The Inconvenient Truth Of Black Power

By Timothy Leer

It’s not the fault of the minorities for being fooled into thinking what they are fighting for is skin color and equal rights. This claim use to be valid, over a hundred years ago they had every right to be freed for the bondage of slavery to be equal. So we as Christians finally holding to our bibles for once not twisting the words to fit our needs, stood up to free all slaves.

Thus created the civil war so many years ago, after wining this monumental victory england and other nation followed suite. Slavery was no more in the colonies you saw the rise of ethnic groups and a new population rise. One of the groups claim a phrase in response to “White Power” calling it “Black Power” supposedly to combat the kkk of america. The group’s name was “The Black Panther”, seemly back then it was to combat the KKK, white supremest and Neo Nazis. Once Malcolm X entered the picture the group took a turn for the worse, attacking whites and proclaiming Islam as the teacher of its knowledge. When Malcolm X attempts failed to gather much black folks to his side. looking at his oppnet Dr. Martian Luther king Malcolm knew he was was getting to much of the voice on equality form black folks.,so Malcolm X had to some how take Martain Luther King out of the picture. So Malcolm Spoke to his Islamic Cleric his superior gave him money from Islāmic Iranian’s. Some belive as I do, that Martin Luther King was a victim of Islam, they didn’t want to share with Christian black folk the power over the black people in america. if we look back on it now Islam wanted control and now has control.

After the assassination of Martin Luther King the Black panther party became the new head of the black movement in the 60’s and 70’s. The christians black equality movement had finally been toppled because there leader Martin Luther King’s passing. So as all pawns go Malcolm x in Islams eye’s had to go, for fear of the leak of the assanation of MLK would exspose the nation of Islam for the murder of Martin Luther King. So In the end, Islam assassinated Malcolm X and wiped the truth clean with blood shed and secrets.

The man known as Louis Farrakhan Sr., helped in the murder of Malcolm x and never got punished, he is a local figure-head in most black movements to this day. The reason the spread of black power groups went to other nations is because groups like the nation of Islam and other Islāmic organizations have spread the movement. When you see “Black Lives matter or black panthers, you’re seeing merely pawns for the Nation of Islam, most don’t even know they are the pawns in a sick and twisted game.
Islam pray’s on black youth and minoritys to become part of the Islamic rights revolution, but not nessesarily converting them to Islam. but instead using them on the pretence of racial oppression. More are unaware of the reality they are in, in Islam color doesn’t matter.

Just like the democrats of the United States of America black people are being used as a pawn in sick game to start a race war for Islam.
I have provided an informational link to understand how Louis Farrakhan plays a part in this world’s Islāmic attacks.
Why black lives do not matter but Islāmic black lives do.

Bolton Ousted From UKIP

By Stefan M. Kløvning

Birmingham, UK – Bolton was removed from his leader position in UKIP after 63% of 1,378 members voted against him in a no-confidence motion this Saturday. The acquittal follows his ex-girlfriend Joe Marney being exposed for having sent racist text messages about Meghan Markle, but the supporters of the decision claim it was taken due to poor leadership on Bolton’s part.

Bolton has threatened to sue UKIP over the issue and branded his critics as ‘the enemy within’ according to extracts from his removal speech leaked to Mail Online. One UKIP member told Mail Online that his words “were nearly drowned out with boos” from the audience.

His acquittal will force the fifth election of a UKIP leader within two years, causing concern of who will take his place. Nigel Farage has said before that the party would go down the road of ‘self-destruction and irrelevance’ if he was ousted, but members contend that they already had talks of candidates for the next leader prior to the vote. Gerard Batten took the position as an interim leader in the party, and said he thought the right decision had been made. In the speech he also gave a message to Bolton to ‘Get on with the rest of your life.’ He also said that ‘I feel optimistic that UKIP can and will grow stronger and more successful because ordinary patriotic people want, need and deserve a party that represent their interests.’

Bolton said after the vote that he was uncertain whether he would try becoming leader again, but suggested other options, such as joining or setting up a new party. He feels confident he still has a future in politics, saying ‘it’s not a great feeling but you can’t keep a good man down and I have not finished with politics. It’s just one of those bumps in the road.’



4 Reasons Why Gun Control Doesn’t Work In The USA

By Asish Samson
The recent school shooting in the state of Florida where an ex-student opened fire and claimed 17 innocent lives shook America to its core. The entire nation watched in shock as one grisly detail after another was revealed about the perpetrator and the victims in one of the deadliest mass shootings ever.

As soon as the news broke out many prominent Democrats, liberals and celebrities took to mainstream media and social media to bash Trump and his gun policies. Many of them shamelessly politicised the issue by calling out Republicans and the NRA and proposing stricter gun control laws and also banning guns outright. Some even claimed that Trump and Republicans had “blood on their hands”. While there are conflicting views and debates about this issue, in this article let us see how gun control doesn’t even come close to solving the problem.

