Mediaboss Marketing

The limits of constitutionally protected speech and freedom of assembly are being put to the test in Charlottesville.

In less than two weeks, members of the National Socialist Movement, the pro-secessionist League of the South and hundreds of their allies in the Nationalist Front and alt-right movement will gather in Emancipation Park for the Unite the Right rally.

Arranged by self-described pro-white activist Jason Kessler, the rally is expected to also draw hundreds of confrontational counter-protesters who will be able to gather at McGuffey and Justice parks, per event permits recently secured by University of Virginia professor Walt Heinecke.

While the stage for Aug. 12 is nearly set, with massive demonstrations and protesters expected, questions regarding the enforcement of law and order remain.

City officials said they have been working with Kessler to relocate the rally elsewhere because of the number of people the event is expected to draw to the downtown area. Kessler, however, does not want to change venues, according to authorities.

The director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression says the city is allowed to move the event in order to maintain public safety and prevent disruption to traffic and business downtown.

They should be able to relocate it to a more suitable location, said the centers director, Clay Hansen. As long as its for legitimate reasons and they dont try to minimize or hide the rally in some far-off corner of the city.

S. Carolina group moves event to Darden Towe Park

An attorney supporting Kessler, however, says the city is prohibited from doing so.

It would be ridiculously unconstitutional for the city to try to move the event elsewhere on that basis, said Kyle Bristow, an attorney and director of the Michigan-based Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas, a self-described nonpartisan civil liberties nonprofit.

The groups board of directors includes Mike Enoch, a white nationalist commentator and podcaster. Enoch will be one of the featured speakers at the Unite the Right rally.

In an email last week, Bristow said his recently founded legal network is quickly becoming the legal muscle behind the alt-right movement. The alt-right is considered a far-right movement that combines elements of racism, white nationalism and populism while rejecting mainstream conservatism, political correctness and multiculturalism.

Two local conservative activists are distancing themselves from Jason Kessler, who invited anti-Semitic and white nationalist speakers to headline his rally.

Earlier this year, according to Bristow, his organization helped coordinate the legal case that led to an Alabama court requiring Auburn University to let white nationalist Richard Spencer speak on campus. Auburn settled the case earlier this year with a $29,000 payout to cover the legal fees of the student who filed the suit, according to the universitys student-run newspaper, The Auburn Plainsman.

In recent weeks, business owners, activists and others have commented on the possibility of violence at the rally, sometimes comparing it to the melees between self-styled anti-fascist protesters and alt-right ideologues at protests in Berkeley, California, earlier this year.

In a letter to city officials last week, Bristow said law enforcement officials could potentially deprive the right-wing activists of their constitutional rights if authorities do not prevent leftist thugs from attacking people at the rally.

If the Charlottesville Police Department stands down on Aug. 12, it would not be farfetched to postulate that the alt-right rally participants will stand up for their rights by effectuating citizens arrests or by engaging in acts of self-defense, Bristow said.

It would be imprudent, reckless, unconstitutional and actionable for the Charlottesville Police Department to not maintain order, he said, adding that anyone who interrupts the rally also could be sued.

Bristow alleged in his letter that Kessler recently was told that law enforcement officials would not have to intervene should left-wing protesters attack the rally attendees. A police spokesman refuted that claim Friday, saying that the department officials met with Kessler and a representative of his security staff earlier this month and discussed several security concerns.

At no time was Mr. Kessler informed officers would not take action against those that attempted or committed violence towards another, said Lt. Steve Upman.

Kessler did not reply to calls and messages last week.

Some suspect that the possible violence could be the result of intentional right-wing agitation, as local activists with Solidarity Cville have recently exposed posts on social media and far-right blogs in which supporters of Unite the Right rally seemed to revel in the possibility of violence and call on others to prepare for a fight.

Republicans and Democrats alike have cast the hardcore conservatives and populists associated with the alt-right movement as racist for its provocative leaders explicit anti-Semitism and unabashed calls for a white-ethno state.

While their beliefs and activism have turned off many, the rallys primary goal of protesting the citys effort to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee has caused some Southern heritage supporters and political moderates to become sympathetic to Kesslers cause.

But the slow revelation that the events extreme far-right elements will be met by liberals, leftists and anti-racists has scared others away.

Business owners say they are concerned for the safety of their businesses and patrons if the rally gets out of hand.

