“Fake News” and “Fact Checks” – Eva Bartlett and the Mannequin Challenge

I know probably everybody reading this has heard of Eva Bartlett by now, and you’ve probably seen the clip. However I couldn’t put this out of my mind somehow, I started to look at it all more closely. I fear that a lot of people have become a bit too partisan deciding that “she’s one of us”, “yes that’s right” and so forth. Sometimes you need to be partisan in things, very probably we do now on the Syria situation, but I just felt inclined to try and have a closer look. One big question, was Assad really using chemical weapons against civilians, and if so do you really want to be joining either side of a conflict where things like that are happening (possibly on both sides, more on that in a second)?


She made some very serious allegations about Western mainstream media coverage of the war in Syria. She also made some very serious allegations about a group called the Syria Civil Defense, who are also known as the White Helmets. The group’s stated mission is to save lives by rescuing as many people from the war zone as possible.

Here is Eva Bartlett in action at the UN conference just in case you haven’t seen it yet:

2 key points:

At 5:13 she talks about the (alleged) attack on the al Quds hospital.

At 9:45 she talks about the opposition making chemical weapons.


Channel 4 did a “fact check” on EB’s claims. Near the start there was a claim that started alarm bells ringing in my head:

She writes a blog for the state-funded Russian media outlet Russia Today and is candid about her support for the regime of Bashar al-Assad, who is fighting Syrian rebels with Russian and Iranian help.

Eva Bartlett’s blog is not “for the state-funded Russian media outlet Russia Today”, Eva Bartlett’s blog is Eva Bartlett’s blog, says Eva Bartlett.

She has appeared on RT, but then as she points out, so have quite a lot of other people. Merely appearing on the programme does not make her an RT employee, as this seems to be implying, any more than Tommy Robinson’s appearance on the Daily Politics makes him a BBC employee. Of course she must be financially supported somehow, but for channel 4 to make this claim without presenting any evidence to us, well its really quite irritating, isn’t it.

Here is the link if you want to check the “fact check”, it was already looking not very credible in my mind:


Further down is an absolutely stupid statement:

It’s not clear whether critics of the White Helmets believe that all the videos the group posts of people being rescued from bombed-out houses are fake.

Critics of the White Helmets are not all going to think exactly the same way about this, this is just stupid. I only mention this because it seems to me this is a sort of slur against ALL critics of the White Helmets – lumping them all together, presumably with the intention of hinting that this is all a big conspiracy theory. It also asks:

Why use fake victims when there were other real people to film and photograph?

another really stupid question. To film real people in a war zone must be difficult to do, not to mention EXTREMELY dangerous. It also says:

And we have a Reuters photographer on the ground at one of the incidents, who was satisfied that the events he was recording were genuine.

Now this *sounds* quite impressive doesn’t it, but we only have their word for this, we’ve no way of verifying this from the “fact check” at least.

I wasn’t really sure about what channel 4 were saying here about the girl, it seemed to me they had selected particular photos where the girl’s face was contorted/or different angles. It seemed they were focusing just on one claim and I couldn’t really (frankly) be bothered to go into it too deeply. So I scrolled down to read the comments below the “fact-check” article. In the comments a couple of people had posted links to a Youtube video featuring some of the White Helmets in a “mannequin challenge”.


What is a mannequin challenge (call me square but I’d never heard of this before)? This is a funny internet craze where people create videos showing groups of people who appear to be frozen in time while the camera pans around viewing them from different angles. It seems that some bright sparks in the White Helmets organization decided that it would be a good idea to make a mannequin challenge video of one of their “rescues”, in this case of a man from a bomb site. Unfortunately they didn’t really think this thing through, because by creating such an obviously fake video they have seriously damaged the credibility of the whole organization in one fell stroke. Any video they now produce of one of their “rescues” is going to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, however realistic or even actually real it may be. You can view the video in this article:


Quote from the article:

“The video and the related posts were recorded by RFS media with Syria Civil Defence (White Helmets) volunteers, who hoped to create a connection between the horror of Syria and the outside world, using the viral Mannequin Challenge,” the statement read.

“This was an error of judgement, and we apologise on behalf of the volunteers involved.

I can’t however help wondering in watching this mannequin challenge video if the people involved have done this sort of thing before (acting), there is something practiced about it, it does not look particularly amateurish to me. However of course I could be totally wrong, that’s pure speculation. You can watch it in the link and tell me what do you think.

Another quote from the article:

But critics, often pro-Assad or pro-Russia accounts on social media, allege links to jihadist groups and have long claimed that the organisation fabricates reports and rescues.

I can’t help feeling this is another attempt to discredit the people questioning the white helmets – the phrase “often pro-Assad or pro-Russia” seems loaded to me. So what if they are “pro-Assad” or “pro-Russia”, what difference does that make? What matters is whether the claims are true or false. This very article is surely doing exactly that – claiming that the white helmets have fabricated a rescue! Are the BBC “pro-Assad” or “pro-Russia”? I’ve never been under THAT impression. At least the BBC reported this, although I don’t know how prominently (this is a thing, sometimes the BBC will publish something important but not put it on the front page, squirrel it away in a section).

At the end of the article it says this:

A spokesman for the RFS told the BBC that the activist group occasionally used this kind of campaign to help shine a spotlight on the suffering of millions of ordinary Syrians.

He pointed out that in the past it had attempted to raise awareness of the conflict by leveraging the popularity of computer game Pokemon Go and comic-book heroes The Avengers.

Terrible though all this is I almost laughed when I read that somehow. Note it says “this kind of campaign”. What, faked rescue videos shine a spotlight on what exactly? Pokemon Go in a war-zone? That seems particularly alarming, don’t try this in your own war-zones kids.

This is a very important point to make I think – if we are to be no longer allowed to view a fake news item like this mannequin challenge video by the “White Helmets”, then we lose a vital bit of information that helps us decide whether to take the “White Helmets” seriously or whether to question every single video they produce. Of course this one video alone does not prove that they are a completely fake organization, not by any means. It is just one small piece of evidence that can help us to build a picture. If European governments ever go ahead with their plan to censor fake news, this vital information may end up being suppressed.

There are other serious allegations about the White Helmets mentioned at Wikipedia:



Snopes also “fact-checked” some of Eva’s claims including the Al Quds hospital claims and one about the little girl called “Aya”



Despite Bartlett’s claims, the existence of multiple children named “Aya” does not indicate the “recycling” of victims or prove that accounts of violence against Syrian civilians by their government are falsified. It attests only to the popularity of the given name Aya among Syrian families.