1. Criminals don’t follow laws: A criminal by definition, doesn’t follow the law. Therefore, no matter how strict the gun laws are, a criminal could get a gun illegally. The gun control policies could never hope to stop a criminal from laying hands on a weapon. For example Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the country but, its homicide and gun related deaths are one of the highest in the country. Strict gun law states and gun free zones have some of the highest crime rates in the country.

2. It takes away protection from Law abiding citizens: The most effect the gun control laws show is on legal gun owners. These laws take away guns from legal owners and families who genuinely use them for protection. This leaves them vulnerable to attacks and unable to defend their families from a criminal attack. There have been many incidents of families and single parents defending themselves from burglars and other criminals using a legal gun. Here, the presence of the weapon neutralised the threat. This would not be possible with the kind of new gun control laws proposed or by banning guns. Instead if reducing crime, it would increase it.

3. Doesn’t serve the purpose: Let us imagine that gun control laws have been passed and are in effect. This prevents or regulates new guns being bought. But, still there are already more than 300 million guns in the US from previous years. To confiscate them would take years and achieving complete surrender of these guns is near impossible. Add to that, the kind of black market this would create for weapons and the amount of cash that would go to criminal enterprises. These laws would hugely profit them and make them more dangerous than ever with an unarmed general populace.

4. Border Control Problems: America has a severe border control problem. Thousands of illegal immigrants, tons of drugs and huge caches of weapons from cross the border every year. These weapons are then sold or used by local gangsters and other criminals. Some lf them are sold in the black market. No gun laws can prevent this from happening. Only strict border security and effective immigration laws can. Ironically, the same Democrats and liberals who cry about guns do not support border security.

All these problems along with many other factors show that gun control is not the solution. Rather, it is used as a tool for politics and virtue signalling. Blaming guns for murder is like blaming symptoms for the disease instead of the pathogen. The real problems are mental health issues, violence in media, lack of adequate security among others.


17 Dead in Parkland School Shooting

[Photo: Divulgação]

By Stefan M. Kløvning

Parkland, FL – On February 14 the expelled student Nikolas Cruz returned to his former school and took the lives of seventeen students. The event occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, about fifty miles north of Miami. He used an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle to perpetrate the attack, also wearing a gas mask and throwing in smoke grenades.


The Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, talked of the incident as “just absolutely pure evil.” Cruz has reportedly told the authorities that he was instructed by inner voices how to carry out the shooting. As he has been kicked out of high school, talked of killing animals to friends, and posted several photos of guns on social media, it has been argued that the shooting could have been prevented if the warning signs weren’t overlooked. He posted a comment on a YouTube video in 2017, for instance, that said “I’m going to be a professional school shooter”, which FBI was informed of. They failed, however, to identify who was behind the comment, as it was uncertain how many ‘Nikolas Cruz’ there are on YouTube.


His math teacher Jim Gard told the Miami Herald that Cruz had been threatening students last year and had been asked to leave the campus, not being permitted to enter with a backpack on him.


The store he bought the AR-15 rifle in has been identified by Brownard County Office to have been Sunrise Tactical Supply in Coral Springs. A law enforcement officer told the Associated Press that he had passed a background test and the weapon was bought legally in February 2017. The weapon has been called “America’s most popular rifle” by the National Rifle Association, and have been a common weapon-of-choice in mass shootings such as this one. The murderers in both Texas, Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs – to mention a few – also used AR-15s in their horrific acts.


A lot of politicians have been speaking out about this event. The President, for instance, posted on Twitter:

My prayers and condolences to the families of the victims of the terrible Florida shooting. No child, teacher or anyone else should ever feel unsafe in an American school.

Senator Bill Nelson highlighted the point that this is a recurring and highly problematic issue in American society, saying “I have already said my prayers to give them comfort. But this is a tough time. We say ‘enough is enough’, but it happens again.”

Marco Rubio also spoke out on the issue, saying on Twitter that “it is clear [the] attack was designed & executed to maximize loss of life.”



The Tragedy of Douglas High School: Florida’s School Shooting

Nicolas Cruz, a former student of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, rampaged through the school on February 14, shortly before 3pm, shooting and killing many students. At least 16 are dead, with another 14 taken to hospitals to be treated for severe wounds.


Nicolas was taken into custody soon after the shooting began, with police responding right away to the reports of shootings at the school. Trump also responded quickly, calling the victim’s families, and taking to Twitter, “My prayers and condolences to the families of the victims of the terrible Florida shooting. No child, teacher or anyone else should ever feel unsafe in an American school.” He also stated, while working with Florida officials, “Just spoke to Governor Rick Scott. We are working closely with law enforcement on the terrible Florida school shooting.”


There have been many reports from students that were at the school during the time of the shooting, including Freshman, Kayden Hanafi. He heard two gunshots, and saw students running out of a neighboring building, as his classroom went on lockdown. Many speculated the noise might’ve been firecrackers. “It’s really a blessing to still be alive.” He stated. Eager parents awaited outside of the school, around 3pm, to embrace their loved ones and hear the terrible news.


