South Africa votes to confiscate white people’s land without compensation

South Africa aka Zimbabwe 2.0 made the worst nightmare of minority white population become a sad and scary reality.

Twenty-four years ago, the Whites accepted to end the apartheid system under a clear and explicit guarantee, written in the Constitution, that their land would never be stolen.

That was then and this is now: on Tuesday, February 27, 2018, the South African parliament voted to move forward and amend the Constitution to allow for confiscation of land from the white minority without compensation.

According to “The motion was brought by Julius Malema, leader of the radical Marxist opposition party the Economic Freedom Fighters, and passed overwhelmingly by 241 votes to 83 against. The only parties who did not support the motion were the Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus, Cope and the African Christian Democratic Party.

It was amended but supported by the ruling African National Congress and new president Cyril Ramaphosa, who made land expropriation a key pillar of his policy platform after taking over from ousted PM Jacob Zuma earlier this month.

“The time for reconciliation is over. Now is the time for justice,” Mr Malema was quoted by News24 as telling parliament. “We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land.”

Whites own the land because they colonized it and built it from nothing starting in the 1600’s. They literally “drained the swamps” covering many parts of South Africa and built giant farms in their place.

We know how ‘well’ that went for Zimbabwe when President Mugabe did the same thing.In 2000 Robert Mugabe shocked the world when he made dramatic changes to land ownership laws in Zimbabwe which resulted in thousands of white Zimbabwean farmers being forced to give up their farms and many to leave the country.
Those white farmers owned 70% of the most arable land in the country which they had inherited from a colonial past built on racial hierarchy.
A few years later, the reality sinked in.
According to The Guardian‘During the election campaign in March, the president said he was disappointed that only 44% of the land seized from whites was being cultivated and that the remainder was lying fallow.

He has also had to admit that Zimbabwe, once called “the breadbasket of Africa”, needs to import food to feed its population. For months he had boasted that the country had a bumper harvest and would “choke” if it was forced to take international food aid’

Part of the white farmes moved to Zambia, bringing with them the know- how and the desire to succeed. Now, under the new President Mnangagwa, the land reform seems to be ‘inevitable’ considering that land management is key to economic recovery.
Earlier this month, deputy finance minister Terence Mukupe travelled to neighbouring Zambia to engage former white Zimbabwean farmers who have settled there.

One would think that South Africa would learn from their neighbour’s mistakes. Instead of that, they would go the same way while expecting different results.

Intelligence Committe CHARGE AND RESPONSE to Schiff Memo

As probably known by now, Schiff Memo made it to the distribution channels. The political gymnastics continued with the Democrat memo , which has been – as expected- heavily redacted.

The Schiff Memo is quite vague regarding ‘multiple independent sources’ and has the timeline altered to fit their narrative. For example it stated that Steele played no role in FISA warrant and started sharing information with FBI in October.Actually, Steele first contacted FBI in July and August.

The Intelligence Committee issued their response.
According to Chairman Nunes:
“What you’re not going to see is anything that actually rejects what was actually in our memo” he said, adding that  “What you basically will read in the Democratic memo is they are advocating that it is okay for the FBI and DOJ to use for political dirt paid for by one campaign and use it against the other campaign.”

Abstract from the document:

CHARGE: “Christopher Steele’s raw intelligence reporting did not inform the FBI’s decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016.” (p. 1)
RESPONSE: As stated in the declassified GOP memo on FISA abuse, information about Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos “triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in the late July 2016 by FBI agent Peter Strzok.” Once underway, the investigation was fueled by Christopher Steele’s dossier, which the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) used to get a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on Carter Page. DOJ and FBI’s reliance on the DNC- and Clinton-campaign funded dossier in court filings, not the overall investigation, is the focus of the GOP memo.

CHARGE: The Page FISA application “made only narrow use of information from Steele’s sources about Page’s specific activities in 2016.” (p. 1)
RESPONSE: Senators Grassley and Graham’s January 4, 2018, criminal referral of Steele confirms that “the bulk of the application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier.” Moreover, the Steele dossier was the FBI’s only source for the allegations in the initial application that Page met with particular Russians in July 2016.

