Protect the FBI and the Rule of Law From Trump And His Traitors

I am all for keeping a close watch on law enforcement including the FBI but when it comes to law enforcement agencies the FBI is very trust worthy because they recruit the best of the best.

Trump and the other traitors are attacking the FBI and Robert Mueller who has shown himself to be a man of honor throughout his entire life whereas Trump has shown himself to be a scoundrel and a known criminal throughout his entire life.

ALSO READ: 

Flynn’s indictment tightens the noose on Trump’s White House

Did Donald Trump commit treason? | MSNBC - NBC News

Will Trump Be Impeached? His Aides Committed 'Treason And ...

White House denies Donald Trump Jr. committed treason

Conservatives want the FBI demolished — to protect Donald ...

The FBI has kept us safe from terrorists for decades now and there is no telling how many innocent American lives they have saved with their professionalism and diligence. As Americans, we rely on the FBI to solve crimes and help put bad people behind bars but with that said law enforcement agencies rely on us for our trust and our help in solving crimes. Of course we should never give up our rights to law enforcement but that doesn't mean that we should not give law enforcement our trust and cooperation in reporting solving crimes. In spite of there being some bad cops, law enforcement remains and honorable profession made up with mostly honorable and patriotic Americans. The same cannot be said of Trump and his band of thieves, liars, spies and traitors.

A Nation of Laws Not of Men 

The Alt-Righties and many libertarians don't just hate the American government, they hate the very idea of government because they hate the rule of law. They whine about "their rights" but they don't give a rat's ass about your rights. They lack the morals and maturity to even consider that where your rights begin, their rights end. If they want to criticize the FBI that is their right and if they have legitimate complaints about the FBI or any other law enforcement agency it is not just their right to point fingers, it is their duty as citizen to hold law enforcement responsible to the rule of law but when it is a ruse and a sleazy political maneuver  to protect a known traitor and criminal it not only become obstruction of justice it becomes treason.

Treason Abounds!

Leading GOP Strategist Labels Trump and His Supporters Traitors

It is painfully apparent that Trump and his twisted supporters, including some Republicans holding high political office, will refuse to answer Wilson’s question. However, there are many Trump adherents among the religious right who embrace Trump based on his reverence and adoration of Putin because he designated Russia as a Christian nation and is an ardent foe of the LGBT community he enjoys hunting down and meting out punishment on. Other Republicans, primarily those in Congress, are embracing Trump and his love-interest Vladimir Putin because they desperately want to stay in dirty Don’s good graces; at least long enough to push through the mountains of Koch-ALEC legislation necessary to completely dismantle America.

Trumproids know in their black hearts that Russia attacked our political system yet they pretend to deny it. That's TREASON! They also cannot possibly blow off the numerous reports that Putin ordered an attack on this country, or the Russian deputy  minister’s admission that Moscow was in constant contact with Trump’s staff throughout the campaign for the sole purpose of electing Putin’s puppet Trump as president.  A lot more people than Mike Pence, Kellyanne, Conway, Jeff Sessions, Jared Kushner, Flynn, Carter Page and Paul Manafort should be facing the firing squad or the hangman's noose, Trump's disinformation trolls should be found and executed and Trump's trolls in should be killed along with Putin and every Russian oligarch. 

Trump is a Big Fat Lying Pig!

Bing vs Google

Bing Challenge research study

In an online survey conducted by Answers Research among 1,054 online respondents, the majority of participants chose Bing search results over Google’s.

Bing It On - Bing versus Google Challenge. Would you bet ...

Bing produces better results and that's a proven fact. 

Bing doesn't spy on you and Google does.

Bing has never been fined for breaking the law and violating people's privacy and security.

How and why to switch from Google to Bing | PCWorld

WARNING! GOOGLE WILL HARM YOUR COMPUTER

Google accounts hit with malware -- a million and ... - CNET

Google Docs scam: Don't open links without first checking ...

WARNING! GOOGLE INVADES YOUR PRIVACY!

4 insane ways Google has been invading our privacy - Salon.com

3 New Ways Google Glass Invades Your Privacy - Mic

Don't Want Google to Invade Your Privacy? Move to Mars ...

Microsoft lays into Google for 'invading Gmail users ...

GOOGLE CHROME SUCKS AND IT SPIES ON YOU!