Another student, Nicole Baltzer, an 18 year old senior, told her of account. She sat in trigonometry class, about ten minutes before the school day ended, when the fire alarm sounded. Six gunshots rang through the school, as many students ran back inside during the confusion. “I heard so many gunshots, at least like six. They were very close,” Baltzer said. An officer told her to close her eyes as she walked past a room with shattered windows, saying, “There’s nothing good to see in there.”


Superintendent Runcie spoke with reporters, “We received no warnings. Potentially there could have been signs out there. But we didn’t have any warning or phone calls or threats that were made.” Jim gard, a math teacher, said Nicholas was in his class last year and that he was problematic, making threats against other students, “There were problems with him last year threatening students, and I guess he was asked to leave campus. We were told last year that he wasn’t allowed on campus with a backpack on him.” The teachers had been emailed in the past, saying Nicholas was not allowed on campus with a backpack, and that he could be a threat.


Another student, who knew Nicholas, said in an interview with WSVN-7, that Nicholas said he had guns at home, and talked often about using them. Despite this knowledge of the threat, the 19-year old ex-student was never publicly proclaimed to be a potential suspect.


The school had undergone a test fire drill earlier that day, so many students were confused when the actual alarm sounded. The attack was quite surprising, since Parkland was named the safest city in Florida, last year. According to a 2016 analysis, the high school had an enrollment of about 3,000 students at that time.

“White People Watching Black Panther Shouldn’t Be Allowed” According To Liberals

By Asish Samson

If you are a white person and are thinking of watching or reviewing the Marvel Superhero film Black Panther, then you are racist according to some liberals. Even if you wanted to watch it so bad you have to wait till the second or the third week after release so as to not disturb all the blacks who are watching the film with your mere presence. Because liberalism is all about love, peace, tolerance and unity.

One of these rare gems is Tyler Baines Cadbury. According to his Twitter bio he is a journalist from London. He is also “non-binary” (which means he is confused about which bathroom to use) and “race queer” (whatever that is). To cap it off he is a self described male feminist. On 13th February he tweeted that : “White people shouldn’t be allowed to review Black Panther lest their innate racial bias subconsciously reflect in their reviewing. White people simply can’t be impartial. PoC only please”. While this tweet doesn’t make any sense it highlights the flawed thinking that has led liberalism to its present place in the gutter. When some users pointed out his apparent racism, he immediately resorted to calling them “bigots”. And to make matters even worse he says that males giving flowers to females on Valentine’s Day is “rape culture” because the flowers do not consent to be picked and people giving each other flowers is a form of “sex trafficking”. He calls for everyone to boycott it.

And then there is Emily Lakdawalla, a self proclaimed “Planetary evangelist” who tweeted that she was careful so as to not buy tickets for Black Panther on the first weekend because she didn’t want to be the “White person sucking black joy out of the theatre”. Then she proceeded to ask if watching it the next weekend wouldn’t be so racist. When some users pointed out her obvious idiocy she immediately proceeded to block them. She eventually seems to have deleted the tweet herself.

The point these geniuses seem to miss is that the cast of Black Panther, who are predominantly black wouldn’t be pleased with this virtue signalling move after the amount of time and money they spent on making the film. Instead of uniting people regardless of their race and skin colour these liberals are only driving the wedge deeper and causing more division between races by claiming a certain race should not be allowed to watch or review a film based on their skin colour. While most blacks seem to have no problem with any people watching the film, only the fringe elements of the left that take this narrative upon themselves. Recent trends and polls show that increasing number of blacks are leaving the left and leftist parties.


Facebook Losing Users Rapidly, 2.8 Million users lost in 2017 alone

By Asish Samson

The social media giant Facebook is losing users rapidly to other platforms according to eMarketer, the digital measurement firm. In the year 2017 alone, Facebook lost 2.8 million users in the US aged under 25. That is almost three times the decline predicted. The forecast for 2018 is also very grim.

Many younger generations are moving more and more away from Facebook to other platforms. According to eMarketer, Instagram and Snapchat are expected to gain from this decline in Facebook. Snapchat users are expected to increase by about 9 percent this year, that is about 1.5 million news users from the US alone are expected to open accounts. Julia Smith, A social scientist has claimed that many teens call Facebook “the old people network”. Overall, Facebook is expected to lose about 15% percent of its users under the age 25 in the US in 2018.

One of the reasons for the decline in Facebooks users is its selective targeting of Conservatives and Right leaning users by deactivating or suspending their accounts without giving any warnings or a clear reason for doing so. Facebook is also very preferential to the ads displayed on it and the trending subjects. Facebook along with Twitter have previously been called out for this selective targeting.

Gab, one of the leading competitors for Facebook is also gaining from this decline. Gab, was launched in August 2016 by its CEO Andrew Torba who called it an alternative to “entirely left leaning social media monopoly”. In December 2016 the app was rejected by Apples iOS store citing vague reasons while Twitter dropped its API access without any reason. But, Gab’s users only increased day by day and it now has more than 300,000 users including many celebrities and political commentators. Paul Golding, Jayda Fransen, Tommy Robinson, Alisha Sherron, Will Mannion and Harry Goldsmith are also on Gab.