I didn’t look into this “fact-check” in detail, any feedback on it would be much appreciated – I think the stuff about the al-Quds hospital is much more interesting than this business about “Aya”, but if they believe in White Helmets videos after all the above then we have to wonder a bit at least. We know that the White Helmets have faked at least one video, after all.


Judging from some interviews I listened to, it would seem she is now spending a lot of time batting away these claims of “fake news” rather than actually reporting on things. It seems a shame really, doesn’t it. Why not do some reporting of your own MSM, instead of playing these childish games and slandering people without showing us anything to back your claims up with.


I’ve been confused since this whole thing started about whose side the West is on in the civil war in Syria, maybe we’re not sure. However apparently (according to the BBC) we have special forces fighting against the Islamic State:



The pictures, which date from June, follow an attack by the so-called Islamic State (IS) on the moderate rebel New Syrian Army base of Al Tanaf on the Syria-Iraq border.

Now, I’m sorry but I’ve really reached the point where I take the word “moderate” with a pinch of salt in all this. I suppose if we’re fighting the Islamic State then its a good thing, but if we’re helping to destablize Assad’s regime, well you see I just don’t know..

Back in 2013, we were trying to start a war against Assad:


Fair enough in that this was about trying to deter the use of chemical weapons, but now we have these claims that the “rebels” also may have used chemical weapons. Are we going to bomb both sides in the conflict? I suppose that might make sense if we had really precise weapons but in another claim, the RAF were accused of hitting some Syrian forces. We had Obama giving Assad “red line” warnings and things on that and then he didn’t do anything, if I remember right.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Assad DID use chemical weapons on civilians and its been proved by the UN:



The US and other council members have repeatedly blamed the Syrian government for the chlorine gas attacks, saying no other party in the four-year civil war has helicopters to deliver the toxic chemicals.

However in other claims surface to surface rockets were used to deliver chemical weapons.

Syria chemical attack: Key UN findings


I came across this website/blog which I’ve been following for a while to try and pick up anything useful but I’ve not commented on this site. Some of it may be fake news, or it may reflect what’s going on, I just don’t know (there I go again). It seems though that they genuinely are trying to make sense of what’s going on there, but it definitely is pro-Assad. There does seem to be another side of the story – that there are people in Syria who are Sunnis but they are also pro-Assad, who knows maybe even the majority of them are in this category. One of EB’s claims is that the Western media exaggerates the Sunni-Shia split. Some of the people who comment there are Muslims I think but the website is pro-Trump, so its a bit of an interesting mix of viewpoints to my mind:




I’ve looked at some of her blog but not in great depth. If anyone wants to dig in a bit and tell us all what they think I would be interested in what they have to say.


One link I noticed in her (EB’s) blogroll was the Corbett Report. I followed this guy for a little while ages (a few years) ago but I rather quickly came to the conclusion that he was a bit too into “conspiracy theories”, I didn’t think his claims really stood up to scrutiny after a while. He jumps to a lot of conclusions in my opinion, and the conclusions don’t seem to necessarily follow on from the claims he makes. He has some conspiracy about 9/11. I have never come across a 9/11 conspiracy theory that I found convincing, although I haven’t really taken a deep interest in the subject anyway. This is not to say I didn’t think questions needed to be asked about a lot of aspects of what happened, I’m just saying that I don’t believe the whole thing was orchestrated by people in the US, as Corbett seems to think. Linking to this site is not a plus point for Eva Bartlett in my view, unfortunately it kind of feeds into the narrative that she is a “conspiracy theorist” herself, and I don’t really get the impression that she is.



9/11 Conspiracy Theory:


In general I’m inclined to come to the conclusion that I don’t feel any of the sources are totally reliable, the phrase “fog of war” springs to mind. The war seems like a choice between the lesser (Assad) of two great evils.

If our governments are going to go meddling in these places and help enable the dismantling of law and order (leading to these terrible atrocities – see some of the links below), then I feel complicit in what they are doing, more and more these days. I am not anti-war as a principle thing at all, but I think we need to be a lot more questioning of what our government is doing. I have lost almost all confidence in our governments on almost every front. What do you think? Any fact-checking of my above article will be appreciated, I don’t want to make a mistake on this stuff.

If you think I got anything wrong, please let me know.








Syria conflict: Rebels ‘filmed beheading boy’ in Aleppo (quite why the BBC put that in quotes I don’t know, there is a video of it happening I believe (though I didn’t watch it)):


A legal adviser for the Western-backed Free Syrian Army was also cited by Enab Baladi as saying it would hold to account those responsible for such a violation.


In the feedback we received for this post at Not the Daily Telegraph, commenter DJ Mystery Twister posted a link to a Youtube video of a presentation by one Robert Stuart.

This contains claims that a BBC Panorama program featured fake footage of victims of chemical attacks in Syria.  The claim is also made that the BBC program was intended to encourage support for a UK military intervention in Syria against Assad that the then UK Prime Minister called for.  The UK government were defeated in parliament on this occasion however.

[@26.00] At the Frontline club the journalist does seem evasive – trying to suppress questions:

“It kind of makes me sick to my stomach that people would even believe that that did not happen.”

“I don’t want to even talk about that.”


Where Did All The (QE) Money Go?

[Second in a 2 part series about economics (the subject no-one knows much about) by a non-expert]


The idea of quantitative easing (QE) supposedly arose because inflation was falling in the wake of the banking crisis and people at the top started worrying about a “deflationary spiral” (you know for example where the house prices start to go down to sensible levels instead of going up all the time). The idea of QE is SUPPOSED to be that you depress interest rates and this stimulates lending, which in turn stimulates the economy. A side effect (or is it the main effect) of QE is that it depresses the yield on bonds (relative to how much the bonds cost), and therefore makes it cheaper for govt.s to borrow more money (I think that’s how it works). With our governments struggling with a seemingly ever growing debt burden, you can see the attraction of THAT to the govt. QE is not supposed to be like printing extra banknotes (you know like they did in Weimar Germany), but I think it is like that, except that its not banknotes that get made up out of thin air, its 1s and 0s on a computer somewhere, and there are also different immediate effects, which I will try to identify presently.