Uninstall Google Chrome NOW!

Spying is Google's stock and trade and it shitty browser Google Chrome spies on you and it performs as badly as Firefox. Switch to Opera or Safari everything else sucks.

Google Silently Listens to your Conversation

This issue came to light by Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge, who says Google has silently installed black box code into the open-source Chromium browser, meaning it contains pre-compiled code that users cannot see.

Exactly what this black box does is still unclear, but Falkvinge claimed that Google is listening to the conversations of Chromium users through this black box of code.

Google eavesdropping tool installed on computers without ...

The 'black box' code enabled a feature that activates a search function on the browser when you say "Ok, Google," however the code enabled the microphone, as well as permitted to capture audios.

"Your computer has been stealth configured to send what was being said in your room to somebody else, to a private company in another country, without your consent or knowledge," says Falkvinge.

Will Trump Have Bannon Killed?

Trump is about as slimy as slimy gets. He's told over 2000 lies since taking office and he's made a lot of enemies within his own inner circles. One of those enemies is Steve Bannon. Bannon may be a snake but he is not the seasoned and savvy snake that Trump is. Steve Bannon is mostly a weasel with a big mouth and he is one weasel that really pissed of Trump and if that's not bad enough he was disloyal to Trump and if that's not bad enough, Bannon has enough dirt on Trump to not only get him impeached and sent to prison, Bannon has dirt on the entire Trump crime family.

Trump has very little if any honor. I will do anything to save his ass. He will also try to save the Ivanaka, Donald Jr, Eric Trump and his son in law Jarrod Kushner. Trump may try to put a hit out on Bannon. I doubt if Bannon will be shot but suspect Bannon's death will look like natural causes. Bannon would be smart of go into protective custody. Donald Trump is a very dangerous man with some very dangerous people in low and high places.

Usually with the Mafia if a don has suspicion that a contract was being taken out on him that don would order a preemptive hit. Bannon would have a tough time trying to put a hit on Trump unless he has some insiders at the Whitehouse -- perhaps a secret service agent who out of a sense of patriotism and love of country will assassinate Trump? Bannon could possibly buy somebody on the Trump staff but that is unlikely.

Bannon needs to hide even if it is in protective custody. Bannon needs to be careful what he eats of drinks and he should have a Geiger counter to protect himself from a Putin cocktail. A Putin cocktail is polonium. Polonium-210: Why is Po-210 so dangerous? Putin could see this as an opportunity of sink his claws even deeper into Trump and the Trump Whitehouse.

Related: 

Steve Bannon knows groveling is his only hope now ...

Trump’s Chief Strategist Steve Bannon Is Scared for His ...

Bannon may have some other major dirt on Trump and Bannon may have already informed people that is something happens to him, Trump was probably behind it.

Trump told Bannon to clam up at the House Intelligence Committee hearing and that is exactly what Sloppy Steve did but Bannon's unwillingness to cooperate caused special prosecutor Robert Mueller to issue a subpoena that will force Bannon to testify before a the grand jury. Bannon won't be able to stonewall the grand jury because he won't be allowed to have a lawyer present during his testimony and he won't be allowed to invoke the fifth amendment and if he lies he gets held in contempt of court and faces fines and prison. Bannon is FUCKED and if Trump doesn't have him killed Trump will also be FUCKED! 

Outgoing Virginia Governor Says He'd Deck Trump If Provoked Him

Outgoing Virginia governor says he'd deck Trump if provoked

FILE - In this Jan. 10, 2018 file photo, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe gestures as he addresses a joint session of the the 2018 session in the House chambers at the Capitol in Richmond, Va. McAuliffe told a national television audience he’d knock President Donald Trump to the floor if the president ever tried to intimidate him. During an interview Thursday, Jan. 11 on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Chris Matthews asked McAuliffe how he would respond if Trump tried to intimidate him during a debate by hovering over him, as he did in a 2016 debate with Hillary Clinton, a close friend of McAuliffe’s. (AP Photo/Steve Helber, File)

OP ED by Me Fatty O'Bastardo: Every patriotic America loving democracy defending American would take great joy in beating the shit out of Trump but sadly, none of us will get the opportunity to do so. Enter no bullshit Irishman and Virginia  Governor Terry McAulliffe. As an honorary Irishman, I Fatty O'Bastardo, would love to pummel a loud mouthed vulgar punk like Donald J. Trump.  