Main Enemy of Brexit: Soros donates £400K to pro-EU campaign

[Image: OLIVIER HOSLET/AFP/Getty Images]

UK – Billionaire investor George Soros has received immense criticism again recently by giving £400,000 to pro-EU campaign ‘Best for Britain,’ whose chairman – Lord Malloch-Brown – has plead to stop Brexit by bringing down the Tory government. He is one of three main figures planning to launch a nationwide advertising campaign at the end of the month, which they hope will lead to a second referendum to keep the United Kingdom in the Union.


Their strategy is to convince Tory MPs to vote against Theresa May’s negotiation deals – regardless of its content – to trigger a new referendum or general election. “Malloch-Brown and his backers believe that, if Parliament rejects the Brexit deal, the government will fall, and Brexit can then be stopped,” Nick Timothy of the Telegraph explains.


Soros has, of course, gotten a lot of critique for supporting such a movement openly. A supporter of Soros, Fraser Nelson, for instance, critiqued him in a recent article called George Soros is a champion of democracy, but on Brexit he is on the wrong side:

“Many people think the elites have stolen their democracy,” Soros wrote a year ago. Quite so, yet he has now ended up bankrolling a campaign to reverse the biggest vote cast in the history of British democracy.  

He denied accusations of him undermining democracy and said that the movement had his “wholehearted support.” Soros has – as a rationale for this position – referred to Britain doing economically better than the rest of Europe before Brexit, and claims that this has now been reversed, “with Continental economies powering ahead while Britain lags behind.” Such claims require great evidence, which he has not been cited to provide, but even regardless of whether this is true or not, the critique of him undermining democracy still stands. If the people have been given a vote, and the majority has voted for a path they want their country to follow, it naturally undermines the democratic system if it is attempted to nullify the results or make them arbitrary. That’s essentially what Soros does here. If he doesn’t like an outcome of an election or a referendum, he will do what’s in his power to override the results. Fraser says, “Soros is a great advocate of doing research before spending money, but failed to do enough before donating £400,000 to Best for Britain.” The sum itself isn’t enough for it to be likely to change public opinion drastically, but it has drawn attention to interventions in politics by such people as Soros. Fraser describes Best for Britain as they “could have been put together by a committee of sadistic Brexiteers wishing to caricature their opponents as out-of-touch elitists.” A quite telling illustration of the movement.


Soros doesn’t have much to gain of supporters by this investment, but he does have a goal, and his goals have been working out quite well for him in the past. He is known as the man who “broke the bank of England,” when he won a fortune in a gamble against the sterling on Black Wednesday in 1992, forcing the UK to withdraw from the European Exchange Rate mechanism after having tried desperately to increase interest rates to prevent it. He funded the Open Society Foundation (OSF) in 1979, which he has donated over $32 billion since its launch, making it the second largest philanthropic fund in the world.


Fraser quotes former President of Georgia Mikheil Saakshvili – whom Soros helped get elected – to have said “Soros was at his best in a clear battle between democracy and authoritarianism, but when he starts to play politics, he’s not that good.”


Could the “Norwegian model” with EU work for Britain?

By Stefan Matias Kløvning

Britain – The world is watching as Britain’s process of leaving the European Union continues on. An observer may wonder what will happen, how they will deal with the situation and how they will end up. Brexit was only a close victory, and it is not everyone who are satisfied. Yet some of them decides to deal with the situation as it is and works to get a soft Brexit which is sustainable for the British economy. The Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones, for instance, holds this position, and suggests that they should follow the Norwegian model of relationship with the European Union1. So, what is the Norwegian model, and how could it fit in a British context?


As Professor Lazowski boldly claims, there is no such Norwegian model2. It refers to the relation Norway has with the European Economic Area (EEA) and European Free Trade Area (EFTA). Norway is one of four members comprising the latter. Participation in the EEA is optional for EFTA members, but is compulsory for those that are EU-members. Norway, along with Iceland and Lichtenstein, are called “EEA-EFTA states,” and this is what is referred to when the “Norwegian model” is mentioned. Lazowski calls the EEA “a very complex, heavily institutionalized and rather expensive alternative to EU membership.” An article on the website of the Norwegian government explains EEA as a treaty meant to ensure free flow of the “four freedoms,” goods, people, services and capital between its nation members3.


A little history lesson of Norway’s relation with the Union might make things a little bit clearer. Polls since 2003 have shown that the people of Norway are generally a bit sceptical to the EU4. The highest result against Union membership was held in August 2012, where a stunning 74.5% of the population rejected it5. There have been two official votes of whether Norway should join the Union, one in 1972 and one in 1994. The people voted no both times but won with a lower margin in the latter. Neither of these were anywhere close the result gotten in the poll from August 2012, and in both cases was victory only 2-3.5% over a tie. If the vote was held again in the autumn of 2012, perhaps it would have had such a result.