In this article the BBC attempts to explain quantitative easing to dummies:



Between 2008 and 2015, the US Federal Reserve in total bought bonds worth more than $3.7 trillion.

The UK created £375bn ($550bn) of new money in its QE programme between 2009 and 2012.

Hearing of all this extra money being printed at the time got me thinking, maybe I can get my hands on some of it! I therefore decided to ask for a raise. I went to see my boss at the office in which I worked and, a bit like Oliver Twist begging for his extra bowl of gruel, I meekly asked for a raise. “What, can’t you see I’ve got IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO RIGHT NOW TINKER!!!” shouted my boss and he thumped his fist on his desk, causing the steel balls of his desktop toy to crash into each other in a menacing manner. I imagined I could hear my colleagues sniggering in the office behind me as I retreated to his office door, stammering as I went “I’m sorry Mr. Shankly I did not realize you were so busy”. As I shuffled back to my desk I could see my colleagues smirking all around me and I thought to myself – I wish I was a banker, what am I doing here? It was true that that noble profession had taken a bit of a hit in the popularity stakes in recent years, following the recent banking crisis (like interest rates, popularity can go below zero). However it still seemed to be the only occupation where people still made anything like a decent income. It seemed pretty clear unfortunately that I was not going to see any of this money, after all. Anyway, enough about my own tragicomic existence.

At the end of the above BBC article there is a section titled:

Are there any losers from QE?

in which the BBC identifies who it thinks are the losers:

investors have to pay more to get the same income.

However I have this nagging feeling that these investors are not necessarily losers at all if they decide to sell their bonds back to the govt. (more on that in a moment). I have this nagging feeling that we, the little people, are the real losers, somehow. Remember that in matters of finance, there are always a lot of speculators swimming around with their dorsal fins sticking out of the water, waiting for an easy meal. I know that pensioners own bonds in their pension funds, so pensioners could be winners or losers in this I suspect, depending on who is managing their funds. There are a lot of younger people to think about however as well, who are struggling and striving away while the debt that will be their children’s legacy is growing.


Now I began to start wondering what on earth was going on in the wake of all this “quantitative easing”. In the first place, I rather expected high inflation to result (that’s normally what happens when govt.s print loads of money). There was a bit of inflation going on in the supermarket, I seemed to notice, but not really a huge amount. There did seem to be a slight improvement in the economy, if the newspapers were anything to go by, but you can’t believe everything you read in the newspapers. My own economic circumstances did not seem to have improved at all, what with slight inflation and stagnant wages and house prices going up again.

Then they reduced and then stopped quantitative easing for a bit, and again, nothing much seemed to happen. Where was this deflationary spiral we had been warned about by the experts? Surely now that QE had slowed down, there would be deflation! What the heck was going on?? Some media “economics” pundits were actually suggesting that the problem was we weren’t doing ENOUGH “quantitative easing”! It was such a great idea that we needed to print MORE money. In this article there is a graph showing how QE was in fact reduced in the UK from 2011 to 2012:


An anonymous young man showed up at a talk by Lionel Shriver (I don’t know who she is either), and explained to Ms. Shriver why the huge quantitative easing had not caused high inflation:


‘Only 8 per cent of QE has been re-lent into the productive economy’. The rest has gone to hedge funds and investment banks, which have stuck the dosh into ‘property and luxury assets of all kinds — which is why we see massive inflation in these particular asset classes, but not for the rest of us’.


I have a funny feeling that young man was right. This seems an entirely plausible account to me. I had been scratching my head about this for some time, trying to figure out what the heck was going on. So, the owners of these particular asset classes had got very rich, THAT was what had happened, and that was more or less ALL that had happened (apart from very low interest rates for govt. debt). This seemed to me rather believable, and a bit sickening, to put it mildly. But, if you just sell something (in this case bonds) for the same price you bought it, then you are no richer. The question is, are the bonds bought back at the same price the bonds were originally sold for? I think probably not.

Now I am dimly aware of a thing called the bond market. If there is a market for bonds, then bond prices surely go up and down, because that’s what things normally do in financial markets. I don’t know if this is really how it works (so please jump in and comment below if you know better than me), but it seems to me if people hear the govt. is about to buy back a load of its own bonds, then the price is going to go UP beforehand, meaning that some people who own bonds are going to get rich out of quantitative easing, because they will be selling for more than the price they bought at. Apparently I’m not the first person to think of this, but its “apparently” more complicated according to an expert at investopedia (when is finance not):


If anybody can read that and translate it into short plain English for me I will be grateful. So far, my suspicions remain. Why would people sell things at the same price they bought them at? Possibly they had decided the govt. was a dodgy institution and they just wanted to get rid of them? No, I don’t think things have got anywhere near that bad yet. Confidence in govt. lending may one day collapse, but we’re nowhere near that point yet, IMHO.

In a similar way (although in reverse), when Gordon Brown announced to the world that he was going to sell half of the UK’s gold reserves, the price of gold fell in anticipation, causing the UK to lose a lot of money in the sale:



The advance notice of the substantial sales drove the price of gold down by 10% by the time of the first auction on 6 July 1999

No doubt, not only did the UK get poorer, but some speculators circling around saw their opportunity and made a killing. If we blindly trust our politicians to look after the nation’s finances, then well you see what I’m driving at, that’s not been going very well in the recent past.


Here is the view from the Bank of England (beware, the BofE may be somewhat BIASED in this matter):


If you follow a link to a pdf at the end of this, you see it says:

The Bank of England creates new money electronically to buy financial assets like government bonds. This cash injection lowers the cost of borrowing and boosts asset prices to support spending and get inflation back to target.

Right, see that? That seems to be an admission of the assumption I made at the beginning, that a motivation is to lower the cost of govt. borrowing, its not all just about controlling inflation/deflation. So, it IS like Weimar Germany money printing, its just that the IMMEDIATE effects are different. That worries me, because I wonder what the LONGER term effects will be like as well.


Yes it is in the UK (I’m not sure about the US). Now that the bandwagon is rolling, its difficult to get it to stop. QE seems to have spread like a virus, the Japanese, the EU. I thought the UK had stopped but it appears they started again in 2016:

QE or not QE The Bank of England’s new quantitative-easing programme is not a failure

Note this article seems to think QE is good but it also seems to confirm that telling people in advance you’re going to buy large quantities of something affects the price, although it does so in economist-speak:

Bank officials suspect that the holders of long-term bonds underestimated the price that would prevail at the auction on August 9th. As a result they held back from selling. Now, however, the expectation is that at the next auction of long-term gilts, expected to be on August 16th, the final price will be higher. Investors are unlikely to make the same mistake.