CHARGE: DOJ disclosed to the Court the fact of and reason for Steele’s termination as an FBI source. (p. 2)
RESPONSE: As noted in the GOP memo on FISA abuse, Steele was suspended and then terminated for unauthorized disclosures to the media in October 2016. However, four times DOJ repeated to the FISA Court (FISC) an incorrect assessment that Steele had not been a source for
an earlier, September 2016 Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff. In May 2017, before the final renewal application, Steele admitted in a publicly-available U.K. court filing to personally briefing numerous U.S. media outlets, including Yahoo News, in September 2016. Moreover, Isikoff has publicly confirmed that Steele was a source for the Isikoff article used in the Page FISA application.

CHARGE: DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting. (p. 4)
RESPONSE: At the time of the initial application, all of the Steele dossier’s specific claims about Page—including that he met with Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin in Moscow in July 2016—were uncorroborated by any independent source, and they remain unconfirmed.

CHARGE: DOJ provided the Court with “more than sufficient information to understand the political context of Steele’s research.” (p. 5)
RESPONSE: As clearly stated in the GOP memo, none of the Page FISA applications “disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts.”
Instead, the FISA application relies on a convoluted statement buried in a footnote. This is clearly an attempt to avoid informing the Court, in a straightforward manner that the DNC and Clinton campaign paid for the dossier. (Taking a cue from DOJ and FBI, the Democrat memo omits any reference to the DNC or Clinton campaign.)
Moreover, the footnote obscures, rather than clarifies Steele’s political motivation—and what DOJ and FBI officials actually knew about the dossier’s political origins. The footnote “speculates” on the “likely” motivation of “U.S. Person”—Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson—while intimating that “Source #1”—Steele—was unaware “as to the motivation

Devin Nunes- A true American patriot

Chairman Devin Nunes has my immense admiration for all the work he has done and continue doing on behalf of American people.

Nunes Statement on Release of Democrat Memo

Washington, February 24, 2018

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes issued the following statement today on the release of the Committee minority’s memo:

“The American people now clearly understand that the FBI used political dirt paid for by the Democratic Party to spy on an American citizen from the Republican Party. Furthermore, the FISA court was misled about Mr. Page’s past interactions with the FBI in which he helped build a case against Russian operatives in America who were brought to justice. It defies belief that the Department of Justice and FBI failed to provide information to a secret court that they had provided to an open federal court regarding their past interactions with Mr. Page.”


What happened to Seth Rich?

The death of Seth Rich is one of the most controversial subjects popping up on and on on alt + right sites.
I mentioned only the alt + right media because the corrupt MSM will not touch this issue; instead of that regurgitate the Russia collusion non sense.

For the people loving a good conspiracy theory, it seems to be quite clear: the guy (a DNC staffer) got ahold of sensitive information and decided to pass it to somebody (possibly Wikileaks) who could do something about it. Was it because he was upset that Bernie lost the DNC nomination, was it because he was a patriot, it’s hard to tell.
As some analysis suggests, the information was leaked, not hacked, hence the whole Russian interference in the election is just a typical wag the dog story.
Seth Rich, the alleged whistleblower, was gunned down last year, in a ‘botched robbery’ according to the police. However, his phone, wallet and other personal effects were not taken. Hmmm… what sort of robbery is that?

Anyway, I came across an interesting article “What Really Happened to Seth Ritch?”

Some information from the article follows.

“Julian Assange said the following in an interview on Dutch television:

“Whistleblowers often take very significant efforts to bring us material and often at very significant risks…There’s a 27-year-old who works for the DNC and who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the streets in Washington.”

Fueling the suspicion further, WikiLeaks offered a $20k reward in exchange for information leading to the conviction of Rich’s killer.”

“(According to) Daily Mail, an ex-British Ambassador claims he met with an intermediary for a leaker in a D.C. park, claiming the leaker was a democratic insider “disgusted” by the DNC’s activities.