According to Albemarle County spokeswoman Lee Catlin, the organizers of the Patriot Movements planned 1Team1Fight event in Darden Towe Park, which was being relocated from Greenville, South Carolina, have called it off.

Catlin said the organizers reportedly canceled their event because of unknown variables with the opposition.

Earlier in the week, an organizer for the event, who goes by the name Chevy Love on Facebook, said the event was not affiliated with the Unite the Right rally, saying that she did not want to associate with any of the hate groups expected to attend, listing both left- and right-wing activist groups.

Earlier in the week, before the organizers canceled the event in Darden Towe Park, the National Socialist Movement announced that members will be in attendance at the Unite the Right rally to defend Free Speech and our Heritage at the Lee Monument.

In an interview, Butch Urban, the movements chief of staff, said the organization had been planning to attend the event after it was arranged by Kessler earlier this summer.

The event also will draw leaders and followers of other groups in the Nationalist Front, an alliance of groups such as the Traditionalist Worker Party and The League of the South all of which are united in working toward the creation of an ethno-state for white people.

Although National Socialism is typically cited as the definition of Nazi ideology, Urban said his organization is not a neo-Nazi group.

Thats what everybody takes it to be. Thats not what it is, Urban said. National Socialism is about your country and your people come first. You dont support wars around the world and giving billions of dollars to other countries.

As for the calls for a white-ethno state, Urban said multiculturalism has only been pushed down everyones throat in the last 30 to 40 years. Thats not what everyone wants, he said.

Take a look at Chicago, theres a prime example of multiculturalism, he added, citing the citys reputation of having high murder and unemployment rates.

In the decades following World War II, U.S. courts have grappled with the First Amendment questions involving Nazi demonstrations and displays. Many of those cases have determined that Nazi and white supremacist rhetoric is constitutionally protected speech.

And while many object to those ideals, authorities cannot justify restricting speech despite the threat of violence and public disorder a principle known as the Hecklers veto. Both Bristow and local attorney Lloyd Snook recently mentioned the doctrine in recent comments about the upcoming rally.

In First Amendment theory, it is fundamental that a government cannot regulate speech based on its content, including on the fact that some people may be hostile to it, Snook wrote on his law firms website.

Published earlier this month, about two weeks after a North Carolina chapter of the Ku Klux Klan held a rally in Justice Park to protest the planned removal of the Lee statue, Snook wrote that there has been a disturbing complaint about law enforcement being hand in hand with the Klan and white nationalists.

In fact, the city police department is required to preserve order to allow the demonstration to go forward, Snook said. This is not a matter of choice, but of constitutional law.

In his commentary, Snook cited the 1992 Supreme Court decision that invalidated an ordinance in Forsyth County, Georgia, that required fees for any parade, assembly or demonstration on public property.

According to Snook, the Forsyth County government passed the ordinance after a violent civil rights demonstration in 1987 cost over $670,000 in police protection.

Two years later, when the Nationalist Movement had to pay fees to hold a protest against the federal Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, the group sued the county.

The case eventually came before the Supreme Court, which in a 5-4 opinion decided that the countys ordinance violated the First Amendment. Snook said the court struck down that ordinance because it had the possibility of being applied such that it would cost more to express unpopular viewpoints.

In recent weeks, some opposed to the Unite the Right rally have called on the city to make sure that Kessler pays the associated fees and obtains a liability insurance policy of no less than $1 million that the city requires for special events.

In an email last week, city spokeswoman Miriam Dickler clarified that the city makes distinctions between demonstrations and special events, and that the two are not interchangeable under the citys regulations.

The differences are attributable to United States Supreme Court decisions involving the First Amendment, Dickler said.

According to the citys Standard Operating Procedure for special events, a demonstration is defined as a non-commercial expression protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (such as picketing, political marches, speechmaking, vigils, walks, etc.) conducted on public property, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers.

Regardless, she said that Kessler has provided a certificate of insurance voluntarily, and that the citys Special Events Coordinator has been communicating with Kessler since he filed the application.

Looking at another Supreme Court case, Hansen, of the local Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, said the courts 1977 decision in the National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie case feels closest to what were dealing with here in the city.

The case centered on a planned National Socialist demonstration in the village of Skokie, Illinois, which at the time had a large population of Jewish residents who survived detention in Nazi concentration camps or were related to a Holocaust survivor.