What is Corbynomics exactly? When I first heard about Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s “QE for the people” idea, I had visions of red helicopters (emblazoned with the hammer and sickle), flying over council estates and dropping wads of cash on the delighted inhabitants. I posted my council housing application that same day, hoping to position myself directly under the helicopters’ flight path.

It seems I got it wrong though, that’s not quite what “QE for the people” is all about. The Daily Mail explains it in their financial section:


His biggest headline-grabber has been the suggestion of People’s QE to fund his infrastructure plans, which we explain below.
Meanwhile, Corbyn says he would end the public sector pay freeze, and he is a staunch opponent of welfare cuts. He argues that austerity is about political choices not economic necessities – and that there is money available.
new, large-scale housing, energy, transport and digital projects

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3211449/What-Corbynomics-Labour-frontrunner-s-economic-plan-explained.html#ixzz4VYcDTdVk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Well you know, there is always money available, over in socialism opposite-land. It seems Corbyn is actually planning to print money and use it to build council houses for one thing, and then rent them out (no doubt at low rents well below the rental market) to poor people, including to those who don’t work no doubt. Having now spent a considerable part of my adult life working and saving to buy a little house which forever grew in “value”, always staying tantalizingly just beyond reach, I have to tell you readers that I am not very happy about Corbyn’s plans, not very happy at all. Being a wage slave for a company is one thing, but being a wage slave for a company AND a loony lefty govt., well that’s too much. I quit.

Governments in the UK in the last century built a lot of council houses (and tower blocks), and many of them have since been demolished. A lot of the houses that were demolished to make way for the new council houses were perfectly useful houses, that were labelled as “slums” by the govt. often for really silly reasons such as the fact that they didn’t have bathrooms. A lot of the tower blocks that replaced these perfectly good houses have since become slums themselves, “sink estates” where drug taking and gang culture goes on. Quite a lot of these tower blocks have been blown up in controlled demolitions since. I don’t want to sound patronizing, I know this is very basic economics, but if you build some houses and then knock them down and then build some more and then knock them down and so on, this all costs money.

It seems a slum is more defined by the behaviour of its inhabitants than the buildings. Many of the tower blocks were truly hideous as well, and many of the little terrace houses that escaped demolition have since had bathrooms and fancy kitchens installed (not to mention damp proofing) and the areas have become gentrified and seen astronomical house price rises despite the modest investment in refurbishment. If you think drug taking and gang culture doesn’t go on in nicer low-rise estates as well btw, think again, it does. This is probably a subject for a separate discussion though, council housing is a big subject in its own right, and I do appreciate there were problems with overcrowding in those days.

Would Corbyn’s ‘QE for people’ float or sink Britain?


For the avoidance of doubt, this is not same-old, same-old socialism; it is new, radical thinking.

It sounds very same-old, same-old to me. Is this the same-old, same-old BBC, grasping at a straw – leftyism may have failed in every “form” its taken, its just not been done the right way yet (bit like what many Muslims in the West say about Islam)? Robert Peston, the smug BBC (now ITV) economist superstar, does however conclude his article by expressing doubts about Corbynomics (I can never quite work out if Peston is a proper lefty or not, he seems to hedge his bets in both directions here):

Because there would be widespread concerns that the Bank of England would be indirectly financing white elephants via this investment bank – and would, as I mentioned earlier, be throwing good money after bad.

Ambrose Evans Pritchard (that well known member of the Communist party (that’s fake news by the way, he isnt really)) at the DT is egging Corbyn on:

Jeremy Corbyn’s QE for the people is exactly what the world may soon need


Much of the money has leaked into asset booms, greatly enriching the “haves”, with a painfully slow trickle-down to the rest of society. A pervasive sense that the financial elites pulled a blinder – while austerity is for little people – explains in part why Mr Corbyn has suddenly stormed into the limelight, and why the US socialist Bernie Sanders has so upset the Democratic primaries.

AEP seems to confirm my above suspicions here about QE causing an asset boom at least. Note what he is saying here, note it well – Corbyn should not be underestimated. Note particularly that Corbyn is promising to crack down on tax avoidance and tax evasion, which will also be a vote winner, even though every party always says that. Then AEP made me wonder if he might be a member of the Communist party after all, when he says this:

[Milton] Friedman did not, of course, mean that banknotes should be dropped from the sky, though they could be in extremis, but rather that central banks have the means to create money to fund tax cuts, or to cover state spending, until the economy comes back to life.

See that “though they could be in extremis”, so AEP would actually support the fictional/joke helicopter drop that I described at the beginning of this section. Fortunately one of our correspondents was on hand to witness the first helicopter money drop:

PILOT: Welcome on board Mr Evans-Pritchard, did you bring those suitcases full of banknotes that we told you to bring, of your own money, that we’re going to throw out of the helicopter?

AEP: Yes, I brought them as requested, I think this scheme is an excellent investment opportunity! Power to the people!

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL: Corbyn air traffic control here, you are clear for takeoff! Good luck with the money drop!

That’s fake news by the way, I just made that up.

AEP also says this:

Some invoke the spectre of Weimar, but Germany’s hyperinflation of 1923 followed the breakdown of the Wilhelmine state after the First World War. The German people saw it as their patriotic duty not to pay taxes that would be siphoned off for Versailles reparations.

Weimar tells us absolutely nothing about the merits or demerits of monetary financing in stable democratic societies with fully-functioning institutions that face a deflation crisis.

I would be interested to know what readers make of THAT.

Corbyn also wants to introduce a MAXIMUM wage, just by the by:


How would Tinkernomics work? Tinker is of the view that when governments meddle, they make a mess. Tinker favours a more hands off approach that involves governments not printing money, and not doing a lot of other things as well, such as knocking perfectly good houses down to make way for new houses that have to be knocked down after a few decades.


There is no easy way out of a big national debt (IMHO), except to reduce govt. spending or increase taxes, or to sell off assets. I suspect that some people are getting rich out of QE right now, not for doing anything useful. It may be that the national debt (that’s OUR debt) is not going up as rapidly as it might otherwise be if bond yields were higher, but we can’t keep doing this QE, we are living in la la land if we think so.

