Daily Archives: December 30, 2016

Breaking: Cyberattacks shut down Conservative websites after Obama tells CIA to attack Russia for “hacks”


Conservative sites have been going down ever since Obama decided to retaliate against Putin. Is Obama retaliating against American citizens like Matt Drudge?


In addition, Prntly was down for 2 hours after a DDoS attack, which has never happened at this level before.


Of course, we don’t expect the Federal Government led by Obama to read us, but we are shocked to see that Obama and his minions may be trying to shut down the sites.



Drudge noted the site was experiencing the worst denial of service attack since its inception and called the timing “suspicious.”

Attacking coming from ‘thousands’ of sources. Of course none of them traceable to Fort Meade…



    Is the US government attacking DRUDGE REPORT?

    Biggest DDoS since site’s inception. VERY suspicious routing [and timing].



      DDoS, or Distributed Denial of Service, refers to a type of cyberattack involving multiple computers repeatedly trying to connect to a website’s server, thus causing the server to become overwhelmed and, in effect, denying users service. In the past, denial of service attacks have shut down major websites such as Twitter, Spotify, Netflix, Amazon, Tumblr, and Reddit.

      The Drudge Report outage began about 7 PM EST Thursday. The International Business Times, which was one of the first to report the outage, noted Drudge’s top headline at the time was “Moscow Mocks Obama.”

Read More Articles Here…


via Prntly | America’s Top SPREADER OF FAKE NEWS Site

December 31, 2016 at 02:42AM



Nick Cannon: Planned Parenthood Founded To ‘Exterminate’ Black People
  •   “I’m pro-Nick because my mother did go to an abortion clinic to abort me
  • When you talked about Margaret Sanger, all the people who follow eugenics–it was all about cleansing, she wanted to exterminate the negro race


Breitbart by Jerome Hudson30 Dec 2016

“When you talked about Margaret Sanger, all the people who follow eugenics–it was all about cleansing,” the America’s Got Talent host said of Planned Parenthood’s founder. “Margaret Sanger said that she wanted to exterminate the negro race, and that she was going to use her organization that she founded to do so,” Nick Cannon continued.

The 36-year-old rapper-actor says the issue of abortion is more personal than political.

“I’m pro-Nick because my mother did go to an abortion clinic to abort me,” he said. “I don’t feel like the government should have the right. I don’t feel like any organization that makes money should have the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body.”

Cannon says while Planned Parenthood — like the government — does some good things, it should be held accountable for “all the negative things.”

Last month, Cannon accused Planned Parenthood of committing “real genocide” on black Americans.

“Hillary was sneaking and cheating,” Cannon said in an interview with “The Breakfast Club” radio show. “Think about all the stuff they did with Planned Parenthood and all that type of stuff. That type of stuff is to take our community — and forget gentrification, it’s real genocide, and it’s been like that for years.”







Read More Articles Here…


via 70news

December 31, 2016 at 02:24AM

Police Officers FURIOUS That Dem Congressman Honors ‘Disgusting’ Anti-Cop ‘Artwork’

A painting that showed black men as brutal rapists wouldn’t last long being prominently displayed in the nation’s Capitol.

An image of Hispanic predators barreling across the border, crazed Arabs blowing up school buses, or big-nosed Jews collecting money wouldn’t stay up either where elected officials walk daily.

But a black Democrat lawmaker drawing a fat salary from American taxpayers has no problem with one of the most insidious stereotypes of all in a place of honor.

Capitol Hill Police, however, are up in arms over the heralded position one member of Congress is giving to a painting by a high school student that depicts American police as gun-toting pigs brutalizing blacks in a surreal tableau of cruelty that’s inflamed passions in Capitol halls.

The painting was honored by Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo., and depicts a teenager’s version of the riots in Ferguson, Mo., after the killing of a black man by a white police officer in 2014 kicked off days of rioting, and gave national momentum to the Black Lives Matter movement.

Capitol cops are furious, according to The Daily Caller. 

In a statement to the news website, Andy Maybo, president of The Fraternal Order of Police District of Columbia Lodge #1, said the painting is a disgrace.

“This piece of art, which depicts officers as pigs, is both offensive and disgusting. During a time in our society when tensions are so high that someone can be offended by a single word, this painting does nothing but attack law enforcement to its core.  The fact that a member of Congress would advocate and praise such a painting is reprehensible.  We, in law enforcement, regardless of the police department we work for, are held to higher standards that certain Members of Congress now have made a mockery of.”

Maybo’s FOP members were livid.

“How is this possible!?” one wrote in an email  “This painting should just be tossed in the trash, along with Congressman Clay’s career as a public servant. He obviously doesn’t know that more officers have been killed this year than in years past.

“Only a few more weeks left of this bs! Trump would never allow something like this, especially from a Member of Congress. Shoot…he would probably come to the Hill and remove it himself.”

Well, it’s not very likely the president-elect, or the president, will be ripping down artwork in the Capitol anytime soon. But the officers’ frustration is understandable.

