Washington Post reporter caught plotting liberal agenda with billionaire George Soros

By Brian Flood | Fox News

Ross covered the 2016 presidential election closely, but the majority of her stories appear to be anti-Trump in retrospect.

Allegedly unbiased Washington Post reporter Janell Ross spoke at a top-secret meeting of liberal movers and shakers last week, where Democratic donors including billionaire George Soros outlined the future of their progressive agenda.

A Post spokesperson told the Washington Free Beacon that Ross took part of the California event “without notifying her superiors that she would be attending.”

The Democracy Alliance, which hosted the event, bills itself as “the largest network of donors dedicated to building the progressive movement in the United States” on the group’s official website. The liberal group also claims to “play a leading role in fostering the infrastructure necessary to advance a progressive agenda” in the United States.

The group intended to keep “the identities of its members and guests confidential,” according to the Beacon, but the paper obtained a “detailed conference agenda that lists both events and featured guests.” Once the Beacon revealed the attendees, the group reportedly beefed up security and asked participants to keep details off social media.
One of the surprising guests was Ross, who used to pass as a somewhat impartial reporter for the prestigious Post. While the paper’s slogan is, “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” she apparently wanted to keep her bosses in the dark about attending the liberal planning session and hanging out with prominent Democratic donors such as Soros.

Billionaire George Soros.  (The Associated Press)

According to the agenda published by the Beacon, Ross’ panel aimed to help the liberal attendees get “the economic narrative right" and was immediately followed by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) speaking about on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Media Research Center Vice President Dan Gainor called it a “classic example” of journalism “openly coordinating with the alt-left” to take down conservatives.

“Someone should introduce reporter Janell Ross and her boss Marty Baron to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. It appears they haven't read it, or any other text on journalistic ethics."

- Media Research Center Vice President Dan Gainor

“Someone should introduce reporter Janell Ross and her boss Marty Baron to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. It appears they haven't read it, or any other text on journalistic ethics. Funny, the movie ‘Spotlight’ portrays Baron as a big advocate of legitimate journalism,” Gainor told Fox News. “Can't wait for the sequel that shows the Post for what it really is, the research and reporting arm of the left.”
While it’s surprising that a reporter from the Post would appear at such a partisan event, a quick glance at Ross’ archive page on the paper’s website reveals her agenda. One headline lumps President Trump into the same category as O.J. Simpson, while others touch on issues of race and gender discrimination. She covered the 2016 presidential election closely, but the majority of her stories appear to be anti-Trump in retrospect.
Members of the secretive liberal group who attended the shady presentation each promised to donate at least $20,000 to advance its left-wing agenda. The session was part of a three-day conference at the luxurious La Costa Resort located in Carlsbad, Calif., last week, where the group plotted their 2018 "resistance" and game plan, according to the Beacon. Soros was introduced by a video message from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, according to the paper.
"We’ve only now learned about her participation in this event," a Washington Post spokesperson told the Beacon when asked about Ross’ involvement, adding that she has been "reminded" that the paper "discourages" participation in events that may be "perceived as partisan."
Ross did not comment when reached by the Beacon.
The Washington Post did not respond to questions from Fox News on whether or not Ross will be disciplined for attending the event. Ross did not respond to our request for comment either.
The Democracy Alliance did not respond to a question about who funded Ross’ trip to the ritzy resort where the event was held.

Roy Moore: Gloria Allred’s Refusal to Release Yearbook Proves Accusations Are False

November 18, 2017 Editor 484 Comments

(Breitbart) Birmingham, ALABAMA — Attorney and activist Gloria Allred’s repeated refusal to immediately release to the custody of an independent examiner the original copy of a yearbook at the center of national controversy proves that “what they have alleged is completely untrue,” senatorial candidate Roy Moore stated in an interview.

Roy Moore (Facebook)

The yearbook in question contains the only piece of physical evidence to be presented in the cases of numerous women who have gone public with stories alleging inappropriate conduct between Moore and teenage girls. Moore has strenuously denied the accusations.
Moore specifically pointed to the initials “D.A.” that appear after the signature on the yearbook to further demonstrate that the yearbook inscription and signature represent what he described as a forgery and “complete fabrication.”
Moore was speaking in an interview for this reporter’s weekend talk radio show, Aaron Klein Investigative Radio, broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and NewsTalk 990 AM. The interview will air in full on Sunday night…
Nelson claims that Moore signed her yearbook in 1977 sometime just before Christmas.