Fearing violence would be directed at the demonstrators who were planning to dress in Nazi-era uniforms with swastika armbands, a local court prohibited the event, an action that the U.S. Supreme Court later found to be unconstitutional in a 5-4 opinion.

In particular, the litigation in that didnt have to do with the march and the gathering itself it was more about symbols, Hansen said, explaining that the Supreme Court had to decide whether Nazi imagery could constitute fighting words, a legal distinction that prohibits some forms of speech that are likely to incite violence.

The court ultimately found that those symbols do not pass that threshold, which has in recent years largely fallen out of favor as doctrinal tool, Hansen said. Instead, the doctrine in recent years has morphed into a new rationale thats based on allowing authorities to stop speech that could lead to imminent lawless action, he said. Its useful if something goes wrong.

While the city could theoretically stop the Unite the Right rally as its happening, according to Hansen, its not a decision to take lightly, he said, adding that its unlikely that authorities will do so.

Its a high hurdle to legally justify stopping a demonstration, Hansen said.

The city has an obligation to handle any crowds that are on site as a result of a lawful and protected speech activity, he said. In a public park, and given the proper permit police are obliged to make sure that the event goes unimpeded.

Concerned that people protesting the Unite the Right could be arrested for participating in an unlawful assembly, Heinecke earlier this month applied to hold demonstrations at McGuffey Park and Justice Park.

At the Klan rally earlier this month, 22 people were arrested on various charges. About half of the arrests occurred after the rally had ended and authorities declared that the hundred or so people still on the street were illegally gathered. Authorities eventually used tear gas to force the crowd to disperse.

The best way to avoid that is to have some free-assembly zones at the parks, Heinecke said. He said the permits will allow the protesters to gather from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Aug. 12. The Unite the Right rally is scheduled for noon to 5 p.m.

Heinecke said there will be programming at the two parks. He declined to say which activist groups and organizations hes collaborating with to contend with Kesslers rally.

Alluding to the countrys legacy as it relates to racism against African-Americans, he said Charlottesville in particular has unfinished business when it comes to racial justice.

I think the city will be the epicenter of a conversation about racial justice in a new era were going toward with changing racial demographics, he said.

Asked about the alt-right activists concern that the nations changing demographics are tantamount to a displacement of white people, Heinecke said it saddens him that they are so fearful.

I think theyre operating out of fear rather than seeing an opportunity to create a diverse and equal society, he said.

Thats a sad thing when theres an opportunity to think about what the United States of America really means.

See the original post:
Unite the Right rally sparks First Amendment questions | Local ... - The Daily Progress

"It might have been" are not always the saddest words. Sometimes, they're the most horrifying.

Hillary Clinton in September will come out with a new book called "What Happened," about her loss to Donald Trump. That got me thinking: What would have happened had she won?

For instance, what if Clinton became president, Chuck Schumer assumed leadership of the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi once again wielded a gavel in the House of Representatives?

Sooner than you can say "political payback to Planned Parenthood," the United States would have had taxpayer-funded abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy.

Don't believe me? I offer as evidence Exhibit A the state of Oregon.

Oregon right now is not just blue, it's midnight blue verging on total darkness. Democrats control both houses of the state legislature and the state's executive branch. And they have just enacted the most radical, inhumane abortion law in the history of the U.S.

The new law, which Democratic Governor Kate Brown has gleefully pledged to implement, forces nearly all insurance plans in the state to include no-cost coverage for any and all abortions. Only houses of worship would be exempt from this abortion mandate a provision that bears some similarities to the Obama administration's HHS mandate, against which Priests for Life and others have prevailed in court. Faith-based hospitals, schools, and other charities are probably preparing lawsuits as you read this, if they haven't already.

But Oregon's law doesn't stop at free abortions for the insured. For women with no health insurance, Oregon has set aside millions of taxpayer dollars to pay for their abortions at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason, no questions asked.

Apparently, for the radicals that lead Oregon's Democratic Party, it was not enough that, prior to this legislation, their state was already the Wild West of abortions. There were no restrictions on the practice, not even rules found in most states such as waiting periods, parental notification, or limits on Medicaid-funded abortions.

But unfettered assembly line abortions were not enough. At least not enough to keep Planned Parenthood afloat.

Abortions in Oregon have been in steady decline. They dropped by 15 percent between 2011 and 2014; since 1980, the number has fallen by almost half. And fewer abortions is bad business for Planned Parenthood. Despite favorable legal conditions, the nation's biggest abortion business (and co-author of the Oregon bill) has had to close clinics in the state in the last few years.