If the real aim of QE is to get the national debt down (or stop it getting any bigger) by printing money, and the fear about a deflationary spiral is unfounded (as it seems to be to me), then I think the consequence will be some type of inflation.  There will be inflation in SOMETHING corresponding to the amount of the QE, and growing wealth inequality if the QE mainly benefits people who are already rich.

If we keep doing the type of QE we have been doing then the wealth gap will grow so big that eventually Corbyn will be able to storm the capital with his comrades and the red flag will be flying over Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament (not literally of course).

What do you think? Please add your comments below.


Jon Roland:


The Guardian jumps on the Corbynomics bandwagon:



A Post-Truth Era? Part 1 – Trump and Brexit

The phrase “post-truth” seems to have rather entered the lexicon of news-speak lately.  Let’s have a look at what the usual suspects are saying about the “post-truth” “phenomenon”.


Late in 2016 I was listening to a BBC TV News (World Service) program where a presenter (Allan Little) was doing one of those end of year reflections on what is going on in the world.  He was bemoaning the victories of Brexit in the UK and Trump in the US, and trying to draw parallels between the two, and trying to figure out what on earth could have led to this twin disaster.  He didn’t call it a twin disaster of course in so many words but his doom-laden tone of voice spoke a thousand words.

The Year Everything Changed

The preamble to the program (aired Tue 27 Dec 2016):

This was the year of ‘post-truth’ politics, fake news and when some of the foundations of how global politics and trade are determined have been questioned. In many ways this has been a year when the silent majority has become vocal, and when old certainties have been questioned. This has also been a year when the internet has proved to be about something much more than about educating and connecting – and as a result has it made us not just less informed, but dangerously ill-informed and disconnected?

The internet is making us “dangerously ill-informed and disconnected” is it?  I was under the impression that the exact opposite was happening.  Is this a real concern or is the mainstream media (MSM) just worried that they are losing their grip over the distribution of “information”?  I will be coming back to this question in more detail in future posts, but in general I think the explosion of information sharing and debate on the internet is something to be welcomed very enthusiastically, even if quite a lot of misinformation is flying around.  There are also a lot of facts and great arguments flying around as well, and consequently lazy MSM journalism is being challenged as never before, and that can only be a good thing for the rest of us.

The program reflects on the fact that areas in the UK and the US are still struggling with the after effects of the closure of large scale industries in the “rust belt” in the US and in the north of the UK.  The conclusion here is that the rising economic tide has failed to “lift all boats”.  Its true, there are still areas plagued by high unemployment both in the UK and the US, and these areas do correspond pretty much with former industrial areas.  The sub-text to all this is that policy from the 1980s onward has failed these areas, and this has caused the people in these areas to vote for (what the BBC wants to portray as the twin disasters of) Brexit and Trump.  A lot of areas in the UK which have not benefited so much from a rising economic tide have also suffered from high levels of immigration, a point made by some of the UKIP supporters that Mr. Little interviews.

Mr. Little then interviews an American pro-Democrat writer called Naomi Wolf who apparently (according to Wikipedia) is a “third wave feminist” (whatever the heck that is).  She bemoans some of Obama’s policies, suggesting that Democrats have become complacent and turned a blind eye to things they shouldn’t have:

6:45    …if our democracy was still strong it wouldn’t matter that we have a crazy man in the White House ….
if you spend 12 years dismantling checks and balances enacting secret law suspending aspects of the constitution …
You’re left with rubble when the demagogue is elected ….

Mr. Little then turns his attention to the Brexit campaign, describing how:

9:30    Boris Johnson and Michael Gove toured the country in a bus emblazoned with the now notorious slogan “we send £350m a week to Brussels lets spend it on the NHS instead” …. Many said it was a sign that British politics had entered a new era, known as “post-truth“.

He then makes an astonishing claim, about this “notorious slogan”:

10:10    … it seems to have disappeared from the national debate about Brexit

Mr. Little is indulging in a little “post-truthiness” himself here, it has not “disappeared from the national debate” at all, in fact the MSM have been talking about this one gaffe by the Leave campaign almost non-stop ever since the referendum result was in.  They have been using this single point relentlessly to try to undermine the result, as will become clear as we examine articles from the other usual suspects.  Let’s pause a moment here and think carefully about this point, as we’re going to be hearing about it over and over again.

First of all, the £350m claim was refuted (in this article dated 27 May 2016):

The Institute for Fiscal Studies earlier this week labelled the £350m figure “clearly absurd” and said that an accurate figure of the net UK contribution taking into account the rebate and spending in Britain was £175m a week – half the Leave figure.

Further, the House of Commons Treasury Committee today branded the £350m claim “highly misleading” in a new report on the costs and benefits of the EU. Andrew Tyrie, the committee’s chair, said the Leave campaign’s battle bus should be “repainted” as soon as possible.

Granted, it was misleading, but how much significance did it really have in persuading people to vote for Brexit?  Very little I suspect, almost no effect at all probably.  I have yet to hear a single Leave voter say they have changed their mind about Brexit as a result of this slogan being refuted.

Everyone I know who voted Leave voted Leave for a whole mountain of other reasons including –

  • Open borders within the EU and the resulting mass immigration into the UK (probably the main reason).  Note that other countries haven’t been complaining so much about the open borders mainly no doubt because their countries have not been seeing such high levels of mass immigration.
  • The fact the EU leaders seem to have no interest in defending the EU’s external borders from illegal immigration (millions of young men have been swarming across the Med, mostly from Muslim majority countries)
  • The looming prospect of an EU army (quite what its for considering the previous point we don’t know – defence and security does not seem to figure very highly at all in the EU’s thinking)
  • EU red-tape hampering businesses (that’s a very big reason among small business owners especially)
  • The undemocratic nature of it (Juncker was not elected by the people for example)
  • The fact that some very bad people could not be deported from the UK because of their “right to a family life”
  • Attacks on the freedom of the press and freedom of speech
  • The situation in Ukraine
  • UK fishing rights

…and lots and lots and lots of other reasons.  I simply don’t believe that this claim about the exact amount the UK gives to the EU each week seriously came into it – and in any case £175m a week is still a lot of money.