RELATED: Roy Moore’s Attorney: Release Accuser’s Yearbook
At a press conference in New York, Allred presented a photocopy of the yearbook with an inscription that reads: “To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say, ‘Merry Christmas.’ Love, Roy Moore DA, 12-22-77, Olde Hickory House…”
In our interview, Moore spotlighted the initials “D.A.,” linking it to a signature on Nelson’s 1999 divorce document over two decades later. That signature was followed by the initials of his former assistant, Delbra Adams, who only started working for him in 1987…

Court Docs: Big Questions about Roy Moore Accuser

November 23, 2017 Editor 145 Comments

(Breitbart) Court documents involving Leigh Corfman, who says that Alabama senatorial candidate Roy Moore tried to engage in a sexual encounter with her when she was 14, raise questions about the timeline and narrative of Corfman’s accusations against the politician…
Regarding the original court hearing where Corfman says that Moore asked her for her number while Wells went inside the courtroom, the Post reported that it “confirmed that her mother attended a hearing at the courthouse in February 1979 through divorce records.”
A thorough search of court documents finds one court case in February 1979—a case that took place on February 21, 1979.
The Post failed to tell readers that at that February 21, 1979, court case Wells voluntarily gave up custody of Corfman to Corfman’s father, Robert R. Corfman.  The two had been divorced since 1974.  The custody case was amicable and involved a joint petition by both parents.
RELATED: Roy Moore: Gloria Allred’s Refusal to Release Yearbook Proves Accusations Are False
The Post further did not tell readers that as a result of the joint petition to change custody, the court ordered the 14-year-old Corfman to move to her father’s house starting on March 4, 1979.

Court documents show the father’s address in Ohatchee, and not in Gadsden, where her mother lived and where Corfman says the meetings with Moore took place.
This would mean that from the court hearing on February 21, 1979, until Corfman was ordered to move to her father’s house, Moore would only have had 12 days, including the day of the court hearing, to have repeatedly called Corfman at her mother’s Gadsden house, arrange two meetings, and attempt another. Moore has strenuously denied the accusations…

Judicial Watch Dumps Explosive New FBI Emails Related to Hillary

November 21, 2017 Editor 187 Comments

(Zero Hedge) Judicial Watch has just dumped a new treasure trove of FBI emails regarding Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s conflict check relative to the Clinton email investigation (for those who missed it, we reviewed all of McCabe’s many scandals here: “FBI Director McCabe Subject Of Three Separate Federal Inquiries Into Alleged Misconduct: Report“).

Photo by Gage Skidmore (CC)

Ironically, this particular FOIA request was filed in October 2016 under the Obama administration but they apparently just “didn’t have time” to get to it.
Judicial Watch today released 79 pages of Justice Department documents concerning ethics issues related to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s involvement with his wife’s political campaign.
The documents include an email showing Mrs. [Jill] McCabe was recruited for a Virginia state senate race in February 2015 by then-Virginia Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam’s office.
RELATED: Retired FBI Agent Sues DOJ for Records on Contributions Made By a Clinton Ally

The news that Clinton used a private email server broke five days later, on March 2, 2015. Five days after that, former Clinton Foundation board member and Democrat party fundraiser, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, met with the McCabes.
She announced her candidacy on March 12. Soon afterward, Clinton/McAuliffe-aligned political groups donated nearly $700,000 (40% of the campaign’s total funds) to McCabe’s wife for her campaign.
Judicial Watch obtained the documents through a July 24, 2017, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the Justice Department failed to respond to an October 24, 2016, FOIA request.
Among other things, the new FOIA dump reveals a panicked FBI’s efforts to enlist the support of an army of lawyers and public relations personnel to deal with the original Wall Street Journal article… that first revealed McCabe’s ties to the Clintons and his simultaneous oversight of the Clinton email investigation…