President Ronald Reagan once said, "If you want more of something, subsidize it." Clearly, Oregon's Democrats and Planned Parenthood want more abortions.

So, why is Oregon's story evidence of what would have happened had Democrats seized control of Congress and the presidency last November? I offer as further evidence Exhibit B the 2016 Democratic Platform.

Last year, the Democrats made their platform the most pro-abortion it has ever been. Not content to declare "that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortionregardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured," the Democrats added language calling for the repeal of all federal and state laws that in any way restrict public funding for abortion.

In other words, the Democratic national platform calls for what Oregon has just done.

Aside from Oregon, there are only five other states where Democrats effectively control all the levers of power California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, and Rhode Island. Like Oregon, they're sanctuary states for those who literally rip babies apart.

Delaware this year passed what was, before Oregon's, the most pro-abortion law in the country. In the words of Delaware Right to Life, the measure "codifies abortion on demand for any and no reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy based upon the abortion doctor's good faith medical judgment.'"

Rhode Island Democrats tried to do what Delaware did, but a public outcry caused nine legislators to withdraw their support, killing the killing bill.

California, Connecticut, and Hawaii are also havens for the abortion industry. None have any real limits on abortions and all three use state Medicaid funds to pay for them.

Finally, should there be any doubt about what Democrats would have done had they won the elections, let's look at what they're trying to do now Exhibit C, the "Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA) of 2017."

WHPA is pending in Congress and is co-sponsored by 128 Democrats (66 percent of the House Democratic caucus). It would not only impose on every state a scheme of abortion through all nine months, it would also overturn virtually every state restriction on abortion, including parental notification and waiting periods. Further, it would bar any state from setting any health or safety standards for abortion clinics. It wouldn't even let states require abortionists to be doctors.

The Democratic Party's position on abortion is not mainstream; in fact, it is insanely extreme. Gallup has found that only 27 percent of the public thinks that abortion should be legal after the first three months of pregnancy, while only 14 percent say it should be legal after the first six months. That's not a stream of public opinion; it's barely a trickle.

And yet, in the states they control, Democrats are legalizing the abortion of almost-born babies for any reason at taxpayers' expense. There's no doubt that they'd do so on a national level if given the chance.

Those who are pro-abortion may long for "what might have been." For the rest of us, may it never be!

Father Frank Pavone (@frfrankpavone) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is the national director of Priests for Life.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Read the rest here:
What would abortion law now look like if Hillary Clinton had won? - Washington Examiner

Over the weekend, Democrats were all party poppers and fireworks over the failure of the Senate GOPs so-called skinny repeal of Obamacare. In reality, the defeat was no huge loss. The proposed repeal wasnt just skinny; it was dangerously undernourished. Waif supermodels from the 90s were shaking their heads and saying, Get that thing a hamburger, stat.

So left-wing media take one day off from calling John McCain a war criminal to call him a hero. Big deal. What we really needed was a McDonalds-for-every-meal, gravy-guzzling, obese repeal of Obamacare. The GOP failure to win the health care victory after seven years of anti-Obamacare hype and despite controlling the White House and both houses of Congress was an epic failure a club-soda-proof stain on the Republican brand going forward.

But even though the Left is shaking its anti-Trump pom-poms while the Right is licking its self-inflicted wounds, things arent so bad in Conservative-land. No matter what anti-Trump dramas the media cook up or which ones he conjures up with his own brand of pot-stirring magic, the American people are always winning because Hillary Clinton didnt move back to the White House.

Heres what the political landscape might look like if Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 election:

Act 1: The Judicial Branch (Who on Earth is Neil Gorsuch?)

In a world where Trump won the 2016 election, Justice Neil Gorsuch is a household name. Everyone knows the Cliff Notes version of the Trump appointee: Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court justice originalist loves the Constitution The late Antonin Scalia himself couldnt have chosen a better successor created 5-4 conservative SCOTUS majority.

If Hillary Clinton were president (insert full body shiver here), she would have appointed a living constitutionalist to the Supreme Court, and Democrat appointees would have had their first Supreme Court majority in almost 50 years. In a Clinton presidency, conservatives would have been doing back flips if theyd managed to end up with left-of-center, failed Obama nominee Merrick Garland on the court.