Just listen to the description of the offensive painting provided by the congressman involved – a man whose life is protected every day by police officers even more so than those of the Americans he claims to serve.

In a statement describing the piece, Clay comes off as a man of utter callousness and – there’s really no other way to put it – remarkable stupidity.

“The painting portrays a colorful landscape of symbolic characters representing social injustice, the tragic events in Ferguson and the lingering elements of inequality in modern American society,” Clay said in a news release, when he announced the painting had won a certificate first place for Missouri’s 1st Congressional District in the annual Congressional Art Competition, according to the St. Louis American.

The statement is a lie on several levels. First, and most important, is that the myths that grew up around the death of the black man, Michael Brown, and his assault on a white police officer have been utterly debunked.

Even a Justice Department led by Attorney General Eric Holder was unable to find any evidence that Officer Darren Wilson was doing anything but protecting himself when he shot Brown to death as Brown scuffled with him in the street.

Second, the scene depicts a crowd of marchers protesting peacefully. Anyone who was not under a rock (or blinded by their own ideological rage) in August 2014 and the months that followed, knows full well that the Ferguson disturbances were full-fledged riots, where looting and arson were rampant.

It’s completely understandable that a rebellious high school student would put his artistic talents to work demeaning people in authority – whether they’re police officers or teachers or whatever.

It’s much less excusable that a member of Congress – himself an authority figure – would countenance it by proudly displaying in a Capitol hallway.

No other stereotype would be honored like that. One targeting police officers shouldn’t be, either.

Read More Articles Here…


via The Point

December 31, 2016 at 02:19AM

Wow! Look At The Drastic Step Bill Is Taking As The Clinton Foundation Is Under The Gun

Things are so tough for the Clintons these days, they’re spending their own money.

Faced with an extreme drop-off in donations to the Clinton Foundation since Hillary Clinton’s presidential hopes went up in smoke, Bill Clinton issued an appeal in an email this week offering to triple “every gift” to the foundation up to $200,000, according to the New York Post.

The question is, what would any donors be getting in return.

Of course it isn’t the chance to do good works. That was never what the foundation was about. As detailed in an in-depth report in The Washington Post in 2015 , the Clinton “charity” was founded in 1997 to raise money for the Clinton presidential library. It’s been raising money for the Clintons ever since.

With Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama’s secretary of state, the foundation was swimming in donations from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar — kingdoms with abysmal human rights records and an apparent eye on purchasing favor with the United States government.

But it has also attracted just the kind of attention the Clintons don’t want. FBI agents in New York — and possibly four other cities — are still investigating cases of money laundering, influence peddling and other forms of corruption, according to The Daily Caller.

The Hillary Clinton email server scandal, for instance, was directly tied to her work for the Clinton Foundation, as FBI investigators on the ground who believed they had evidence of Clinton corruption clashed with higher-ups in Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department who thought the evidence was weak, the Wall Street Journal reported:

Senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI didn’t think much of the evidence, while investigators believed they had promising leads their bosses wouldn’t let them pursue, they said.

(That report was published Nov. 2, a white-hot point in the run-up to the election. Considering how forgiving Attorney General Lynch was when it came to the Clintons and the November election, the higher-ups would have thought a spontaneously burning bush in the Justice Department’s D.C. didn’t mean much either.)

The status of other FBI investigations of the Clinton Foundation in Little Rock, Arkansas, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and Miami was unclear.

But since Hillary Clinton is no longer a candidate for the presidency – and considering her age, will likely never be one again – those million-dollar gifts from foreign countries and large corporations have essentially stopped, according to an investigative author who’s written a best-selling exposé on the Clintons’ financial dealings.

In an interview Tuesday on the news site Breitbart.com’s Sirius radio program, Peter Schweizer said donations to the foundation have “dried up.”

“Donations are vastly, vastly evaporating” Schweitzer said. “They are almost essentially gone.”

That’s understandable. Donations to the Clinton Foundation have always depended on the Clintons’ political power. Since Hillary’s defeat banished the former first couple to the political wilderness (how appropriate that Hillary has been seen wandering in the woods), there’s no reason for the big money donors to drop checks in their direction. It’s not like the “charity” was ever about “charity,” after all.

“This is an organization that has thrived financially because really, since its creation up until now, you’ve always had a Clinton at either, number one, was in a position of political power that could do favors for donors: Bill Clinton was president. Hillary Clinton was a senior senator. Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Or somebody was running for president – Hillary Clinton from 2013 on,” the author of Clinton Cash said.

“With that out of the picture, it seems pretty clear that a lot of the Clinton Foundation donors don’t find this a particularly attractive charity per se, by itself. I think the Clinton Foundation is going to be a shell of its former self.”

It’s already headed that way. According to the New York Post, Bill Clinton’s email appeal for money didn’t mention Hillary at all.

Read More Articles Here…


via The Point

December 31, 2016 at 02:19AM

I’m Watching the Construction of a FEMA Camp as Revealed on Colorado Radio Station




This is happening all over the country, but my neighbors and I are witnessing the construction of a military staging area as well as a FEMA camp.  Pictures have previously been released. Below is an interview I just did on a Colorado radio station. This is raw data and the investigation continues.