We have now seen clearly the Norwegian Euro-Scepticism, but now we are left with the question: Why, or how, then, did Norway get into such a relation with the Union? The short answer is that rich countries, such as Norway and Switzerland, who didn’t want to join it, had to find a way to trade internally with the EU members within the continent without becoming it themselves. As the European Commission, and eventually the European Union, became an increasingly powerful international political body in the years following its creation, so it couldn’t be expected that one could avoid trading with its member states. The government of Norway concluded in October 1992 – and taken into effect in 1994 – with a majority of ¾ that the nation should become a member in the EEA6. According to a brochure published by the Norwegian government in 1993, has the main reason for joining the cooperation agreement been that “the member states can achieve more by taking decisions together rather than on their own.” In current Prime Minister Erna Solberg’s words, “to strengthen trade and economic ties with the EU – and, some would say, to prepare the ground for EU membership.7” She also says that the EEA agreement became a political compromise as proponents of joining the Union saw it as standing in the way for full membership, whereas those against EU disliked it for transferring power to Brussel. Agreement in disagreement, you could say, but it was surely the second option which was far less divisive than the question of full membership or none.


There are, of course, downsides to this option, which Mr. Lazowski describes. One of the most important ones is that neither Norway, Lichtenstein or Iceland can sit by the negotiation table in the Council of EU, although they have to follow all different kinds of directives and laws therefrom through the EEA. Another point is that switching from being an EEA-EU state to a EEA-EFTA would cut the United Kingdom from the Common Agricultural Policy, which has benefited British farmers by direct subsidies in over 40 years. He claims that it is “an illusion” to believe that the United Kingdom would gain sovereignty by leaving the EU and swapping for the EEA-EFTA. “Instead, it would go from being a law-maker to a law-taker.” If his presumptions are correct, the “Norwegian model” therefore becomes a flawed one to build on for the UK. David Cameron agrees, saying “while they pay, they don’t have a say.8


Are there any good case in support for Britain building on the Norwegian model? Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, International Business Editor for the Daily Telegraph, made such a case last summer in his article Leave camp must accept that Norway model is the only safe way to exit EU. He responds to Cameron’s view with that Norway does indeed have a say in the EU. They can de facto veto over EU laws under Article 102 of the EEA agreement, and their net payment of £106 a head in 2014 is “trivial” according to Evans-Pritchard. He also claims that Norway doesn’t even need to implement “all EU law as often claimed.” Here he refers to a report by the Norwegian government, which shows that it has adopted “just” 1,329 of the 7,720 EU regulations in force, and 1,369 of 1,965 EU directives. “The elegance of the EEA option,” Evans-Pritchard opines, “is that Britain would retain access to the EU customs union while being able to forge free trade deals with any other country over time.”


If it is such a good solution to Britain, why does both its Prime Minister and its EU minister advocate against them adopting the model? Erna Solberg stated her opinion on this on the website of the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2013. First, she mentions the difference in population size between the countries. Norway is a small country with merely five million people, whereas the UK has over 63 million, in addition to it being an international power reaching far wider than Norway. Second, 75% of exports from Norway go to the European Union, whereas the UK has good trade relationships with the rest of the world, though also a large chunk of that is indeed with the EU. “We simply have different comparative advantages and priorities vis-á-vis the EU,” she says. Mrs. Solberg states her support for the nation staying in the Union (reminder: this was written in 2013), but this question does not go within our topic of discussion.

The Norwegian EU minister Berger Rosland agrees, though for other reasons9. She states that there is a difference in attitude between Norway and Britain towards the European Union, in that Norway has the four freedoms – transport of goods, people, services and capital – whereas the Leave-campaigners are against the free movement of people, i.e. immigration. She therefore thinks that it is contradictory, if one holds these beliefs, that Leave-campaigners would agree on becoming an EEA-EFTA state. If we look back to Evans-Pritchard’s article, we can now see why he supports Britain following the Norwegian model. He is a strong advocate of these four freedoms, including movement of people.


It seems apparent now that division between the following question is the fundamental one in determining whether one supports Britain becoming an EEA-EFTA state: Is EU-controlled immigration good for Britain? Of course, the other pros and cons are also of huge importance, but this seems to me to be the major one. Immigration is one of the most controversial issue in Europe, and it shouldn’t be difficult to find merit in that the standpoint in question is, at least by many people, rooted in this issue. The complicated issue is now simplified, but one should take not of Adam Lazowski’s writings on the issue for a better understanding of it. There are many more objective factors he mentioned, as already mentioned, which determines whether one supports it or not. Conclusively, the position on this matter is largely a matter of values, not merely of objective pros and cons. Therefore it can be difficult in finding agreement here, but we shall all see where Britain may end up when the time comes, whether the result be good or not.




[1] Kentish, B. (2018) Corbyn will pledge to keep UK in customs union, Welsh First Minister says.

[2] Lazowski, A. (2016) Norwegian model for the UK: oh really?