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Outgoing Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe told a national television audience he'd knock President Donald Trump to the floor if the president ever tried to intimidate him.

During an interview Thursday on MSNBC's "Hardball," Chris Matthews asked McAuliffe how he would respond if Trump tried to intimidate him during a debate by hovering over him, as he did during the 2016 presidential election with Hillary Clinton, a close friend of McAuliffe's.

"You'd have to pick him up off the floor," McAuliffe said.

When Matthews laughed and asked if he meant he would "deck" Trump, McAuliffe answered with a straight face.

"You want to get in my space ... you punch me, I'm going to punch you back twice as hard."

"But if he ever came over and leaned on me and got in my space, that would be the last time Donald Trump ever did that. I promise you that," he added.

OP ED by me Fatty O'Bastardo: This guy reminds me of Connor McGregor, another Irishman who takes no shit from punks. Had Jeb Bush not been a wimp and hit Trump with a step-in right hook during the Republican primary debates maybe he would be the president today. When Trump was talking shit about Jeb's mother Jeb should have blasted Trump.

McAuliffe, who was a top Democratic fund-raiser before being elected governor in 2013, is set to leave office Saturday. He has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate.

McAuliffe has been a vocal critic of Trump, particularly after Trump said "both sides" shared blame after white nationalists and counter-protesters clashed during a deadly rally in Charlottesville in August.

During the "Hardball" interview, McAuliffe also called Trump "an embarrassment to our country."

OP ED by me Fatty O'Bastardo: When Trump was a kid he was too much of an asshole to attend public school so his father Fred Trump shipped him of to a military style school for spoiled rich brats. Had Trump attended my school, guy like Proud FA would have beat the shit out him and beaten some humility and manners into him. 

Hillary was too reserved and too elite to "lower herself" to belting Trump. She hadn't dealt with a punk and bully like Trump since she was a kid and even if she had slapped the shit out of him it probably would have backfired. Had Jeb Bush belted Trump he probably would have faired well politically although Jeb's punch probably would not have done much damage but it would be a different story had McAuliffe had belted Trump. There would be damage and a concussion to Trump's moth eaten brain. McAullife has big man hands and thick wrists.

Hillary should have knee'd Trump in the balls. 

Google IS De-Indexing Blogs?

Like Wikipedia Google operates under mob rule and a cloak of anonymity. Like Wikipedia, Google censors unpopular speech. Google is run by fascists because only fascists censor.  Google has now qualms about allowing pornography but say something critical of some absurd movement or idea and Google will come down on you with both feet. 

Had I, Fat Bastardo, wanted to monetize my blogs I could have pulled in a few bucks but because I have integrity I didn't want advertising to pop up on my blogs. I would have been OK with ads providing I could decide what companies I would allow but that it not how Google Adsense works. My blogs were kicking ass and taking names as you can see by the numbers below and then over night those numbers plummeted. I can't say why for sure but I have my suspicions. 

The political correctness in the US is running amok and unfortunately there are a lot of nasty little butt hurt tin gods patrolling the Internet and sites like Wikipedia. Google kind of acts like the FCC in that if a small group of assholes complain or if one are two people complain, Google droids, without investigating the validity of those complaints or even giving an explanation or a means of appeal will de-index or remove a blog or place a dishonest warning on it this besmirching and defaming the blog owner like they did with me, Fat Bastardo.

Butt hurt losers who play this game need to grow the fuck up and they need the shit beaten out of them and so does Google and its pathetic droids and well as its droid command and control.  Perhaps a little cyber version of Robespierre's reign of terror will cause a mass exodus to the other search engines? Perhaps someone at Google will monkey wrench the whole sleazy operation? Something has to be done! 

Fat Bastardo's Explains Further

www.BiggerFatterBlog.BlogSpot.com Removed Restored and then De-Indexed 

You may be asking what this has to do with fat acceptance. Sometime in 2010 someone, probably on of my readers edited a wikipedia article on fat acceptance and included a link to my blog BiggerFatterBlog Bigger Fatter Blog was created in a reaction to the insanity that is fat acceptance and fat feminism. Bigger Fatter Blog is a parody site that lampoons the fat acceptance.  The parody was so close the the absurdity that is fat acceptance that most people could not distinguish Bigger Fatter Blog from actual fat acceptance sites. 