The relentless repeating of this one criticism of the Leave campaign in the MSM is a good example of the technique of “saturation”.  The MSM know really that this slogan wasn’t that big a deal in the result, but by relentlessly reminding us of it they create doubt in the public’s minds and raise the hopes of those who still want to remain in the EU.  Just how big an impact it had is impossible to prove with absolute certainty, so it can’t be said that they are simply lying about it.  Of course the motive behind this particular use of saturation is to try to increase the chances of a second referendum being held that they hope would overturn the Brexit result.

Returning to the program now, Mr. Little seems to think that the US has really gone over the edge into the “post-truth” era, he thinks the UK is still just managing to keep a better perspective (no doubt thanks to the existence of the UK’s Ministry of Truth (aka the BBC)):

10:47    There is still a public square in British politics where you will meet views you do not like… its gone in America and it could go here too.  The dangers to democracy are obvious.

Blimey, the end is nigh then, you will see what I mean now about the doom-laden tone of this program.  The “public square” is gone from US politics is it?  I had to listen to this a second time to make sure he really said that.  I wonder if any readers from the US would like to express their opinion about that statement – add comments below this post?

Seemingly in an attempt to back this claim up with some hard evidence, Mr. Little then interviews an old school news editor who refers to a satirical “fake news” website that emerged during the Trump campaign.

13:29     “Pope Francis shocks world endorses Donald Trump releases statement” …. This was shared a million times on social media, the debunking of that was shared 30,000 times.

This old school guy is trying to imply that most people who saw the statement must have believed it because they didn’t look for a debunking of the statement!  LOOK, YOU DON’T NEED TO HAVE THAT STATEMENT DEBUNKED IT IS OBVIOUSLY A JOKE!!!!  I’m pretty sure (reasonably sure) that most people who saw this statement just thought hey that’s a funny bit of fake news (LOL) and soon forgot about it.  Anybody that did believe it is too dumb to vote sensibly anyway, and most of those people normally vote for the Democrats, as revealed by Mark Dice’s petition to gain approval for Karl Marx’s appointment as Hillary Clinton’s economic adviser.

At this point, only half way through this BBC program about the “post-truth” era we are supposed to be entering, I have had enough of hearing the BBC view, I’m done.  Let’s move on to the next of the usual suspects.


Here, the Guardian announce the fact that the Oxford dictionary has declared the phrase as the “word of the year” for 2016:
‘Post-truth’ named word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries


In the era of Donald Trump and Brexit, Oxford Dictionaries has declared “post-truth” to be its international word of the year.
The spike in usage, it said, is “in the context of the EU referendum in the United Kingdom and the presidential election in the United States”.

Why has there been a spike in usage??  BECAUSE THE MSM HAVE BEEN USING THE WORD A LOT!!!  The MSM have generated their own news here.  By not mentioning the fact that its the MSM who have pushed the phrase in the first place, they are subtly distancing themselves from the “news” that the Oxford dictionary found a spike in usage of the term during the campaigns of Brexit and Trump.  This helps to subliminally create an impression that this “post-truth” phenomenon is something that’s really happening in the real world.

Looking back to May 2016 however (when the spike began) we see this article in the Guardian:
Post-truth politicians such as Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are no joke

This article begins with a major attack on Donald Trump, for example:

To adapt Mary McCarthy’s critique of the novelist Lillian Hellman, every word Trump says is a lie, including “and” and “the”.

Well I somehow doubt if even most people who actually voted for Trump take every word he says at face value, but to suggest EVERYTHING Trump says is a lie, well that is itself a big lie, obviously.  They are joking, we know that, except they aren’t really, they mean it.

The writer then proceeds to attack Boris Johnson (BoJo).  First they point to the claim on the Leave campaign battle bus that the UK was sending £350m a week to the EU:

Emblazoned on the side was the slogan: “We send the EU £350 million a week.” Except it’s not true

It seems that almost every time the phrase “post-truth” appears in the UK media, there is a mention of this single error by the Leave campaign.

The writer then attacks BoJo’s mocking dig at what was called “project fear” by the Leave campaign:

…his critique of David Cameron’s speech on Monday, which had focused on the national security implications of a Brexit. Johnson hit back:

“I think all this talk of world war three and bubonic plague is demented, frankly.”

Now, its clear to anyone with a half a brain that BoJo is making a joke here to make a point, as BoJo often does.  He is not suggesting that Cameron ACTUALLY SAID that Brexit would lead to World War Three and bubonic plague.  But wait, did I say this is clear to anyone with half a brain?  To the Guardian writer it seems, its NOT clear:

Who but a cretin would suggest that the black death would be the result of a British break from the EU? And yet a scan of the text of Cameron’s speech yields no results for either “bubonic” or “world war three”.

The Guardian writer actually went back and checked Cameron’s speech to see if the words were there, I’m a bit speechless!  I can’t go any further with this article, time to move on to the next…


In this article the Independent does at least recognize that lying in the world of politics is not exactly a new phenomenon:

We are not living in a ‘post-truth’ world, we are living the lies of others

That’s a good point, lets pause and remember just a tiny number of episodes from the days prior to this new “post-truth” era:

  • Richard Nixon – “I am not a crook,”
  • George W Bush –  “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
  • Tony Blair’s govt. – “Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to use them.”
  • Tony Blair’s govt. – Did not disclose new Labour’s plan to “rub the right’s nose in diversity” by letting millions of people immigrate into the country.
  • David Cameron – promised that his govt. would reverse the trend begun by New Labour and reduce immigration to the 10s of 1000s – no ifs no buts he said.
  • Bill Clinton – “I did not have sexual relations with that woman [Monica Lewinsky]”.
  • The Clintons – All sorts of accusations and counter-accusations are swirling around the Clinton Foundation and have been doing so for some time.  Someone is not telling the truth.
  • Banking Crisis – One can only begin to imagine how many lies were told before and during the banking crisis of 2008.
  • Gordon Brown – I saved the world.

More predictably there is yet another reference in this Independent article to the £350m claim on the battle bus.

The article points to coverage of the war in Syria:

I suspect that “post-truth” has more to do with social media than mendacious elections. The use of social media in reporting the battle of eastern Aleppo has been extraordinary, weird, dangerous, even murderous, when not a single Western journalist could report the eastern Aleppo war at first hand. Much damage has been done to the very credibility of journalism – and to politicians…

This is another dig at social media of course from the MSM, but at least the Independent acknowledges that journalists and politicians haven’t exactly been covering themselves with glory in their coverage of this war.  I’ll come back to the subject of Syria in the next post.