An ardent Bernie supporter despite having been hired late in the season to work on the Clinton campaign, Seth Rich fits the profile described by the ex-British Ambassador.

Exposed as defrauding Sanders out of winning the primaries as part of a bona fide conspiracy to propel Clinton to the general election, a DNC employee and Bernie Sanders megafan like Seth Rich probably would have been none too happy with the DNC’s sabotage of his favorite candidate.

His position in the DNC working on voter registration, analytics, and similar programs could have made him privy to the DNC’s fraudulent activities, and put him in a position to leak DNC emails to topple part of the conspiracy. Whoever leaked them, they led to the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, but of course, Hillary Clinton would still be announced as the 2016 democratic candidate despite the proven foul play.”

“Newsweek Report: This Killer Has Killed Before

The Profiling Project is an independent, non-partisan academic group pooling their efforts in an attempt to bring Seth Rich’s killer to justice. It’s being led by a Ph.D in clinical and forensic psychology, and a former U.S. Marine and criminal investigator. Its staff consists of Master’s students pursuing Forensic Psychology degrees at George Washington University.

And, as reported in Newsweek, the result of their three-month investigation found that Seth Rich was most likely either murdered by someone who has killed multiple other seth-rich-DNC-murderpeople, indicating either a serial killer, or a hitman-for-hire. Their reasons include the extremely clean, evidence-free crime scene (no shell casings), careful use of force by the shooter, a lack of “emotional indications” in the crime and the fact that Rich was white — according to the academics behind The Profiling Project, “only 6 percent of unsolved homicides in D.C. in 2016 involved non-African-Americans.”

“From the fact that Seth didn’t actually die on the scene, The Profiling Project concluded that his death wasn’t the work of a professional hitman (or at least, not a good hitman). But theorists contend that none of that actually mattered. Maybe, they say, all the DNC needed was to ensure that Seth Rich would be sent to the hospital.”

Jack Burkman, founder of the Profiling Project that was the subject of the article in seth-rich-security-camerasNewsweek, also complained to WND that “key information” was withheld from his team that police agencies typically make public. For example, in a strange coincidence, guns were stolen from a federal vehicle just before Seth Rich was shot, a couple of miles from the scene of the murder. However, since police wouldn’t release their ballistics report, Burkman’s team could not determine if the bullets could have come from the .40 caliber handgun that was stolen from the vehicle. In addition, both police body camera and street CCTV surveillance footage have been kept under wraps by officials. 4Chan users identified dozens of D.C. street cameras that may have captured moments of Rich’s walk home:

From the Hospital Shadows

MedStar Washington Hospital is most likely the medical center where Rich was taken. This conclusion comes from the fact that Vito Maggiolo, a D.C. EMS public information officer, told that Seth was in critical condition on the way to the hospital. This makes it likely that Medstar Washington Hopsital, the only area hospital with a surgical trauma unit, would have been Rich’s destination rather than also-nearby Howard University Hospital.

The head of the surgical team at Medstar is Dr. Jack Sava, an M.D. with an influential wife seen on visitor logs as having visited the White House dozens of times, and who is closely connected with Democratic Party capo John Podesta. This revelation comes from spreadsheets and other emails from WikiLeaks’ phished email dump of John Podesta’s account”

“If the DNC wanted Seth Rich to die at the hospital, it would take a (preferably high-ranking) inside guy to ensure it would happen.

But the plot thickened further when an anoymous hospital employee emerged with tales of strange goings-on during the night Seth Rich arrivseth-rich-hospitaled.

Chiming into a citizen-investigation discussion on the notorious image board 4Chan, an anonymous contributor claiming to be an employee of MedStar Washington Hospital reported unusual security and other procedures at the hospital that evening. Of course, the anonymous and unverifiable nature of 4Chan posts automatically makes all claims suspect. 4Chan users even have a term for anonymous posters pretending to be insiders for fun or attention: LARPers, or “Live Action Role Players”.