The hardcore fat acceptance morons and the fat sluts at google knew that I was making a mockery of fat acceptance under the guise that fat men are excluded from the movement by the "man hating angry jealous fat girls" who co-opted the movement and kicked all the men out in favor of fat lesbians and "skinny guys who like porking fat girls because fat girls are easy". Actually, that's true, fat girls really are big sluts.

After being mocked, shamed and exposed for the fraudsters and liars that they are angry fat girls flagged Bigger Fatter Blog and got it removed. Eventually Google restored it for fear of litigation but the did de-index it. Bigger Fatter Blog articles were no longer being crawled. Google assholes that they are, do not investigate charges of wrongdoing but instead like Wikipedia rely on mob rule.  To this day Google manipulates search data. Google and Youtube censor unpopular and politically incorrect speech same as Wikipedia under their own mob rule policies. They don't investigate charges. They allow special interest groups to set the narrative and the agendas.

www.BiggerFatterPolitics.com Partially De-Indexed

After the de-indexing of Bigger Fatter Blog we started Bigger Fatter Politics and like Bigger Fatter Blog page views soared and like Bigger Fatter Blog page views sharply declined. This happened after someone edited the Wikipedia Fat Acceptance page and included a link to Bigger Fatter Politics and my NAAFA blog. At this point I suspect Wikipedia is wired to some SJWs at Google who need to be fired and black balled.

NAAFA.BlogSpot.Com De-indexed

The Internet today is controlled by mob rule and filthy rich oligarchs. The good people are subject to abuse and lies by the trash who now control agenda sites like Wikipedia and the Internet as whole. The post truth era is upon us!

GastricBypassKills.BlogSpot.com Deindexed

The most egregious thing that Wikipedia and Google did was de-index Gastric Bypass Kills. I have little doubt that anonymous editors at Wikipedia conspired to de-index Gastric Bypass Kills because as you can see, it was kicking butt and saving lives. The medical industry in the US is as corrupt as the Trump administration and far more deadly. I have little doubt that they bribed people at Google to de-index my blogs. 

BTW, Bing and Duck Duck Go return better results than the highly censored American Google.

A Quick Comment About Twitter's Sleaze Factor and Hypocrisy

If the average Twitter use were to write the vile crap Trump writes, they would be banned. Perhaps the time has come for a star chamber of ethical hackers like the Jester to censor the censor by shutting them down? It seems that lying is tolerating but criticism of ideas isn't. 

Wikipedia Sucks: The Wikipedia Dictatorship

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia

October 27, 2011 08:00 AM

by Mark E. Moran

Wikipedia provides Internet users with millions of articles on a broad range of topics, and commonly ranks first in search engines. But its reliability and credibility fall well short of the standards for a school paper. According to Wikipedia itself, “[W]hile some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. … use [Wikipedia] with an informed understanding of what it is and what it isn't.”

To help you develop such an understanding, we present 10 reasons you can't rely on information in Wikipedia.

Share

10. You must never fully rely on any one source for important information especially Wikpedia.
Everyone makes mistakes. All scholarly journals and newspapers contain “corrections” sections in which they acknowledge errors in their prior work. And even the most neutral writer is sometimes guilty of not being fully objective. Thus, you must take a skeptical approach to everything you read.

The focus of your search should be on finding accurate information and forming a full picture of an issue, rather than believing the first thing you read. This is particularly true on the Internet, where anyone can publish, cheaply and quickly. Always verify important information by confirming it with multiple sources.

9. You especially can’t rely on something when you don’t even know who wrote it.
Very few Wikipedia editors and contributors use their real name or provide any information about who they are. In order to properly evaluate information on the Internet, there are three questions you must always ask; the first two are “Who wrote this?” and “Why did they write it?” On sites with anonymous authors like Wikipedia, you can't find this information.

8.  The contributor with an agenda often prevails.
In theory, the intellectual sparring at the heart of Wikipedia's group editing process results in a consensus that removes unreliable contributions and edits. But often the contributor who “wins” is not the one with the soundest information, but rather the one with the strongest agenda.