Please Donate to The Common Sense Show




This is the absolute best in food storage. Dave Hodges is a satisfied customer. Don't wait until it is too late. CLICK HERE for more information

This is the absolute best in food storage. Dave Hodges is a satisfied customer.  Listeners to The Common Sense Show will receive 5% off their next order by mentioning “Hodgesnov5” in the coupon code box.  Don’t wait until it is too late. Click Here  for more information.

Read More Articles Here…


via Before It’s News

December 31, 2016 at 02:11AM

Obama’s “Evidence” Against Russia Falls Flat


Accuracy in Media

The Democrats have been saying that there’s proof that the Russians hacked into Democratic Party computers for the purpose of obtaining and planting information that would help elect Donald J. Trump as president. But the proof wasn’t provided when President Obama issued an executive order and announced the expulsions of Russians from the U.S., and sanctions against Russian officials.

Still, our media were almost unanimous in saying that President Obama has proved his case and that Trump was out-of-step with what the evidence clearly showed.

For his part, Trump seemed in no hurry to come to any rash conclusions, saying he would meet with “leaders of the intelligence community” next week in order to be “updated on the facts of this situation.”

The facts were certainly in short supply when the media jumped to conclusions about the “evidence” released by the Obama administration.

A big question was timing. Kevin D. Freeman, an expert on economic and financial warfare between nations, has commented that the evidence indicates that the Obama team disregarded the threat of Russian hacking in the past “because they were confident that Secretary Clinton would win.” He called that “stunning.”

According to this line of reasoning, the Obama administration decided to blame the Russians only after Trump won the election, perhaps for the purpose of complicating the foreign relations priorities of the President-elect.

Whatever the motivation, the Obama administration’s “Joint Analysis Report” on alleged “Russian malicious cyber activity” is very weak and vague in key respects.

It would have been nice if reporters had read the pathetically thin report before concluding that there was substance to it, and that Trump was somehow derelict in not accepting what Obama had to offer.

Only four-and-a-half pages of the 13-page report purport to examine alleged Russian hacking activities. The rest of the report gives advice on how to provide security for computer networks.

It looked like the report was padded in order to make it seem more authoritative than it really was.

A separate White House press release went into some more detail, alleging that “the disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks are consistent with the Russian-directed efforts.” But being “consistent with” is not proof.

WikiLeaks released the emails from the account of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The website DCLeaks.com was responsible for the embarrassing disclosures from within the George Soros network of organizations.

The new Obama report, described as “the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),” includes a “DISCLAIMER” stating that it is “for informational purposes only,” and that the DHS “does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.”

It sounded like the kind of warning that comes with a possibly defective product.

There’s no question that the Russians engage in cyber warfare. But the “facts” in the Obama report seemed unusually vague. It states that “The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS [Russian civilian and military intelligence Services] actors participated in the intrusion into a U.S. political party,” but doesn’t even mention the Democrats.

The term “confirms” sounds authoritative. But how the “facts” were confirmed and by whom was not explained. The report, however, does include some fancy color diagrams and a list of names under which the Russian hackers supposedly operated.

The report says this alleged Russian campaign, designated as “GRIZZLY STEPPE,” was an activity by Russian civilian and military intelligence services and was “part of an ongoing campaign of cyber-enabled operations directed at the U.S. government and private sector entities.”

If it was ongoing, why did it take so long for Obama to take action?

The report refers to one alleged Russian campaign that had “compromised the same political party,” again without saying it was the Democrats, and “was able to gain access and steal content, likely leading to the exfiltration of information from multiple senior party members.” The fancy term “exfiltration” means the unauthorized transfer of data from a computer. “The U.S. Government assesses that information was leaked to the press and publicly disclosed,” the report states, without saying who in the press was given the information and who or what leaked it.

“This activity by RIS is part of an ongoing campaign of cyber-enabled operations directed at the U.S. government and its citizens,” the report states. “These cyber operations have included spearphishing campaigns targeting government organizations, critical infrastructure entities, think tanks, universities, political organizations, and corporations leading to the theft of information.”

The term “spearphishing” refers to emails that appear to be from individuals or businesses that a person knows, but which are actually from criminal hackers. The recipient is fooled into resetting a password on the account, enabling the hackers to extract credit card and bank account numbers, passwords, and other personal or financial information.

This appears to be what happened in the case of Clinton campaign chairman Podesta.

“Russia’s cyber activities were intended to influence the election, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow doubt about the integrity of our electoral process, and undermine confidence in the institutions of the U.S. government,” the White House claimed. “These actions are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”

But Obama’s “evidence” raises questions about the worth and value of the intelligence agencies that apparently provided it.

No wonder Trump wants to wait and see.

Cliff Kincaid

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org. View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

Read More Articles Here…


via GulagBound.com

December 31, 2016 at 01:58AM