[5] Ntb (2012) Høyrevelgere deler ikke partiets syn på EU.

[6] Regjeringens informasjonsutvalg for Europasaker (1993), 55 minutter om Norge og EF

[7] Solberg, E. (2013) The ‘Norwegian model’ would be a poor alternative to EU membership for the UK.

[8] Evans-Pritchard, A. (2016) Leave camp must accept that Norway model is the only safe way to exit EU.

[9] Bosotti, A. (2018) Remainer hopes DESTROYED as Norwegian EU minister says Norway-option NOT good fit for UK.


Facebook Zuccs Political Commentator And Goldfire Media’s Own CFO, Harry Goldsmith

By Asish Samson

Harry Goldsmith is an accountant, a political commentator and co-owner of Goldfire Media, an independent news source. He is also one of the most censored people in the U.K this year. On Monday, his account was automatically taken down by Facebook for the third time in two months. His first account was permanently disabled by Facebook and repeated attempts revive it have failed. When a new account was created, it was taken down automatically by Facebook with no reason given. Facebook automatically declined all the ID’s sent to it.

Before his account got taken down Harry Goldsmith has put his conservative views on his Facebook posts. He has been critical of the radical far left, political correctness and over-sensitivity of some liberals. Some of the very same overly-sensitive liberals on Facebook immediately took down his account and permanently disabled it citing “community standards” were not followed. It is disturbing to learn that the so-called “community standards” of Facebook are those of the far-left ideology which silences any and all opposing views without any chance of a fair debate. Now, that is showing shades of fascism and speech and thought policing that was followed by many a dictator.

Censorship, silencing and restricting of Conservatives and their accounts is nothing new in social media sites like Twitter and Facebook. While they claim to be fair and impartial, all the evidence points to a very pointed bias. Recently, an undercover video by Project Veritas revealed Twitter was using “Shadow banning” on conservatives and other right wing users without any notice. The video also revealed that Twitter used special employees just to read personal messages sent between users on Twitter. Lauren Southern, a Canadian activist’s Facebook account was suspended for 30 days for ironically, complaining about Facebook’s censorship of conservatives. Later Facebook attributed this to an “error” and lifted the suspension.

Meanwhile Co-owner of Goldfire Media and Harry Goldsmith’s business partner condemned the removal of his Facebook and Twitter accounts.
“My business partner, Harry Goldsmith, has just been zucced for the third time this year for no reason. Censorship of conservatives and right leaning centrists on social media is a civil rights issue.”

He has also filed a formal complaint to Facebook. All this censorship, restrictions and other tactics by these social media sites will only serve to unite the conservatives and make their stance stronger against radical left-wing ideology. As the Laurel House saying goes :
“The harder you slam a ball into the ground, the higher it bounces back up”.



The Silent Black Genocide Happening Right Now: Abortion

By Asish Samson 

A silent genocide of African-Americans or Blacks in the United States is occurring right this instant. And it has been going on for decades: Abortion. Yes, Statistics have revealed that abortion affects minorities, especially blacks more than any more race in the US. More black babies are aborted than any other minority race. Abortion centres like Planned Parenthood have specifically targeted urban centre with a high minority population.

In the year 2014 alone, 303,844 blacks died in the US but, 343,440 black babies were aborted. That is more blacks are killed in the US due to abortion than all the other causes. The current abortion ratio among black women is 420. This is higher than the abortion ratio of Hispanic and White women combined. Each day more than 940 black babies are aborted. In New York City, more black babies are aborted than those being born alive each year. In 2013 alone, 29,007 black were aborted while only 24,108 black babies were given birth by the black women. That is, abortion surpassed births by almost 5000!

Incidentally, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and a eugenicist has been documented as saying that she did want others to learn that “we want to exterminate the Negro population” in a 1939 letter. She even publicly called for black community to “embrace the enlightenment of birth control”. She also advocated for forcibly sterilizing the “unfit” people of the population. Yet, she is seen as a shining beacon of light by most of the Democrats and liberals including Hillary Clinton. Black Lives Matter, which protest at every juncture are remarkably silent on this information. Many of the liberals and democrats even went on to defend Planned Parenthood when it was revealed in an undercover operation that they illegally sold body parts of aborted babies.

Many prominent figure have spoken against abortion in the black community. Alveda C. King the daughter of A.D King the late Civil rights activist and niece of Martin Luther King. Jr has opposed abortion like her great uncle. Reverend Clenard H.Childress has called this phenomenon a “black genocide” and has been constantly working to expose it.

Riots Ensue After Philadelphia Eagles Win SuperBowl

By Kanach Peterson

Drunken fans of Philadelphia’s Super Bowl-winning team the Philadelphia Eagles took to the streets Sunday Night through Monday in violent and destructive riots, causing a considerable amount of property damage.

The Philadelphia Eagles have never won the Super Bowl before. The Eagles were the underdogs going into the big game and clinched the win versus the back to back Super Bowl champions the New England Patriots. Instead of the result of this historic event being praise and acclamation, the night resulted in thousands of intoxicated fans rioting in the streets. In some cases, riots resulted in property damage.

