The Senator’s Lie: How Political Pretexts Work

The Senator’s Lie: How Political Pretexts Work

By Deborah Lewis – St. Louis Digital News

When corrupt politicians want to rape the taxpayers and put your taxes in their pockets they create what is known as a “pretext”

Here are some common political “pretexts”:

“Hate Speech” = We thought we controlled the news but now the public has found out about our crimes so we need this excuse to help Google, Twitter and Facebook censor any news about our crimes

“Black Lives Matter” = The DNC needs to get Blacks to vote Democrat so they can swell the voter rolls so that Dianne Feinstein and her husband can steal more money in crony DNC deals

“Open Borders” = The DNC needs to get Browns to vote Democrat so they can swell the voter rolls so that Dianne Feinstein and her husband can steal more money in crony DNC deals and Mark Zuckerberg needs this cheap labor

“Reduce Regulations” = Bankers want to do whatever they want and so to hell with the public

SAN FRANCISCO CORRUPTION_ Senator Feinstein___s Payola!

There are many Political Pretexts under way currently, but the one that has cost American taxpayers the most money is the “War on Terror’. That is a six trillion dollar loss to date with an expenditure of $250 million per day. U.S. Senators make stock market profits off of it! It is followed closely by the “War on Drugs”. These two wars may have stopped some bad things but the federal budget folks call most of that money a “loss”. The only winners were the Senators who put the stock market profits from those efforts in their families bank accounts and trust funds.

The biggest, most criminally corrupt pretext in history is called the “Green Cash Crash”. The highest level politicians from Washington, DC, New York, Nevada, California and Vermont joined a cabal which raped the taxpayers of their rights, their money, their companies, their votes, and their jobs under the guise of “saving Polar bears”.

The Green Cash Crash was put together by Silicon Valley billionaires and the politicians that they had in their pockets: Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein, Al Gore, Harry Reid, Steven Chu, Matt Rogers, Jerry Brown, Ken Alex, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, and that gang of political prostitutes. These corrupt politicians put the Green Cash scam together and put billions of dollars of profit in their bank accounts from it. The taxpayers LOST billions of dollars from it!

The “Paradise Papers Leaks”, The “Panama Papers Leaks” and Congressional investigations now prove these assertions to be true!

These politicians pocketed billions of dollars in personal stock market, search rigging and cash profits while causing their constituents to lose billions of dollars to their monopolistic Cartel. They controlled the cover-up by using their ownership of the main stream news, Hollywood and Google/Facebook/Twitter’s lock-up of the internet.

CBS News 60 Minutes TV Show did some segments about how their scam worked. The segments were called “The Lobbyists Playbook”, “Congress Trading on Insider Information” and “The Cleantech Crash”. When you watch all 3 of these segments on the CBS website, one after the other, you will be sickened by the audacious criminal culture that these politicians have built for themselves.

In 2006 these politicians decided that they could control who would be President by using Google/Facebook/Twitter to manipulate Obama and then Clinton into office. As we all now know, Obama and Clinton had made some dirty mining deals with Russians, worth trillions of dollars, and they promised the exclusives on those deals to Silicon Valley’s billionaire owners of Google/Facebook/Twitter/Tesla/Solyndra, etc.

The pretext that the Obama and Clinton insiders had agreed to was that “everybody will die from Earthquakes and 1000 foot high walls of water if we don’t change the climate”. You have now seen proof in the news that government scientists were ordered to make up data that would sell this story in order to put cash in these politicians pockets.

You have now seen proof in the news that Obama and Clinton’s personal friends were the only ones who were ever allowed to receive the government cash that would stop this fictional 1000 foot high wall of water.

Thousands of companies offered solutions to stop the apocalypse of “sad Polar bears” and “water walls”, but, for some strange and ironic reason, the only ones that ever got funding to save those Polar bears happened to be the best friends of the politicians. In an even more ironic turn of events, the handful of companies that got the money to save the Polar bears (ie: Tesla, Solyndra, Abound, Ener1, Fisker) just happened to have their stock owned by those very same politicians. In an even stranger coincidence, many of these politicians had been doing business with Russian mobsters!

