were slammed shut on them when they made sure their post broke none of Facebook's precious Community Standards. Well guess what...they didn't break any standards...what they did was become a target of “selective enforcement” by Facebook's infamous “proprietary” but claimed to be unbiased algorithms... algorithms actually done in the shadows...algorithms cleverly programmed to not only determine what you see and who you can see it from, but algorithms intentionally hidden from us because they are programmed to “flag” posts for violations of Community Standards not known to the public, but known only to Zuckerberg and the algorithm's programmer(s).

These “flags” (which are now being recycled numerous times for the same 'supposed' infraction) are then turned over to members of a “policing force” if you will, as said algorithms actually have human “curators” who now "inject” tags on the poster of the previously stated “flagged” post, allowing these “curators” to freely pick and choose who goes into Facebook jail next with no specific reason given besides the algorithm's generated innocuous words that “you broke one of our Community Standards.”

And guess where most, but not all, these “curators” are based in...Dubai, the U.A.E. and uber liberal California. This is why so many anti-islam and pro-Trump posters see their posts being taken down and themselves, including us, being sent to Facebook jail. Simply put, Facebook is now programmed via its totally biased computer-generated algorithms to silence any and all Zuckerberg and crew feel is a threat not only to their liberal/socialist agenda but more importantly...to silence those they deem to be a threat to their now ever-growing monopoly of mind-controlled news cycles. Remember too, it's not any one individual post that is a threat...it's the collective whole of a “tagged” poster's body of posts that can do the most damage to Zuckerberg's agenda with him ignoring the fact that silencing one poster just leads to other posters picking up the fight.

Now that the big picture has come into focus 'Big Brother' is not just watching us but is actually rubbing what they know into our faces. How so...as we all know the media is supposed to be unbiased when reporting on the Mueller investigation but obviously they are not. And with Facebook now determining who is and is not a credible news source, with CNN garnering their exulted approval, just know that Facebook allowed on its newsfeed pictures of CNN's justice correspondent Evan Perez's buddy-buddy relationship with and ties to Fusion GPS' co-founder Peter Fritsch.

And know that all the pieces to everything we've told you have been available through various sources for years, but until now nobody has put the pieces of the puzzle together. As we said previously, Facebook is no longer social media...Facebook is socialist media. Are you seeing the big picture now...we surely hope so.