It is believed that a great deal of the rioting including several injured due to a car flipping, came from a Super Bowl party at Temple University that had overflowed into the streets.

The Philadelphia police and Pennsylvania State Police both made attempted to control the situation according to Photojournalist Patrick T. Fallon, who was injured by a rioter on a quad bike.

Officers expressed that they feared that they didn’t have enough resources to handle the situation. Police drones even estimated that there was a total of around 100,000 on the city streets after the game.

While the riots following the game had a huge fallout for public safety the Super Bowl Parade is still set to take place on Thursday morning.

Hawk Newsome, the President of Black Lives Matter New York, spoke with Newsweek’s Chantal Da Silva for an article where he expressed his feelings and concern on how officials handled security on Super Bowl night. “Somehow, it seems there’s a line drawn in the sand where the destruction of property because of a sports victory is OK and acceptable in America,” Newsome stated. “However, if you have people who are fighting for their most basic human right, the right to live, they will be condemned.”

Newsome also suggested that the ways officials handled the post-game riots were a “glaring example of white privilege.” It’s unlikely that the cities insufficient resources to deal with the riots were due to “white privilege”, however it is important to consider the sheer size of the riots. Remember that an estimated 100,000 people were on the streets during the riots. The police force was completely outnumbered by dangerous rioters. Mayor of Philadelphia Jim Kenney said in an announcement regarding parade details that the Super Bowl parade will have even more security and police coverage to account for a high viewer turnout.

Primates Are Cloned For The First Time In China

By Kenneth Manson

Meet Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua, the first primates to ever be cloned on record. They are identical crab-eating macaques cloned using the same technique that claimed the first ever successful mammalian clone, Dolly the sheep. They were named after the after the two characters that make up the China’s name in Chinese, Zhonghua (中华). The two of them are the first births of the six pregnancies from the placement of 21 cloned ovas, and are expected to be joined by more of the clones soon. They were born at the Institute of Neuroscience of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Shanghai.

Previously, besides Dolly herself, 23 mammalian species including cattle, cats, dogs and horses were cloned using the somatic cell nuclear transfer technique or SCNT. However, cloning primates eluded success until now. The failure in earlier attempts are blamed on epigenetics, a branch of biology that deals with heritable traits that affect gene function and expression and may even persist through generations of progeny despite not modifying the underlying DNA sequences. SCNT works by removing the nucleus of an egg cell and essentially transplanting a nucleus with the DNA from the cell of the individual whose clone is desired. Put simply, external factors within the egg that controlled gene expression within the cell prevented it from dividing into a successful clone, a problem remedied by the Chinese researchers using a couple of enzymes to eliminate the interferences.

While the birth and life of Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua aren’t technically the first mammalian “clones”, the earlier specimen called Tetra, a rhesus macaque, was the result of the embryo splitting technique, which is artificial reproduction of the same natural process that results in identical twins, that is artificial twinning in effect.

Though the breakthrough can bee seen as an enabler to studying more diseases like the eponymous lab rats, concerns are already abound that this development brings us closer to cloning humans, since homo sapiens are also scientifically classified as primates. The director of the Institute of Neuroscience, Muming Poo, emphasizes on using the genetically-identical monkeys to advance the research of diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s and Parkinson’s, while crab-eating macaques are already an established model organism for researching atherosclerosis. At the same time, he vigorously denied using the successful momentum on anything remotely human.

Beyond cloning, the SCNT itself is championed for its potential of “therapeutic cloning” to advance regenerative medicine to clone entire tissues or even organs as a method to replace or repair damage. Its viability in that frond are still subject to debate, however.

Federal Recognition Of 6 Virginia Tribes, President Trump Signs Bill

By Steven E. White

On Monday, January 29, President Trump signed the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2017, otherwise named H.R. 984. The new law grants federal recognition of six of the Native-American tribes of Virginia, allowing them to access federal funds for housing, health care, and education. The bill has finally been signed, after years and years of lobbying from Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, of Virginia, who have referred to the lack of federal recognition, an ‘injustice’.

The six tribes under recognition of the bill are: Monacan, Chickahominy, Eastern Chickahominy, Upper Mattaponi, Rappahannock, and the Nansemond tribes. The 4,400 people from these tribes have sought for nearly two decades to receive federal recognition. In addition to allowing federal funding and recognition, the bill will allow them to repatriate the remains of their ancestors, some of which lie at the Smithsonian. “It’s a very happy day for all Virginia Indians, and I think it’s a very happy day for the Commonwealth,” said Chief Stephen Adkins, who proudly represents the culture and heritage of the Chickahominy. “We went through the terrible time when the Commonwealth turned its back on us and allowed officials to take the pen and commit paper genocide. We wanted that day of reckoning,” he said, referring to January 29, when the bill was signed.