However, factors like the writing style and use of medical shothand give the post a feeling of verisimillitude that is difficult to fake, even for a fairly skilled writer. Medical terminology used by the contributor included “LR” for Lactated Ringers, a solution given to patients with high levels of blood loss, “LEOs” for law enforcement officers, “post-surgery crit” for post-surgery critical care, and “exlap” for exploratory laparotomy, a surgery that inspects organs for damage or illness, among others. A newcomer to medical writing would need to have done extensive research to know these terms, much less use them correctly and in a way that was consistent with what we know about Rich’s injuries.”

So What Happened to Seth Rich?

We may never know what really happened to Seth Rich. But despite being derided as a “fake news conspiracy,” the theory that Seth Rich was murdered for becoming a whistleblower can’t be fairly classified as debunked.

It’s already bizarre how many people investigating the fraud at the DNC have ended up dead, and now with lawsuits coming the DNC’s way, lawyers for the plaintiffs have reported receiving enough threatening emails and phone calls to request protection from the court for themselves, their plantiffs, plaintiff’s families, and witnesses. Their requests have been denied, despite the fact that multiple witnesses for their cases have turned up dead, along with others involved in DNC lawsuits.”

Democratic Congressional Espionage Ring

The following article is from American Thinker.

July 30, 2017
‘Collusion’ Collapses: Dem Congressional Espionage Ring Takes Center Ring
By Clarice Feldman
In truth, the Russians “colluded” through GPS Fusion to harm, not help, Trump and the evidence of that is coming out. It’s time to repeal the Special Counsel law which has now been used twice to hamstring two Republican Presidents, has dubious constitutional authority, and will never result in the indictment of a prominent Democratic politician.

Under the Constitution there are three ways to deal with official corruption: the ballot box, impeachment, or criminal prosecution. Instead, in recent years we have tried two different means: the Independent Counsel law, now lapsed, and the Special Counsel law. Pepperdine Law Professor Douglas M. Kmiec explains the difference and argues that the features of the independent counsel, which the Supreme Court held constitutional, and the special counsel law that has not been challenged, are different, notably that the absence of outside supervision of the prosecutor and failure in both instances of the application of the Special Counsel act — the Plame case, and the Russian interference case now under Mueller — lack what the Court called a necessary predicate for such an investigation: a finding by the attorney general that there is reason to believe that a crime has occurred. That did not occur in the “collusion” investigation. In the Plame case, as I show, the major figures all knew there was no crime before they began the investigation.

In the case of the Independent Counsel investigation of Whitewater, you may recall the prosecutor said that they had reason to believe Hillary Clinton had committed perjury before the grand jury, but as prosecutors should not indict unless they believe a conviction is likely and the case would be brought before an Arkansas jury who would never convict Bill Clinton’s wife, no indictment would be sought.

Absent a dramatic shift in D.C. demography and political sentiment, you can be sure this would be the case should any special prosecutor find criminal wrongdoing by a prominent Democrat, especially Hillary Clinton. She has a ticket to ride (as she did when Comey absolved her of gross misuse of classified information). In contrast, any prominent Republican tried here already has a strike against him.

My online friend “Ignatz Ratzykywatzky” now describes what we have:

So Comey intentionally leaked his memo to cause Mueller to be appointed to investigate a plan by Putin to generate a fake scandal to fool dopes like Comey.

Top. Men.

But for the addition of a new player, GPS-Fusion, this case is remarkably similar in evolution and cast of characters to the Plame case. The genesis of the Mueller investigation was the recusal of Attorney General Sessions on the ground that he was too close to the subject of the investigation. It was on the same ground that former Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself in the Plame leak case. In both cases the media incited recusal.