The left-wing media love to wax apocalyptic on a daily basis and label President Trumps every word a threat to democracy. But what could threaten democracy more than a Supreme Court majority who believe that the Constitution changes not by the invocation of Article Five and subsequent ratification by three quarters of the states but on its own? President Trumps appointment of Justice Gorsuch stopped that from happening.

And the Supreme Court wouldnt be the only victim. Every day Hillary Clinton would be appointing activist judges to federal courts across the U.S.

Act 2: The Legislative Branch (Clinton Mandate + Malleable Moderate Republicans = R.I.P. Conservatism) Its bad enough having senators like John McCain, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski cross party lines to protect the status quo from conservatism. If she-who-must-not-be-named were president, theyd be crossing party lines to boost progressivism, and theyd probably start with an amnesty bill.

Moderate Republican senators would be falling all over themselves to join an amnesty bill. Remember the Gang of Eight Republicans Jeff Flake, Marco Rubio, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham who cooked up an amnesty deal with Democrats to the delight of then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell? No reason to think they wouldnt be on board for another globalist attack on American citizens. For good measure, throw in Collins and Murkowski, who arent exactly poster children for party discipline or conservative values.

Hop over to the south side of the Capitol, and youd find the House of Representatives Freedom Caucus rendered powerless. In Trumps America, they fight to make sure that the presidents agenda is implemented in the most conservative way possible. In Hillarys America, all the power in the House would belong to the Tuesday group a coalition of moderate Republicans that was created to counteract the supposedly too-conservative Freedom Caucus.

On every progressive nightmare of a bill, the Democrats magic number would be 12. Can the Democrats get 12 Tuesday Group Republicans to spend a fortune and grow the federal government? And the answer would always be yes. When Democrats cross the aisle to help Republicans the mainstream media go all Shark Week and rip them to shreds, but when Republicans cross the aisle to help Democrats, the mainstream media call them heroes. Just check out the McCain-is-a-hero headlines the senator scored this week with his big thumbs-down vote on the skinny repeal of Obamacare.

Hillarys agenda would have met with a score of giddy Republicans desperate for a kind word from The Washington Post or New York Times.

Act 3: The Executive Branch (Who Needs Congress When SheHas a Phone and a Pen?) If you-know-who had won in November, the deep state would have become the never-ending-pit state, and there would be no Jeff Sessions, Ben Carson, Betsy DeVos, Rick Perry, or Mad Dog Mattis fighting it. It would be the same characters we endured for the past eight years, along with a new batch of America Last, globalist warriors.

Since taking office, President Trump has signed dozens of executive orders, from minimizing the economic burden of Obamacareto hiring 5,000 more border control agents, to forcing agencies to slash extraneous regulations.

In short, Trump's executive orders have been focused on putting America first. There's no telling what sort of executive orders Hillary Clinton would have issued, but it's no stretch to assume that they would revolve around taking the status quo and making it more socialist. She certainly wouldn't roll back any of Obama's misguided phone-and-pen, who-needs-Congress, unilateral legislation.

A Hillary Clinton victory in 2016 would have been a mandate for swamp-ism, empowering the globalists in both parties, the special interests, and establishment politics. Whatever Trump drama du jour the media areserving up, every day that Clinton is far away from the presidency is a victory for the American people.

(photo credit, homepage and article images: Gage Skidmore, Flickr)

Eddie Zipperer is an assistant professor of political science at Georgia Military College and a regular LifeZette contributor.

See the article here:
What if Hillary Clinton Were President? - LifeZette

WASHINGTON (AP) Democrat Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election to President Donald Trump, but some Republicans in Congress are intensifying their calls to investigate her and other Obama administration officials.

As investigations into Russian meddling and possible links to Trumps campaign have escalated on both sides of the Capitol, some Republicans argue that the investigations should have a greater focus on Democrats.

Democrats who have pushed the election probes have started a war of investigative attrition, said GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa, a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Several officials from former President Barack Obamas administration and Clintons campaign have appeared before or been interviewed by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees as part of the Russia investigation, along with Trump campaign officials. The GOP-led committees are investigating whether Trumps campaign had any links to Russian interference in last years election.

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has continued a separate investigation into whether Obama administration officials inappropriately made requests to unmask identities of Trump campaign officials in intelligence reports.