Assistant Chief of the Chickahominy, Wayne Adkins, stated, “It helps ensure the future of our tribes. it gives us more resource to do archives, to collect history, to teach the children and even some of the adults.” Hitherto, the tribes had only been able to teach their kids, up to eighth grade, then they would have to continue their education in Oklahoma, or elsewhere, if they wished to pursue further. Akins’ ancestors have long looked forward to this day, when injustice would be made right, as he explained, “The day the bill passed, people said [the ancestors] were probably in heaven dancing, because we achieved a goal.”

He continues, explaining his desires for his children, “Our responsibility is to not let our culture die. I don’t want my children, nieces and nephews, to only be an Indian; I want them to be a citizen of the United States also, so they’ve got two roles.” Doris Ann Austin, an Eastern Chickahominy Counsel Member, states, in regards to their bright future, “This is so much for them. I hope we get grants for education and healthcare,” said Austin.

The bill passed the house in May, then on the Thursday of January 11, the Senate sent the bill to Trump’s desk, when senators Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine forced a surprise vote. When Trump signed the bill, they spoke in a joint statement, “Our country is finally honoring [the tribes] with the recognition they deserve. We are inspired by the tribes’ leaders who never gave up.” They conclude, together, “Today closes a chapter on a decades-long pursuit of justice for Virginia’s tribes. Virginia’s tribes have loved and served this nation, and today our country is finally honoring them with the recognition they deserve.”

Corbyn Will Pledge to Keep UK in Customs Union, According to Welsh First Minister

By Stefan Matias Kløvning

UK – Carwyn Jones, the Welsh First Minister, recently stated that Jeremy Corbyn will change Labour’s policy on Brexit “within months” and pledge to get the UK to remain in the customs union of the European Union. This announcement followed a discussion he had with Corbyn and Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer on the issue. Mr. Jones urged Labour to reject “the wrong option” of leaving the customs union, according to The Independent (

In defense of this position, he said that he doesn’t believe the British people “voted for a Brexit that would cause them to lose jobs, where people’s incomes would fall, so let’s have a sensible Brexit that’s good for the UK and people who live in the UK.” He proposed following the Norwegian model, in which the participant isn’t a direct member in the European Union, but still a member of the customs union and having access to the single market.

The position Jones builds on here follows a new analysis commissioned by the Welsh government which showed that a hard Brexit could cause the Welsh economy to decrease by up to 20%. He summarizes the rest of the reasoning of his position in the following way:
“Nobody can convince me or show any evidence to suggest we’d be better off outside the customs union. Europe is our main market: 90 per cent of our food and drink exports go there, 60 per cent of our overall exports go there and it’s on our doorsteps. You’re never going to replace that kind of market. Leaving the customs union is economically daft, it’s a step driven by ideology and nationalism, not by common sense and pragmatism.”
He later told The Independent that “All we want is a sensible Brexit, not one that is going [to] push us off the edge of a cliff.”

But many Brexiteers might object what the point is of having a Brexit without leaving the customs union and the Single market. A major concern with Labour is whether they even want to leave the Union at all. Most Labourers don’t. According to Stephen Bush ( of NewStatesman, Labour “can agree on what words to say, but is divided over what they mean” on the Brexit issue. He said that most Labour members in the country are in the “more Europhile wing” of the party, which consists of, i.e., Jones, who wants to remain in the customs union and the single market, while there are also another group, called “Lexiteers”: Left-wingers who think it necessary to leave the union. Corbyn allegedly “feels a sense of obligation” to this faction of the party, as they backed his first leadership bid in 2015.

The problem then is that he can’t please this antithesis. With just a year remaining to Brexit, Corbyn must soon take a firm decision on his stance on the issue, and Jones hints what that is going to be.

According to Bush, however, are both Europhiles and Eurosceptics well-represented in Corbyn’s inner circle. He also claims that Corbyn “is more Eurosceptic than the Labour mainstream, but is happy to adopt a pro-European pose when necessary to secure his leadership and to defeat Theresa May.”

Theresa May to Target Fake News With New National Security Unit

By Stefan Matias Kløvning

UK – Downing Street has announced that they are creating a new national security unit with the purpose of targeting fake news. This has been stated to be primarily against propaganda by foreign governments, especially by Russia. Prime Minister Theresa May held a speech in November targeting Russia, claiming they had been “meddling in elections, and hacking the Danish ministry of defence and the Bundestag [German parliament], among many others.” She also said that they are trying to “weaponize information,” by planting fake stories and photo-shopped images on social media “in order to sow discord in the West and undermine our institutions.” She even went so far as stating that the UK may “return to the Cold War” if it continues, and that the UK have to do their part to protect the interests of the UK, Europe and the rest.

“To do this,” she said, “we will build on existing capabilities by creating a dedicated national security communications unit. This will be tasked with combating disinformation by state actors and others.” Her spokesman said that this is why they decided to create a new national security unit, and claimed it will “more systematically deter our adversaries and help us deliver on national security priorities.” She also stated, however, that it was still unknown who would staff it or where it would be based.