MILITARY SUICIDE INCREASE

  Not long ago I was doing some work at an elderly, but very sharp minded and healthy , gentleman's home. We where chit chatting back and forth when our discussion rolled over to the war that our young men and ladies have been fighting for the last ten years plus. My client was a Vietnam Vet who served more than his share,1965-1975. That discussion lead into the super high rate of our young men's and ladies suicide rate. We started talking about the mind set that an ordinary sane person has to put themselves into for combat operations to be able to successfully complete those duties, not so much career military personnel but the average kid that was drafted in his day and the patriotic volunteers of today. He stated that his theory on the high rate of suicides is that these young soldiers are putting themselves into "the mindset of combat" i.e. detaching themselves from human emotions of caring for all human life , which all must do to be able to perform on the battlefield successfully, but once the fire fight is over and they return to base camp that they are not able or allowed to stay detached from their normal emotions of  civility and love of all human life. He stated, and I have heard this from more than one "old Vet", that the first one is the hardest one(first kill), but you detach yourself from the feelings after this and the rest are not easy but not as troubling as the first one..."the mindset". He was able to stay in this mindset for the next 3 years of combat duty and some what  the next 7 years of supply duty while stationed in country until the pull out and return home. Our soldiers today are going in and out, back and forth from detachment to having "normal" emotions....the cause? The availability of frequent contact with loved ones back home, Skype, cam to cam, video conference , speaking, hearing and seeing their wives, children , family and friends via the internet. In his day the letter from home was much anticipated and a joy to receive but he told me that just having read a letter from his wife and to see a picture of her and his young son would cause a flood of emotion and tears. The "old Vet" said he could not imagine being able to have contact as frequently and personally as the internet now offers and our soldiers have. He said " hell if I pulled myself in and out of the mindset on a weekly or monthly bases, that would drive me to suicide".
  
The Army lost the most active-duty members last year to suicide: 182. Inside that branch, as two wars raged then waned, the annual suicide pace climbed. During 2001, nine out of every 100,000 active-duty soldiers killed themselves, while, during 2011, the suicide rate was nearly 23 per 100,000, according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

Compare that sobering trend to conflicts and peace times past. During the final three years of World War II, the Army’s annual suicide rate didn’t budge above 10 soldiers per 100,000, and during the Korean War in the early 1950s, that annual pace remained at about 11 soldiers per 100,000, according to a study published in 1985 by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Between 1975 and 1986, the Army’s annual suicide rate averaged 13 deaths per 100,000 soldiers, falling to as low as 10 in the early ‘80s, according to series of papers published in the journal Military Medicine. The Army’s suicide rate in 2001 was less than half that for all American males (18.2 per 100,000). Since then, the pace of self harm among active Army troops has more than doubled — and that trend is not ebbing: In January, the Army classified another 33 deaths as "potential suicides" among active-duty, National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers, according to the Department of Defense.


  But that is just the theory of an "old Vet". GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS, VETS AND AMERICA!

The most overlooked link in mass shootings

A lifelong friend of the man who killed 26 people and wounded 20 others at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs in Texas on Sunday says the killer was a lifetime taker of behavioral medications.
Ralph Martinez told The Daily Mail that he and the killer met at a skateboard park when they were youngsters and formed an immediate bond that lasted until the murderer was convicted of abusing his wife and son.
According The Daily Mail:

Martinez said he had a lot in common, both of them were super-hyper active.
Martinez says he took prescription medicine for his ADHD until he was 19 and Devin took prescription pills for the same thing for as long as he can remember.

And:

For Kelley’s 21st birthday Martinez flew out to New Mexico with his girlfriend, where they spent a long weekend with Devin and Tessa where they were living at the time.
‘While we were in New Mexico at one point my girlfriend saw some prescription pill bottles in their kitchen and asked Tessa what they were for,’ said Martinez.
‘Tessa said that they were Devin’s prescription pills that he needs to take them for his aggression. Tessa didn’t say anything more about it.