The House Judiciary Committee, which has declined to investigate the Russian meddling, approved a resolution this past week to request documents related to the FBIs now-closed investigation of Clintons emails. In addition, Republican on that committee wrote the Justice Department on Thursday and asked for a second special counsel, in addition to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, to investigate unaddressed matters, some connected to the 2016 election and others, including many actions taken by Obama administration.

The American public has a right to know the facts all of them surrounding the election and its aftermath, the lawmakers wrote.

Republicans want to investigate the unmasking issue and also Clintons email scandal that figured prominently in the campaign. They also frequently bring up former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and former FBI Director James Comeys testimony that she told him to call the Clinton email investigation a matter instead of an investigation during the campaign.

Nunes wrote his own letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats last week, saying that his committee has learned that one Obama administration official had made hundreds of the unmasking requests.

Even though he remains committee chairman, Nunes stepped back from the Russia investigation earlier this year after he was criticized for being too close to the White House. Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, took over the leading role.

The committee has conducted bipartisan interviews of witnesses; Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner appeared on Tuesday, a day after talking to Senate staff. But partisan tensions have been evident.

GOP Rep. Pete King of New York, whos on the House Intelligence Committee, said after the Kushner interview that the committee investigation into Russian meddling is a sham.

To me there is nothing to this from the beginning, he said of his committees own probe. There is no collusion ... its the phoniest investigation ever.

Both the Senate and House committees have interviewed or expressed interest in interviewing a series of Democratic witnesses, including Obamas former national security adviser, Susan Rice, and former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power both of whom Republicans have said may be linked to the unmasking. Rice met with staff on the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month, and Power met with the panel Friday.

Ambassador Power strongly supports any bipartisan effort to address the serious threat to our national security posed by Russias interference in our electoral process, and is eager to engage with the Senate and House committees on the timeline they have requested, Powers lawyer, David Pressman, said in a statement.

Follow this link:
Republicans considering investigations into Hillary Clinton - 13abc Action News

Flickr

Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton dying in a boating accident that was sabotaged is fake news. There is no truth to a report that mother and daughter died following an accident on a boat. Where did this fake news originate?

Americas Last Line of Defense published the article on July 29, 2017, reporting that the mother and daughter died in a boating accident. You can read the fake news below.

Captain John Harkness was in command of the 32-foot yacht Hillary and Chelsea Clinton were enjoying themselves on when it suddenly jumped to full throttle and veered directly into a small marina. The accident, just offshore from Port Weatherly, North Dakota, was the first fatal crash on the states coast in over a decade.

At first, investigators were considering the possibility that the captain fell asleep at the wheel when they found an electronic device attached to the boats avionics and sonar array. The device had the ability to remotely control the operation of the craft from any mobile device.

It didnt matter that the craft was at such a tiny Lake Huron port or that the closest major city is Piedmont. The device was military grade sophisticated and worth more than $200K on the black market. Special Agent Lucas Enlaura of the FBI told LLODs Skip Tetheluda:

This was as professional a hit as you can possibly get. Now comes the fun part. Going down the list of people who would want to cause Hillary Harm. I know where we can get a list of about 62 million of them.

Shes right. Hillary Clinton is the most unpopular person to have ever run for office. She was bullied onto the Senate in a district where your neighbors dog has a better chance of being counted than you do if youre a conservative.

The investigation will start with the obvious, Bill Clinton, and then should focus on Benghazi so we can finally get some answers.

However, there is no truth to the above story. A simple search verifies that no major media outlet reported on this incident concerning the deaths of both Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Something of this nature would certainly be making headlines if there were any truth to it.

Here are some examples of people sharing the fake news on social media.

The Last Line of Defense, a web site known to publish only fabricated news. Last Line of Defenses disclaimer states the following:

DISCLAIMER: Americas Last Line of Defense is a satirical publication that uses the imagination of liberals to expose the extreme bigotry and hate and subsequent blind gullibility that festers in right-wing nutjobs. We present fiction as fact and our sources dont actually exist. Names that represent actual people and places are purely coincidental and all images should be considered altered and do not in any way depict reality.

What did you think of the fake news about Hillary and Chelsea Clinton dying in a boating accident? Did you believe it or see people sharing it falsely on social media? Let us know in the comments section.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore, Flickr

Webcast, August 1st: SEO: How to Outrank Your Competitors on Google (Our Step-by-Step Process)

Read more here:
Hillary Clinton And Chelsea Clinton Killed In A Sabotaged Boating Accident Is Fake News - Business 2 Community