James Strikes Back, People Forced To Listen

I recently discussed Twitter’s suspension of Project Veritas Action’s James O’Keefe. At the time of that post, I questioned whether the videos O’Keefe and his undercover reporters were the cause of the ban. As O’Keefe pointed out, Twitter’s rationale was a tweet naming Wylie Mao, the Clinton campaign staffer, in a link to the Project Veritas Action video itself.

At the same time, I also wondered if any of this stuff would make a difference.  Would people previously blind to exposed rank and file corruption see the light of day through O’Keefe’s videos? They were great evidence low-level people didn’t care, but could they directly implicate any of the higher-ups in the Clinton organization? In short, would any of this have an effect on the public? Finally, why didn’t the mainstream media discuss any of these videos?

Over the last forty-eight hours, Project Veritas Action has released two videos detailing even more damning evidence of corruption in the Clinton campaign. O’Keefe claims new videos will be released each day until November 8, Election Day. Part one of the expose involves how Democratic PACs deliberately organized incidents to “incite violence” at Trump rallies and events.

After this video’s release, Scott Foval was fired from Americans United For Change. According to O’Keefe, this video sparked request after request for comment from Project Veritas Action and requests for interviews and appearances on television. Each, James said, was spiked at the last minute due to fears of retaliation from a Hillary Clinton administration.

Yesterday’s release was even more damning. Here, Bob Creamer of Democracy Partners and Scott Foval discuss ways to commit voter fraud on a massive scale with Project Veritas Action reporters. They also talk with Cesar Vargas, founder of the Dream Action Coalition, about ways to influence the Latino vote. In a time when claims of this election being “rigged” are ringing in conservative circles, and dismissed at the highest levels of establishment power, this video was too much to ignore.

After the release of this video, people cried out en masse. They demanded the videos and their footage get coverage in mainstream circles. They not only got their wish, Project Veritas claimed another scalp as Robert Creamer, the “dark hat” Scott Foval expresses such adulation for “resigned” from Democracy Partners.

Click the link above. Go to the CNN story. Watch the video. It’s important that you see the way mainstream media frames the stories they want you to hear.

Video produced by discredited conservative activist James O’Keefe…

Both the Clinton Campaign and the DNC denounce any role in any sort of violence…

They insist it was “bar room talk” and none of what was discussed actually happened…

Project Veritas has been known to offer misleading video out of context…

James O’Keefe, they add, is a convicted criminal, with a history of doctoring video to advance his ideological agenda…

CNN, finally forced to cover O’Keefe’s work, also noted in their video the DNC plans to “investigate” O’Keefe to see if he did anything illegal in obtaining the video footage that makes up his videos. This says several things about the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and this election cycle.

  1. The mainstream press is afraid to cover anything negative about Hillary Clinton, because they want to be on her good side if and when she assumes the office of President of the United States.
  2. If they are forced to discuss something negative about Clinton or her campaign, they will resort to the lowest tactics possible in an attempt to discredit the source or tell their audience “move along, nothing to see here.”
  3. Any “investigation” into O’Keefe’s videos gives Project Veritas Action more credibility with each release. If there’s truly nothing going wrong, they wouldn’t feel a need to address the video content.
  4. Discussing any criminal record James O’Keefe is a tired cliche the media uses every time they want to discredit a person or source. It’s the same as “He had priors” when discussing a victim of a police shooting or “negative interaction.” This time they’re using it for political reasons.

Go to Project Veritas Action’s YouTube page. Subscribe so you get the updates as they come out. They’ve shaken the establishment badly enough to where they’re forced to respond, and now the lying mainstream media has no choice but to comment on that which they feared the most: truth.

In the meantime, let’s see where James O’Keefe leads us next.

What Weight Are You Carrying?

Today let’s talk about the notion of weight.  I’m not just talking about in the physical health sense, I want to discuss this in the form of mental wellness too.

Whenever I drive my wife’s car and place my briefcase and file folder on the passenger seat, I have to almost immediately put everything inside the passenger seat floorboard.  I do this because if I don’t, then the “fasten seatbelt” alarm will start to go off.

That’s how much weight I carry with me on a given basis: I have enough in my briefcase and in my file folder to set off an alarm in my wife’s car that says a person is sitting there absent a seatbelt.

How much weight are you carrying with you each day, when you go to work and come home?  There are some attorneys I know who work in child support court that stopped carrying heavy briefcases; they just roll carts of files into their respective courtrooms.  That’s especially true when it comes to trials.

Now let’s talk about physical weight.  Most people in the legal profession, or in society at large, are carrying too much weight on their physical frames at any given time.  This is largely due to dietary issues, but it could be any number of problems.  It’s bad for them.  When you weigh too much, and there’s no support structure there for that weight, you’re literally crushing your organs and sacrificing your health for no good reason other than you don’t want to change.

People don’t want to go through the work of losing weight, though, and that’s why we encounter terms like “fat-shaming” or “body-shaming.”  They’d rather live life completely unhealthy, cramming food down their throats they know is bad for them but is “comforting.”  They don’t want to eat vegetables, and they’d rather drink beer and eat hot wings.

That justification leads to another kind of mental weight people don’t want to carry.  They know in their heart of hearts what they’re doing is bad for or damaging to them; they just would prefer to live a life of comfort instead of doing the work necessary to drop the weight.  The mental “incongruency” they encounter is so damaging to them that it leads to a self-destructive cycle.

Which leads me to talk about the last kind of weight people carry.  It’s normally called “baggage.”  I’m going to term it “spiritual weight.”

When you go through life, you encounter situations that may stick with you.  It may be a failed marriage or a bad business deal.  Maybe it’s an ex-girlfriend or boyfriend from high school you can’t shake.  Or a person you thought was a mentor that betrayed you.  Regardless, if you carry with you the negative emotions and feelings that experience gave you it will affect the rest of your life.  It’s now “baggage” you’ll be carrying with you through every experience until you drop it.

When looking at “spiritual weight” or “emotional baggage,” visualize yourself at an airport with all that baggage you want to take on your next journey.  These days, if your baggage weighs too much, you pay a monetary penalty.  You also have certain size and shape restrictions on the personal items and carry-ons you take with you on a plane.  If you don’t fit those specific issues, then you pay a penalty.  You may not even be able to go on your journey unless you drop that baggage!

Until the next time, I challenge you to think strongly about what “weight” you’re carrying you don’t need.  Is it work-related?  Physical fat?  Or something deeper inside of you preventing your conflict-free life?

Drop the weight.  Live better.

The latest Collaborative Compound Podcast is on Weight, which you can find here.