This is certainly no surprise to those of us who have spent years following these things. Psychotropic drugs is a common denominator in all mass shootings. Aurora movie theater shooter James Holmes, Columbine killer Eric Harris, Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza and almost every other mass murdering young killers — if not every one of them — were on some type of psychotropic drugs when they committed their crimes.
According to a study published in the journal PLoS One and based on the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System, the following mind-altering drugs are most frequently linked to violence:
10. Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq) is an antidepressant associated with 7.9 times more violence than many other drugs.
9. Venlafaxine (Effexor) is related to Pristiq and is an antidepressant also used in treating those with anxiety disorders. Effexor is 8.3 times more associated with violent behavior than other drugs.
8. Fluvoxamine (Luvox) is an antidepressant that affects serotonin (SSRI), and is 8.4 times more likely to be linked to violence than other medications.
7. Triazolam (Halcion) can be addictive and is a benzodiazepine that supposedly treats insomnia. It’s 8.7 times more likely to be associated with violence than other medications.
6. Atomoxetine (Strattera) is often prescribed to tread ADHD and is 9 times more likely to be associated with violence.
5. Mefoquine (Lariam) treats malaria and sometimes products bizarre behavior, and is 9.5 times more likely to be linked to violence.
4. Amphetamines come in many forms and are often used to treat ADHD (even to children not diagnosed with ADHD). They are 9.6 times more likely to be linked to violence.
3. Paroxetine (Paxil) is an SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) antidepressant. Many users experience severe withdrawal symptoms and are more likely to produce children with birth defects as well as 10.3 times more likely to be linked to violence than other medications.
2. Fluoxetine (Prozac) is a household name for a powerful SSRI antidepressant linked with 10.9 times more violence than other drugs.
1. Varenicline (Chantix) is administered to smokers to supposedly help curb cigarette cravings, but it’s a whopping 18 times more likely to be linked to violent behavior than other drugs.
These drugs are prescribed to children diagnosed with depression, anxiety, anger issues, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD, attention deficit disorder (ADD), and autism spectrum disorders for educational and/or behavioral problems.
Today, more than 10 million American children are prescribed addictive stimulants, antidepressants and psychotropic drugs even though these drugs carry and FDA “black-box” warning that they can cause suicide in children and adolescents. The drugs are Schedule II drugs, meaning they are in the same class as morphine, opium and cocaine.
A recent U.S. report found that 10 percent of teens abuse Ritalin and another stimulant drug, Adderall. Eight out of 13 school shooters in the U.S. were taking antidepressants or stimulants at the time of the crime.
Of course, as is always the case with orthodox medicine, the “cure” is worse than the disease. It’s also just more symptomology – treating the symptoms rather than the cause.
Increased exposure to sugar and chemicals in our foods, clothing and environment is behind the growing number of cases of reduced attention span, delayed development and poor school performance in schoolchildren and the rise in cancers of all types. And all are added under government sanction if not government mandate.
Most foods and drinks marketed to kids are loaded with excess sugar. Researchers at Queensland University of Technology have found that long-term excess sugar consumption reduces dopamine levels and causes a reduction in the brain’s dopamine receptors. This study reinforces a study by a cardiovascular research scientist at St. Luke’s Mid-American Heart Institute in Kansas City, Missouri, that found that rats hooked on cocaine will choose sugar over cocaine once it’s introduced as an option.
Dopamine is the neurotransmitter that helps to control he brain’s reward and pleasure centers. It helps regulate movement and emotional responses, and it enables us to see rewards and move to attain them.
When dopamine levels drop as a result of long-term consumption of sugar, the brain requires ever-higher levels of sugar consumption to reach the same rewards levels and avoid mild states of depression. Drugs like cocaine, morphine and nicotine are addictive for the same reason – their effect on dopamine levels.
“You get this intense release of dopamine upon acute ingestion of sugar. After you chronically consume it, those dopamine receptors start becoming down-regulated — there’s less of them, and they’re less responsive,” said James DiNicolantonio, the researcher who conducted the study at St. Luke’s. “That can lead to ADHD-like symptoms … but it can also lead to a mild state of depression because we know that dopamine is that reward neurotransmitter.”
Sodium fluoride is added to most American drinking water. American dentists recommend using fluoride toothpaste. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls fluoride one of the “ten greatest public health achievements of the 20th Century.”
They don’t tell you it is a poisonous pesticide and industrial waste product. Just a half tube of the flavored toothpastes marketed to children contains enough fluoride to kill them.
A study by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and published in The Lancet Neurology lists fluoride as one of six newly recognized “developmental neurotoxicants,” or chemicals that can cause brain deficits.
Fluoride and the other listed neurotoxicants are likely behind the increase in neurodevelopmental disabilities — including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia — seen in children.
Other chemicals on the new list include manganese, chlorpyrifos and DDT (pesticides), tetrachoroethylene (a solvent) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (flame retardants). These join chemicals identified in 2006: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), arsenic and toluene.
Study authors “also forecast that many more chemicals than the known dozen or so identified as neurotoxicants contribute to a ‘silent pandemic’ of neurobehavioral deficits that is eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, and damaging societies.”
The study links manganese with diminished intellectual function and impaired motor skills, solvents to hyperactivity and aggressive behavior, and pesticides to cognitive delays. Many studies have linked fluoride to low IQ in children and adults.
So we expose our children to massive amounts of chemicals which create neurological problems. These neurological problems are treated with massive amounts of chemicals which cause aggressive behaviors, suicidal thoughts and depression. Big Pharma rakes in the dough and politicians have dead bodies over which to crow and use to divide the people who blame guns and clamor for more gun laws for “safety.”
Meanwhile, the source of the problem is not only ignored, it’s funded and sanctioned by government