The economist took a hilarious dig at Donald Trump’s claim that “Obama is the founder of ISIS and Hillary Clinton is the co-founder”:

The post-truth world – Yes, I’d lie to you

No says the economist, he wasn’t joking, he really meant that literally – Obama is the commander in chief of the Islamic State, apparently!  No doubt Obama personally ordered those be-headings (I jest here of course he didn’t).

Then, just as all the above articles did, the economist repeats the point about the EU £350m slogan, and sneers at the (actually worrying if you have a brain and know anything about Islam) prospect of Turkey joining the EU:

And he is not the only prominent practitioner of post-truth politics. Britons voted to leave the European Union in June on the basis of a campaign of blatant misinformation, including the “fact” that EU membership costs their country £350m ($470m) a week, which could be spent instead on the National Health Service, and that Turkey is likely to join the EU by 2020.

We don’t know if Turkey will join the EU by 2020 (or any time in the future), we don’t know at all.  The arguments against this happening were all based on the fact that the EU has requirements about new members joining that Turkey would supposedly not meet.  What we do know is that the EU is supposed to have rules, and when Greece joined the EURO, the rules were ignored.  So, people no longer TRUST the EU, and with good reason.  Its not perhaps so much a case of post-truth here, as post-trust.  What’s more, the EU has a very friendly attitude towards Islam in general, as revealed in a speech by Federica Mogherini , the “High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy”, when she said that:

Islam belongs in Europe. It holds a place in Europe’s history, in our culture, in our food and – what matters most – in Europe’s present and future

That’s another reason for wanting to get out of the EU by the way, at least in my book.  I don’t want Islam in my culture or in my food thanks very much.


Of course we are not at all entering a “post-truth” era and the mainstream media know this well enough.  The media’s repetitive use of the phrase “post-truth” is a deliberate ploy to try to slander both Brexit and Trump’s election as being based PRIMARILY on misinformation.  This is another case of “saturation” – an idea being relentlessly repeated across the mainstream media.

What is happening is that people of the West are finally beginning to rise up against the elites who have (among other anti-democratic things) been rubbing the public’s nose in diversity by allowing and encouraging huge, unprecedented levels of mass immigration that have changed whole communities beyond recognition in a very short space of time.  The establishment viewpoint characterized by the phrase “political correctness” is being undermined very significantly as seen in the Brexit result and the election of Donald Trump.

We would rather elect a less “experienced” politician (experienced at politics that is) who we believe to have our best interests at heart (even if they say daft things from time to time) than a career politician who is well-practiced at the art of deceit and does not have the people’s best interests at heart.


Bill Whittle talks about decline in areas of America such as Detroit




The “Trump Hate Surge”


In this article the BBC quotes a Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) report that claims a significant wave of hate crime followed the US presidential election with only a tiny percentage of crimes classified as “anti-Trump”:

‘Trump effect’ led to hate crime surge, report finds

The title of the BBC article states the claim as fact.  It also makes no attempt to question any of the “findings” throughout the whole article.  So, the assertion is stated as fact that there has been a surge in hate crime and that the hate has come almost exclusively from Trump supporters.  To give a bit of perspective on the SPLC, this is a group that has labelled both Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as “anti-Muslim extremists”.  In a later article the BBC admits the “evidence” provided in the report was purely anecdotal.

The article concludes by quoting the SPLC’s dig at Breitbart’s Stephen Bannon:

The SPLC has been very critical of Mr Trump’s decision to appoint a right-wing media executive to the role of chief White House strategist.

The group accused Stephen Bannon of being “the main driver behind Breitbart [News] becoming a white ethno-nationalist propaganda mill“.

Um, that would be the Breitbart that employs Raheem Kassam the British journalist of Indian and Muslim origin?  The BBC really doesn’t like the upstart Breitbart news organization, that’s something that has been becoming very clear of late.

However in another article a rather different picture starts to emerge (but only if you read the article all the way to the end):

US Election 2016: Are hate crimes spiking after Trump’s victory?

Pride of place of course goes to a young Muslim woman who is mentioned first.  A dreadful story of a hijab being pulled (or almost pulled) off, really terrible.  She decided not to report the terrible hate crime to the police and we will have to take her word for the whole thing, she is reported to have said:

“I decided not to press charges because I’m not here to expose anyone, …”

This apparently was just one of many (alleged) attacks motivated by “racial or religious hatred” which have been claimed on social media but not with any evidence to back them up.

The article then refers to what it calls:

a number of credible reports of hate crimes

which apparently included a couple of incidents of graffiti with swastikas and pro-Trump slogans.  “Credible”, really, in what sense are these “credible” hate crimes?  We don’t know who wrote this graffiti, it could easily have been put there by anti-Trump agitators.  Well, I suppose that would constitute a hate crime against Trump supporters then but we can be sure the BBC have not thought their claim through to that sort of extent.

Hate Hoax: Student Arrested for Alleged Nazi, Anti-Semitic Graffiti

Also mentioned is the alleged robbery of a student who claimed that her purse and car were stolen by two men who “made comments about President-elect Trump and Muslims”.  Again, it seems we only have her word for this whole thing at the moment, so it seems the BBC has now invented a new meaning of the word “credible”.

Then, there is mention of a violent attack by a group of black men who attack and rob a white man shouting “don’t vote Trump” (this story is actually backed up by some video footage although the BBC chooses not to link to the video).  Finally, it seems we have an incident actually backed up with some real video evidence, and its a Trump supporter who is being attacked (or did they just assume he was because he was white?).  There is also reference to an attack on a white schoolgirl Trump supporter by a black schoolmate.  This incident was also supported by video evidence.

So, to summarize this article there are only two incidents described that are actually backed up with hard evidence, and both of these are attacks AGAINST Trump supporters.  However by pushing these two incidents to the end of the article the BBC are downplaying the significance of these incidents in favour of the alleged incidents supposedly BY Trump supporters.