Isn’t that the most amazing coincidence in history?

To be crystal clear: Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein, Al Gore, Harry Reid, Steven Chu, Matt Rogers, Jerry Brown, Ken Alex, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, and that gang of political prostitutes made up a story about an emergency that never existed so that they could take billions of your tax dollars and put it in their own pockets.

They used a “magic mirror” trick. They said “Look over here at me waving my hands to save this cute Polar bear…” “…you wouldn’t question saving a cute Polar bear would you?” …and, as they pathetically waved their hands on one side of the mirror, they passed your money to their friends and stock-brokers on the other side of the mirror, where you could not see it being done.

These people are criminal whores who lied to you and stole your money and your America.

Demand that they be arrested!


Silicon Valley Corporations funnel money to a Dark Money front group who, in turn, sends out character assassins AGAINST opponent of the corporation and FOR shill candidates like Harris, Pelosi, Feinstein, Breed, etc. who covertly work for the corporation. When the shill candidate gets elected, they support the agenda of the corporation and steer government funds to the corporation and against the corporations competitors.

Millions in Dark Money Flows to Pro-Abortion And Pro Illegal Immigrant Groups Through Elon Musk Facades And Fake Charities

Musk helps establish ‘pop-up’ political manipulation groups and acts as a pass-through funding scam conduit for political financiers

A dark-money network of political manipulation groups and initiatives has pushed millions in funding to organizations that advocate for abortions and left-wing extremism.

Musk establishes groups under trade, or fictitious, names, and acts as their “fiscal sponsor,” which allows the groups to avoid filing public returns to the Internal Revenue Service. The network also acts as a “pass-through” entity for left-wing donors, who do not have to mark their money as going to the exact group that they are funding, but rather can make out the contributions to the particular arm in the Musk Dark Money empire where the group is located.

One such similar group managed by Arabella: “Lady Parts Justice”, falls under its Sixteen Thirty Fund arm, which hosts 501(c)4 “social welfare” entities. Eric Kessler, a former Bill Clinton appointee and member of the Clinton Global Initiative, founded Arabella and acts as president of the Sixteen Thirty Fund.

Lady Parts Justice bills itself as “the first not safe for work, rapid response reproductive rights messaging hub that uses comedy, culture and digital media to sound the alarm about the terrifying erosion of access to reproductive rights.” The group, which shares controversial content on its website, routinely posts messages of support for abortion on social media and came out in opposition to efforts to ban third-trimester abortions.

Lizz Winstead, the co-creator of the Daily Show, leads the group and announced in late May that Lady Parts Justice and its sister Lady Parts Justice League, which falls under another arm at Arabella, would be changing their names to the “Abortion Access Force” and the “Abortion Access Front.” The group stated on their website that their old names made them sound like “radical anti-trans, exclusionary creeps” and wanted the names to be more inclusive for all genders. “Let’s be clear: not all ladies have uteruses,” the group wrote. “And not everyone with a uterus identifies as a woman. Full stop.”

The Sixteen Thirty Fund has disbursed at least $779,000 in grants to groups that advocate for abortion between 2014 to 2017. This money also went to outside groups including a $100,000 to the National Institute for Reproductive Health, which works to “change state and local electoral and policy landscapes” in order to “galvanize” public support for abortion, and $485,000 to the Center for American Progress, which advocates for “reproductive rights.”

Abortion on Our Own Terms is a trade name registered to Arabella’s New Venture Fund arm, which houses 501(c)3 nonprofit groups, according to records filed to D.C.’s Consumer and Regulatory Department.

Abortion on Our Own Terms advocates for wide accessibility to the “abortion pill,” which allows women to self-manage an abortion in their homes. “There are many reasons one might prefer to end their own pregnancy at home. It may feel more natural, like having a miscarriage,” the group states on its website. The group envisions a future where “abortion pills [are] available openly” and can be “picked up at your local drug store or ordered online.”