On October 31, 2016 David Corn (who worked for the Nation during the Plame case and now for Mother Jones), wrote in Mother Jones “A veteran spy [David Steele of GPS Fusion] has given the FBI information alleging a Russian operation to cultivate Donald Trump.” GPS-Fusion is a smear-for-hire operation. Among the smears created by this outfit of which we are now aware were a number against Mitt Romney, including the tape of his remarks about Obama supporters secretly made at a donors’ meeting; the false claim that the videos of Planned Parenthood negotiating for the sale of fetus body parts was “fake,” and attacks on the credibility of Venezuelan dissidents who had charged Venezuelan officials with graft and money laundering. In addition, they were working to get Russian sanctions via the Magnitsky Act lifted, having been hired to do so by Natalia Veselnitskaya, the woman who tried to entrap Donald J. Trump. Prior to David Corn’s article, GPS met with a Mother Jones “journalist“ according to Steele himself. And that journalist was most certainly the Democrat’s water bearer, David Corn. Steele’s group had shopped the story around and on January 19, 2017 BuzzFeed published the GPS dossier.

After BuzzFeed published Steele’s dossier, individuals mentioned in the dossier sued Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence for defamation. In his defense, Steele blamed Fusion GPS for circulating his dossier among reporters without his permission. However, he admitted “off-the-record briefings to a small number of journalists about the pre-election memoranda in late summer/autumn 2016.” Steele’s defense contended that in October 2016, “Fusion GPS instructed him to brief a journalist from Mother Jones”, as Daily Caller reporter Chuck Ross summarized.

Despite Steele admitting that his dossier was never verified, and despite specific allegations in the dossier being disproven, Corn has continued to promote the dossier’s thesis, recently publishing an article claiming that “Donald Trump Jr.’s Emails Sound Like the Steele Dossier”. In his recent piece, Corn argued that Donald Trump Jr’s meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya vindicates Steele’s dossier:

Trump and his supporters have denounced the Steele memos as unsubstantiated trash, with some Trump backers concocting various conspiracy theories about them. Indeed, key pieces of the information within the memos have been challenged. But the memos were meant to be working documents produced by Steele — full of investigative leads and tips to follow — not finished reports, vetted and confirmed.


But that media firestorm, based on nothing but unverified information — probably fed to GPS by the Russians — from a smear for pay outfit caused Sessions to recuse himself.

In the previous special counsel case – Plame — both Mueller, then head of the FBI, and Comey, then acting attorney general upon Ashcroft’s recusal, were informed even before Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed that no one had deliberately “outed” her to punish her husband; that the information Novak published came from Richard Armitage, a Colin Powell underling and that it was absolutely inadvertent. And yet they used that to hamstring GW Bush and his administration and to convict Lewis Libby. That conviction is proving to be, as I argued at the time, a prosecution without a crime.

Last year, Libby sought and received a reinstatement of his law license and an investigation was held, with counsel confirming his innocence:

In the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Disciplinary Counsel’s Report readmitting Libby, the Counsel noted that Libby had continued to assert his innocence. As a result, the Counsel had to “undertake a more complex evaluation of a Petition for reinstatement” than when a petitioner admits guilt. But the Counsel found that “Libby has presented credible evidence in support of his version of events and it appears that one key prosecution witnesses [sic], Judith Miller, has changed her recollection of the events in question.” The reference to Judith Miller, a former New York Times reporter, involved her memoir, The Story, A Reporter’s Journey. In the book, Miller said she read Plame’s memoir and discovered that Plame’s cover was at the State Department, a fact Miller said the prosecution had withheld from her. In rereading what she called her “elliptical” notes (meaning hard to decipher), she realized they were about Plame’s cover, not her job at the CIA. She concluded that her testimony that Libby had told her Plame worked at the CIA was wrong. “Had I helped convict an innocent man?” she asked. Miller went on to note that John Rizzo, a former CIA general counsel, had said in his memoir that there was no evidence that the outing of Plame had caused any damage to CIA operations or agents, including Plame. That statement rebuts the prosecution’s closing argument that as a result of the disclosure of Plame’s identity, a CIA operative could be “arrested, tortured, or killed.”

Who paid for the GPS-Fusion smear job which was used to persuade Sessions to recuse himself and which led to the appointment of Mueller as special counsel? Well, that’s a mystery the Democrats are doing everything to hide.