The Democrats’ Inaccurate Talking Point

• By D'Angelo Gore
• Posted on November 17, 2017

Nonpartisan congressional analysts estimate that 13 million fewer Americans would have health insurance by 2025 if the health care law’s individual mandate is repealed. But that doesn’t mean that all 13 million would be kicked off their insurance plans, as some Democrats claim.
Many of them would voluntarily give up their health coverage. They would not have it taken away.
Senate Republicans amended their version of a bill overhauling the U.S. tax code to include a provision that eliminates the Affordable Care Act’s penalties for most individuals who do not purchase health insurance.
Democrats opposed to the plan are now distorting a report from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation that says scrapping the mandate would reduce federal deficits by $338 billion over the next 10 years, but result in 4 million fewer people having insurance in 2019 and 13 million less having coverage from 2025 to 2027.
Because fewer people would have insurance, the CBO and JCT estimate that the government would spend less on those who receive subsidized coverage through Medicaid and the insurance marketplaces established by the Obama-era health care law.
In a Nov. 14 speech on the Senate floor, Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “President Trump’s absurd idea to repeal the individual mandate as a part of this bill would boot, according to CBO, 13 million people from the health insurance rolls and cause premiums to skyrocket.”
In a tweet the next day, Sen. Richard Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat, wrote that “Republicans now want to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy by taking health care away from 13 million Americans.”
Then, Sen. Elizabeth Warren piled on during a Nov. 16 interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” when she asked: “Who thinks you go forward on a health care plan that’s going to … knock 13 million people off health care?”
But, again, they wouldn’t all be booted or knocked off the insurance rolls.
In 2025, if the mandate was rescinded, an estimated 5 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid; 5 million fewer people would get insurance through the nongroup or individual market; 3 million fewer people would get insurance through their employer; and as many as 500,000 fewer would no longer have some other form of health insurance.
CBO and JCT say “those effects would occur mainly because healthier people would be less likely to obtain insurance and because, especially in the nongroup market, the resulting increases in premiums would cause more people to not purchase insurance.”
The altered Senate bill would effectively nullify the individual mandate by removing the penalty payment. In their report, CBO and JCT say that would produce an outcome similar to an outright repeal of the insurance requirement.
“If the individual mandate penalty was eliminated but the mandate itself was not repealed, the results would be very similar to those presented in this report,” the analysts say. “In CBO and JCT’s estimation, with no penalty at all, only a small number of people who enroll in insurance because of the mandate under current law would continue to do so solely because of a willingness to comply with the law.”
Schumer’s office argued that the joint analysis actually supports the senator’s claim.
“If premiums become unaffordable to the point that people forgo health insurance, we think it’s more than fair to say this is the same as kicking people off health care,” his office wrote in an email to FactCheck.org.
Healthier people opting out would increase average premiums in the individual or nongroup market by 10 percent in most years, CBO and JCT say. That, in turn, would cause some others not to purchase coverage for financial reasons.
Still, expected premium hikes wouldn’t force all 13 million out of the insurance market. The report doesn’t say how many would willingly give up insurance and how many would be priced out of the market.
Rising premiums wouldn’t even necessarily account for all of the decline in the number of Americans who purchase their own insurance on the nongroup market. It also wouldn’t be a deciding factor for the estimated 5 million who would have otherwise enrolled in Medicaid.
In some cases, higher premiums would be offset by higher government subsidies in the form of premium tax credits for those eligible to receive them. As of March 2017, 84 percent of people purchasing health insurance through federal and state marketplaces received premium tax credits, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The fact is, the CBO and JCT say that many of the 13 million, perhaps most of them, wouldn’t keep or obtain coverage because they wouldn’t be penalized for not doing so. That’s not the same as saying 13 million people will be kicked off their plans.