All* Above All, another group at the Sixteen Thirty Fund, works to “build support for lifting the bans that deny abortion coverage” and support restoring public insurance coverage so that women “can get an affordable, safe abortion care when she needs it.”

“The name All* Above All reflects our positive and powerful belief that each of us, not just some of us, must be able to make the important decision of whether to end a pregnancy,” the group writes. “For too long, politicians have been allowed to deny a woman’s abortion coverage just because she is poor. We believe that the amount of money a woman has or doesn’t have should not prohibit her from having an abortion. We are uniting so every woman can make her own reproductive health decisions without political interference. We are standing up to say ‘enough.'”

The New Venture Fund gave at least $5.9 million in grants to groups that advocate for abortion between 2012 and 2017, according to its tax forms.

Arabella has facilitated a total of $1.6 billion in stealth contributions from Democratic donors to political manipulation groups in recent years, the Capital Research Center found in a recent investigation.

“The line between philanthropy and political advocacy at Arabella is blurry indeed. Most of the projects hosted by the four Funds and financed by Arabella’s donors advocate for controversial positions on social issues, for the expansion of government—or both,” the center said. “Yet thanks to the unique financial arrangements of the network and the lack of donor disclosure, it is impossible to trace which organization pays for the various campaigns and political movements spawned by Arabella’s Funds.”

The Democracy Alliance, the left’s largest dark-money donor network, additionally uses Arabella to push money to some groups and initiatives that its secretive members back. Members of the alliance have pushed more than $1.83 billion into progressive infrastructure since its inception in 2005, according to internal documents previously obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Scott Nielson, Arabella’s managing director, has worked with the Democracy Alliance. The Democracy Alliance has also been paid hundreds of thousands from Arabella’s Sixteen Thirty Fund for consulting services in the past, tax forms show.

Arabella did not return a request for comment by press time.

The Dark Money Tactics That California Tech Oligarchs And Dirty Senators Use To Rig Policy That They Own Stock In

What is Dark Money?

Dark Money refers to political spending meant to influence the decision of a voter, where the donor is not disclosed and the source of the money is unknown. Depending upon the circumstances, Dark Money can refer to funds spent by a political nonprofit or a super PAC. Here’s how:

  • Political nonprofits are under no legal obligation to disclose their donors. When they choose not to, they are considered Dark Money groups.
  • Super PACs can also be considered Dark Money groups in certain situations. While these organizations are legally required to disclose their donors, they can accept unlimited contributions from political non-profits and “shell” corporations who may not have disclosed their donors, in these cases they are considered Dark Money groups.

Dark Money groups account for staggering gaps in understanding exactly how each funding dollar is being spent during political elections. These gaps are becoming wider with every election cycle. Political organizations working to influence the 2016 elections outside party or official campaign structures spent more than $15 million in 2015, and only reported about $5 million of that to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). For comparison, that $5 million alone is more than ten times more than what had been reported at this point in 2011, before the last presidential election cycle.

Infographic: See how Dark Money flows between nonprofits

Click the image to view the full infographic.

Types of Election Spending

Political jargon can get confusing. What you need to know about spending to influence elections is that there are two main types.

Hard money: traditional political spending

With this kind of spending, donors must be disclosed, contribution limits apply and organizations are allowed to coordinate their efforts to help elect a candidate. This is not Dark Money. These groups include candidate committees, political parties, and traditional Political Action Committees (PAC).

Soft money: outside political spending

Outside spending — sometimes referred to as independent or non-coordinated — spending refers to political expenditures made by organizations and individuals other than the candidate campaigns themselves. All outside groups that aren’t political parties — except for a few traditional PACs that make independent expenditures — are allowed to accept unlimited sums of money from individuals, corporations, or unions. With these donations, groups can engage in a number of direct political activities, including buying advertising that advocates for or against a candidate, going door to door, or running phone banks. However, these organizations are not allowed to coordinate their spending with political candidates or parties. While some outside groups — like super PACs — are required to disclose their donors, others are not. These nondisclosing organizations are referred to as Dark Money groups.