Kimberley Strassel reports:

What if, all this time, Washington and the media have had the Russia collusion story backward? What if it wasn’t the Trump campaign playing footsie with the Vladimir Putin regime, but Democrats? The more we learn about Fusion, the more this seems a possibility. [snip] We know that at the exact time Fusion was working with the Russians, the firm had also hired a former British spy, Christopher Steele, to dig up dirt on Mr. Trump. Mr. Steele compiled his material, according to his memos, based on allegations from unnamed Kremlin insiders and other Russians. Many of the claims sound eerily similar to the sort of “oppo” Mr. Akhmetshin peddled.

We know that Mr. [Glenn] Simpson is tight with Democrats. His current attorney, Joshua Levy, used to work in Congress as counsel to no less than Chuck Schumer. We know from a Grassley letter that Fusion has in the past sheltered its clients’ true identities by filtering money through law firms or shell companies (Bean LLC and Kernel LLC).

Word is Mr. Simpson has made clear he will appear for a voluntary committee interview only if he is not specifically asked who hired him to dig dirt on Mr. Trump. Democrats are going to the mat for him over that demand. Those on the Judiciary Committee pointedly did not sign letters in which Mr. Grassley demanded that Fusion reveal who hired it.

Here’s a thought: What if it was the Democratic National Committee or Hillary Clinton’s campaign? What if that money flowed from a political entity on the left, to a private law firm, to Fusion, to a British spook, and then to Russian sources? Moreover, what if those Kremlin-tied sources already knew about this dirt-digging, tipped off by Mr. Akhmetshin? What if they specifically made up claims to dupe Mr. Steele, to trick him into writing this dossier?


If the Russian intention was to sow chaos in the American political system, few things could have been more effective than that dossier, which ramped up an FBI investigation and sparked congressional probes and a special counsel, deeply wounding the president. This is all to Mr. Putin’s benefit, and the question is whether Russia engineered it.

While the press has been promoting a ridiculous and ass backwards Russian collusion story, it has been sitting on a far bigger story: The likelihood that the Congressional Democrats financed and enabled the largest espionage ring in U.S. history. This story has been percolating on the internet for weeks with no mainstream media coverage. It got a tiny, misleading smattering of coverage this week when the FBI arrested Imran Awan, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s internet employee, for trying to flee the country after transferring almost $300,000 dollars to Pakistan.

Ignatz sums up the media U Turn:

“1. The wsj, nyt and wapo now all agree what wasn’t a crime didn’t occur.

2. Because they all know what was a series of crimes by the Dems, did occur, so now it’s time to move on to more important things… like not seeing Dems in handcuffs.”

The most detailed coverage of how the Awan brothers were hired, overpaid, and had access to all the Democrat’s communications and how Schultz protected Imran and kept him on her payroll even after the Capitol Police denied him and his three brothers further access to the Democrats’ computers was on the Daily Caller:

Should the press decide it’s past time to sit around promoting GPS Fusion smears and do some work?

1. Who coordinated the hiring of the Awan brothers by dozens of Democratic Congressman?

2. Why were they so grossly overcompensated (millions of dollars) for no work?

3. Were they kicking back money to the Democrats, doing “dirty” work for them, or blackmailing them?

4. Why did Wasserman-Schultz keep the Capitol Police from searching her laptop they had confiscated from Imran Awan?

5. Why did Wasserman-Schultz keep him on her payroll after the Capitol Police further barred him and his brothers from accessing Congressional computers?

6. Why did the Iraqi fugitive and Hezb’allah supporter Dr. Ali-al Attar “lend” them $100,000?

7. Who is paying Chris Gowan, a Clinton insider, to represent Imran Awan?

8. Why did the Awan brothers continue to have security clearances when they had declared several bankruptcies and were engaged in financial misdealing?

9. Why were the Awans broke when they were making so much money and living so modestly?

10. Why did eight members of the House Permanent Select committee on Intelligence issue a letter demanding the Awans be granted access to Top Secret information?

11.Were the Awans working for Pakistani intelligence and the Moslem Brotherhood?

12. To whom were the Awans sending data to on an offsite server?

Buckle your seatbelts. Draining the swamp is going to create a lot of waves.