America- In Trump we Trust

The above words are from Ann Coulter’s book. An excellent read and very informative on the Trump phenomena. Wisdom beyond understanding.

Sir, we voted for you for those reasons you espoused at your early rallies across this great nation. Don’t let us down! Today, we see the media fighting back blaming the Russians did it. That’s crap! We, your core, supported you long before the Russian did anything, if they did anything. The WikiLeaks showed the corruption in the DNC, the Clinton Machine and even the current administration. The so called false stories the Washington Post, Google and Facebook are saying riddled the web are just a way to add more controls to web content to increase their profits and meet political agendas.

We ,the Trump core, took on supporting you as a last ditch effort to save this country literally. There is no half way point to meet with the other side. 50% of this country were ready to vote a criminal to our White House, knowing well that this would destroy our country and all that we stood for. For many years this core attempted to change the direction of America. Now have you, Mr. Trump and we have pinned all our hopes on you as our President and your team to change the direction of this country. Every aspect of our government is entrenched with ideas and actions contrary to what this nation was founded on. The Swamp is very deep.

For the past two years, I know what censorship is. The major internet companies has blackballed my website from any search engine results. That is what 900 rules on web content did for me. Their bots hits me nightly tracking every article I have written. And yet none of it is available to anyone searching. Traffic is almost null from those results. I do get traffic for Twitter and for a while from Reddit. I also get traffic from other meta search engines like AOL, Yahoo. and WebCrawler. They all use data from major internet companies, so I know the data is out there.  Smartscreen has blocked my site pages regularly, even after my protests.

The other day I was reading an article by FT.com. or the Financial Times based in China. We don’t want accept china’s internet as a way for America to aspire to. But there are some thing that I do want to consider.

 In Beijing’s old hutong alleyway districts, an inner wall faces the door to every courtyard house. The wall is there to stop bad spirits from entering the inner sanctum.

China’s internet has a similar design to its courtyard houses.

 

The way is blocked to foreigners such as Google and, despite Mark Zuckerberg’s efforts, Facebook while Alibaba, Baidu and Tencent, the largest Chinese internet enterprises, have prime spaces.

A few years ago, China’s government seemed to be in conflict with the very nature of the internet, struggling to censor bloggers with millions of followers on Weibo, the Twitter-like service.

It has shown that censorship can coexist with a vibrant online culture, as ecommerce and entertainment have taken over from political debate and the sharing of sensitive information.

WWW vs China’s internet- both extremes. A nation must control its assets or loose them. Using the WWW philosophy, we have redistributed much of America’s wealth to the world and the criminals of the world. And at the same time made several companies extremely wealthy distributing that data around the world.

These companies now are controlling our elections and government on how we are govern.

They are the biggest promoter of this WWW data distribution, WWW and maybe conspirators in that distribution. A nation must protect its assets.

At least China exhibits controls their assets. –

I in no way want to imply that, that this type of control is for America. But we do need to hold the major internet companies accountable for data distributed and hold our nation’s government accountable to place a border around America to protect its American citizens and the nation.

I personally think that the major internet companies are conspiring against the American People. They are currently doing sleep overs at the White House visiting more that any dignitary visiting. We need an open book on major internet companies internet controls.

Another article written by Washington Times supports much that I have said above.

“Not all of these sources are always or inherently problematic, neither are all of them fake or false,” the professor, Melissa Zimdars, at Merrimack College in Massachusetts told the Times. ” … They should be considered in conjunction with other news/info sources due to their tendency to rely on clickbait headlines or Facebook descriptions, etc.”

So, just like MSNBC, Huffington Post, Slate, Mother Jones, and ThinkProgress — all partisan left outlets, which often use exaggeration and hyperbole to emphasize their point — which weren’t included on her list.

CNN’s media columnist Brian Stelter also has warned about “fake news,” but in his diatribe, he included right-leaning Fox News and alt-right website Breitbart in the mix.

I reported on the Veritas Project findings and many others on twitter, but the media never said a word about it. Nor was there any investigation beyond what project Veritas accomplished. This was another clear indication of media bias.

Paid protesters are another example.

We know, after an undercover video was released by conservative group Project Veritas, that two Democratic operatives had to step down from their positions because it looked as though they were trying to hire protesters to incite violence at Mr. Trump’s rallies.

These two men didn’t lose their jobs because they were innocent — or because the videos were “highly edited” like the mainstream media charged. Clearly something was going on there. But only right-wing outlets (or “fake,” “anti-media” blogs) covered it, with barely a mention at CNN, NPR or any of the broadcast news networks.

When Mr. Trump said during a presidential debate that protesters were hired and told to do “bad things” at his rallies, PolitiFact even admitted that “too much remains unknown to put it on the Truth-O-Meter.”

So it seems like it would be something investigative journalists would want to, well, investigate.