As the chart below illustrates, Dark Money groups are growing in size, scope, and share of election spending with each election cycle.

Graph: Outside Spending by Nondisclosing Groups, Excluding Party Committees

Based on data released daily by the FEC. Last update on December 07, 2017.

Types of Dark Money Spending

Whenever money is spent in a political election with the purpose of influencing the decision of a voter and the source of the money is not disclosed, it is Dark Money. The most common organizations shielding their sources of money are outlined in greater detail.

501(c) Groups / Political Nonprofits

These are nonprofit, tax-exempt groups organized under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. These groups can engage in varying amounts of political activity. And because they are not technically political organizations, they are not required to disclose their donors to the public. These groups, like super PACs, cannot coordinate with political parties or candidates and therefore are allowed to raise unlimited sums of money from individuals, organizations and corporations.

One of the biggest problems with nondisclosure is that citizens who are barraged with political messages may not be able to consider the credibility and possible motives of the wealthy corporate or individual funders behind those messages.

Types of 501(c) Organizations

There are a number of different types of 501(c) organizations; their structures, uses, and capabilities vary slightly. None of these organizations are required to publicly disclose the identity of their donors or sources of money.

Benefits of being a 501(c) organization/political nonprofit

  • Operate without incurring tax liability.
  • Mask the true nature of a highly political organization through non-disclosure.
  • Ability to disguise the true nature of a highly political organization through non-disclosure.
  • Take donations from individuals and corporations that may not want shareholders or customers to know they’re taking a stand on a controversial topic.
  • Disclose financial activity long after it has taken place.

The chart below illustrates the increased spending by various types of 501(c) organizations over the last several election cycles.

Graph: 501(c) Spending by Type
View totals by:

Based on data released daily by the FEC. Last update on December 07, 2017.

Super PAC

Technically known as independent expenditure committees, super PACs may raise and spend an unlimited amount of money and accept contributions from companies, nonprofits, unions and individuals.

Since super PACs cannot give money directly to candidates, they are exempt from the limits on fundraising and spending that regular PACs must abide by. Super PACs may raise and spend an unlimited amount of money and accept contributions from companies, nonprofits, unions and individuals.

Despite the sometimes inaccurate portrayal of them in the media, super PACs must identify all of their donors to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and thereby to the public. They must do so on a monthly or semiannual basis in non-federal election years and monthly in the year of an election. In that sense, they are quite transparent, except when the donor is a shell corporation or a nonprofit that doesn’t disclose its donors. In these cases, they are Dark Money groups.

While super PACs are not allowed to coordinate any of their independent expenditures with a candidate’s campaign, many are run by people who are personally close to a candidate or formerly associated with a campaign.

Hybrid PACs (Carey Committees)

A Carey Committee is a hybrid PAC that is not affiliated with a candidate and has the ability to operate both as a traditional PAC, contributing funds to a candidate’s committee, and as a super PAC that makes independent expenditures. To do so, Carey committees must have a separate bank account for each purpose. The committee can collect unlimited contributions from almost any source for its independent expenditure account, but may not use those funds for its traditional PAC contributions.

Limited Liability and Shell Companies

Limited Liability Companies (LLC) perform a number of necessary business functions. However, their unique structure can easily be abused or utilized in order to hide less than above-board activity. In politics, LLCs are sometimes established to help disguise the identity of a donor or source of money spent on behalf of a political candidate.

LLCs are governed by state law, but generally, minimal information is necessary to file the required articles of incorporation. While most states require the LLC name, address and a registered agent/founding member, in Delaware and a few other states an LLC can be incorporated without even having to name a registered agent.