Elsewhere on the web we find actually there have been quite a few more well substantiated cases of attacks against Trump supporters:


In another article, the BBC hints (in their oh so subtle way) that Trump’s promise to defend the USA’s borders constitutes hate speech and suggests that his promises for example to build a wall on the US/Mexico border or stop Muslim immigration could be deemed “unacceptable incitement” “by some”:

Donald Trump: Free speech v hate speech


that a “great, great wall” should be built between the US and Mexico
most recently. that Muslims should be banned from entering the US solely on grounds of their religion

They conclude the article with this following statement which is clearly designed to hint that the USA currently has the balance all wrong:

The contrast between the different legal approaches highlights the difficulty of trying to balance the individual’s right to voicing their own opinion with protecting community interests and deterring hate crimes.


A really shocking story was reported in the Independent about a vicious attack on the New York subway where a Muslim woman ALMOST had her hijab pulled off and ALMOST had her purse stolen while she was travelling on the subway!!!!  The three drunken WHITE (ugh) louts (allegedly) said “Donald Trump” to her among other unspeakable things.  The police have mounted a huge investigation into the alleged assault (or maybe they haven’t).


These white louts (described as “disgusting pigs” by the “victim” (we have to use quotes because the assault is only alleged at this time)) might have tousled her hair as well, but (praises be to Allah) they didn’t manage that.  It could have been REALLY SERIOUS, but it wasn’t. What a relief!  No surveillance evidence or eyewitness testimony or smartphone footage has come to light to back the story up.

[UPDATE – the woman in the hijab in the above story has since been arrested for “filing a false report”.  She could now face up to one year in prison:




Another article in the Independent summarized the terrible wave of vicious hate crime sweeping America since Trump’s election:


Many of the alleged incidents were documented on Facebook, intriguingly few of the many alleged incidents described in this article seems to have involved any actual physical violence beyond the alleged pulling of hijabs and throwing of water.  There was one alleged incident where a young gay man was allegedly assaulted (pictured covered in blood in the article) but this incident has apparently not been reported to the police for some reason, nor do hospitals have any record of treating the victim.  If you can bear to read to the end of this article you will see an update which says a story involving the Muslim student at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette who “had her purse stolen” was fabricated as now admitted apparently by the student herself.  Maybe one or two of the other incidents might have actually happened, you never know…


There seems to have been far more actually documented violence AGAINST Trump supporters but this reality has been inverted by the usual suspects in the mainstream media.









Just as during the Brexit EU Referendum, the BBC “News” service confidently predicted a Clinton victory right up to the point when it became inescapably obvious that Trump was winning. To be fair, US opinion polls had been suggesting a close race with Clinton always shown in the lead. Once again, the opinion polls got it wrong.

The BBC was rightly criticized for its bias throughout the campaign:



David Attenborough, the (formerly) much loved wildlife documentary presenter famous for his Life on Earth programs on BBC TV, has called for the assassination of Donald Trump. Was he joking? I am not entirely sure, judge for yourself:

Attenborough’s head is in his hands but his response is curiously phlegmatic. Or perhaps pragmatic. “Yes, I know. Well, we lived through that with earlier presidents – they’ve been equally guilty… But what alternative do we have? Do we have any control or influence over the American elections?  Of course we don’t. [sotto voce] We could shoot him… It’s not a bad idea…” He catches my eye and giggles.

See the article in full here:


The “joke” certainly wasn’t very funny when you consider that there had been an actual attempt not long before by a British youth to actually shoot Donald Trump:


If he had jokingly called for the assassination of Theresa May do we think he would have escaped prosecution? Is there some special reason why its OK for a BBC TV presenter to call for the assassination of a political candidate whose political views he disagrees with? A young man was arrested and convicted in the UK for joking about blowing up an airport not so long ago. Increasing numbers of people have been prosecuted for merely “grossly offensive” comments on social media, but this was actual publicly voiced direct incitement to murder from an influential British public figure, albeit seemingly made in fairly jokey spirit.

Its time for a level playing field, its time to restore the freedom of speech and the principle of equality before the law. Those on the left have long escaped even rebuke from the left-leaning mainstream media for comments that would have led to the arrest and prosecution of those in less privileged positions. In my own legal framework I proposed that direct incitement would have to meet the test of “credibility” and I feel that Mr. Attenborough’s comment would fail that test (just). However, the law is being applied currently in a very unfair and inconsistent manner. There are too many laws endangering the freedom of speech.

I am not calling for David Attenborough’s arrest here, I am calling for a return to a meaningful degree of freedom of speech in the UK. He should be vilified for his statement however, it was a very crass and irresponsible thing to say, especially given the recent attempt on Mr. Trump’s life. It also wasn’t very long ago since a UK politician was murdered in broad daylight by a member of the public. All politicians take a great risk in the public service, regardless of what we think of their policies.


Have the Clintons defrauded the UK taxpayer? Some of the allegations coming from the US seem to suggest so. I will be returning to this subject in future posts.


I hope the Trump era will mean:

  • that the Anglosphere will now recover a sensible degree of pride and self-confidence.
  • that the era of receding freedom of expression will not just come to an end, but be reversed.
  • that the West’s disastrous recent meddling in the Middle East will come to an end and peace and stability will return to that region.
  • that the migrant influx into Europe and the West generally will be halted and reversed.
  • that the birth rate of Western Europeans will recover and return to sustainable levels, along with a return of our self-confidence.
  • that we will begin to win the ideological war against Islamic influence that so far we have been losing as much by our own fear and timidity as by the aggression of those who wish to take human progress backwards to the 7th century.

However we should not merely sit back and HOPE for these things to happen. Lets remember the famous words of the former (Democrat) president JFK:

“My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

We have a real opportunity here to reverse the toxic trends of self-loathing and political “correctness” which has blighted the West for so long.  If this is not merely to be a blip, but a real and permanent change in direction, then we all have a lot of work to do. It is time for people to rise up and participate in politics and public debate like never before. We have this great invention – the internet – at our disposal. Vast amounts of information about government policy for one thing are now easily available to us. We can scrutinize and question our governments’ plans like never before. Huge numbers of people have already joined the debate and arguments are being developed at a rate never before seen in human history. If you haven’t already, then please – start a blog, join in debates, get busy raising issues that concern you, write to your political representatives, join a demonstration. Do not allow this opportunity to go to waste, find the courage to voice your convictions.

Don’t forget, Donald Trump is only one man and he is not perfect. Many have called him a demagogue and even voiced fears that he will turn into some sort of dictator. I think these fears are unfounded, but power tends to corrupt and so we must hold him to account just as we should any leader when we disagree with a policy or direction. It is time for a new era of public participation to begin.


Its NO LONGER A Free Country