The lax requirements surrounding LLCs have not gone unnoticed. A 2006 report by the Department of Treasury condemned their lack of transparency, especially in states that allow anonymous ownership, saying they are “inherently vulnerable to abuse,” and can facilitate the movement of billions of dollars for everything from credit card fraud to terrorist financing. These same loopholes have made LLCs attractive vehicles with which move political money into organizations while protecting the identity of the donor or source of money.

The 2012 case of W Spann LLC is an excellent example of how an LLC was used to enable an anonymous contribution from a wealthy individual that made its way into the presidential election. W Spann’s only business activity in the four months it existed was making a $1 million contribution to a pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future PAC. That was just one of a handful of such contributions that have provided millions of dollars to super PACs over the last few cycles.

This lack of accountability and transparency have helped disguise the source of millions of dollars in political spending each election cycle. This complete lack of transparency and accountability makes LLCs the darkest of the dark money groups.

Level of Disclosure

While some outside groups — like super PACs — are required to disclose their donors, others are not, such as 501(c)(4)s. Both types of organizations can engage in a number of activities, including buying ads that advocate for or against a candidate, running phone banks and making contributions to super PACs.

Even groups that are required to disclose their donors do not disclose them in real time. In many cases, much of the money that has been donated is not disclosed until long after the election cycle.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center:

Facebook let select Dark Money campaign financiers have “special access” to user data, per report

Such data sharing was supposed to have been fully cut off in 2015, but it wasn’t.


Facebook maintained secret deals with a handful of companies, allowing them to gain “special access to user records,” long after it cut off most developers’ access to such user data back in 2015, according to a new Friday report by the Wall Street Journal, citing court documents it did not publish and other unnamed sources.

These arrangements, which were known as “whitelists,” reportedly allowed “certain companies to access additional information about a user’s Facebook friends,” including phone numbers.
Numerous companies, including the Royal Bank of Canada and Nissan Motor Company, apparently maintained such deals.
Ime Archibong, Facebook’s vice president of product partnerships, told the Journal that the company had allowed some companies to have “short-term extensions” to this user data.
“But other than that, things were shut down,” he said.
The new report on Facebook is separate from the other disclosure of data sharing with 60 device makers, and the other recent revelation that a “bug” made private posts of 14 million users public.
The news comes as Facebook is attempting to rehabilitate its public image. Since April 25, Facebook has run a national marketing campaign, including television spots that have aired during the NBA Finals, in an attempt to improve the company’s image and its “commitment to doing better.”
“People come to Facebook first and foremost to connect with friends and family, however they have concerns about issues on the platform like fake news, data misuse, click bait, and spam,” Lisa Stratton, a company spokeswoman, emailed Ars earlier this week. “We are taking a broader view of our responsibilities, and we hope this campaign will show that we take that responsibility seriously and are working to improve Facebook for everyone.”
Facebook did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.
UPDATE 8:09pm ET: Spokeswoman Katy Dormer told Ars that Facebook would not provide a full list of the companies that Facebook provided such extensions to.
When asked why Facebook users should continue to trust the company given the recent post-Cambridge Analytica spat of news stories involving previously unknown data sharing deals and errors, she said that Facebook takes its responsibility to protect users’ data “very seriously.”
Dormer added that the court documents the Journal was referring to had to do with an ongoing legal dispute involving a company known as Six4Three, which has sued Facebook multiple times in the Superior Court of San Mateo County and also federal court in San Francisco in recent years.
She also provided a statement from Archibong.
“For the most part this is a rehash of last week-end’s New York Times story — namely that we built a set of device integrated APIs used by around 60 companies to create Facebook-like experiences,” he wrote.
“In April 2018, we announced that we were winding these down. In terms of our Platform APIs, the Journal has confused two points. In 2014, all developers were given a year to switch to the new, more restricted version of the API. A few developers including Nissan and RBC asked for a short extension — and those extensions ended several years ago. Any new ‘deals’, as the Journal describes them, involved people’s ability to share their broader friends’ lists — not their friends’ private information like photos or interests — with apps under the more restricted version of the API.”