In March 2009, Irish student Shane Fitzgerald, who was conducting research on the Internet and globalization of information, posted a fake quotation on the Wikipedia article about recently deceased French composer Maurice Jarre. Due to the fact that the quote was not attributed to a reliable source, it was removed several times by editors, but Fitzgerald continued re-posting it until it was allowed to remain.

Fitzgerald was startled to learn that several major newspapers picked up the quote and published it in obituaries, confirming his suspicions of the questionable ways in which journalists use Web sites, and Wikipedia, as a reliable source. Fitzgerald e-mailed the newspapers letting them know that the quote was fabricated; he believes that otherwise, they might never have found out.

7. Individuals with agendas often have dictatorial editing authority.

Administrators on Wikipedia have the power to delete or disallow comments or articles they disagree with and support the viewpoints they approve. For example, beginning in 2003, U.K. scientist William Connolley became a Web site administrator and subsequently wrote or rewrote more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles supporting the concept of climate change and global warming. More importantly, he used his authority to ban more than 2,000 contributors with opposing viewpoints from making further contributions.

According to The Financial Post, when Connolley was through editing, “The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.” Connolley has since been stripped of authority at Wikipedia, but one blogger believes he continues to post.

Furthermore, in 2007, a new program called WikiScanner uncovered individuals with a clear conflict of interest that had written or edited some Wikipedia entries. Employees from organizations such as the CIA, the Democratic National Party and Diebold were editing Wikipedia entries in their employers' favor.

6. Sometimes “vandals” create malicious entries that go uncorrected for months.
Due to the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, users can falsify entries. Though in many instances reviewers quickly delete this “vandalism,” occasionally false information can remain on Wikipedia for extended periods of time.

For example, John Seigenthaler, a former assistant to Robert Kennedy, was falsely implicated in the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers on his Wikipedia biography for a period of more than 100 days without his knowledge.

5. There is little diversity among editors.
According to a 2009 survey by the Wikimedia Foundation, 87 percent of Wikipedia editors are male, with an average age of 26.8 years. According to executive director Sue Gardner, they hail mostly from Europe and North America, and many of them are in graduate school.

Although most of these editors are undoubtedly intelligent and passionate about enhancing the accuracy of Wikipedia, the site falls far short of its ideals of providing “the sum of all human knowledge” without the broad perspectives that a more diversified pool of editors would bring.

4. The number of active Wikipedia editors has flatlined.
The number of active Wikipedia editors (those who make at least five edits a month) has stopped growing. It remains to be seen whether the current number of active editors can maintain and continue updating Wikipedia.

3. It has become harder for casual participants to contribute.
According to the Palo Alto Research Center, the contributions of casual and new contributors are being reversed at a much greater rate than several years ago. The result is that a steady group of high-level editors has more control over Wikipedia than ever.

A group of editors known as “deletionists” are said to “edit first and ask questions later,” making it harder for new contributors to participate, and making it harder for Wikipedia—which, again, aspires to provide “the sum of all human knowledge”—to overcome the issue that it is controlled by a stagnant pool of editors from a limited demographic.

2. Accurate contributors can be silenced.
Deletionists on Wikipedia often rely on the argument that a contribution comes from an “unreliable source,” with the editor deciding what is reliable. An incident last year showed the degree to which editors at the very top of Wikipedia were willing to rely on this crutch when it suits their purpose.

When the Taliban kidnapped New York Times reporter David Rohde in Afghanistan, the paper convinced 40 media organizations plus Wikipedia not to report on it out of concerns that it would compromise Rohde's safety. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales told the Times, once Rohde was free, that “We were really helped by the fact that it (postings on Rohde) hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source.” Thus, Wales and other senior Wikipedia editors showed they were willing to rely on the “unreliable source” canard to delete information they had been told by a very reliable source was true, even when a more noble reason—Rohde’s safety—would have justified it.

And finally, the number one reason you can't cite or rely on Wikipedia:

1. It says so on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia says, “We do not expect you to trust us.” It adds that it is “not a primary source” and that “because some articles may contain errors,” you should “not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions.”

Furthermore, as Wikipedia notes in its “About” section, “Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start: they may contain false or debatable information.”

Reference: Using Wikipedia

Wikipedia can actually be a constructive tool in the classroom if understood and used correctly. To learn more, read findingDulcinea’s Web Guide to Wikipedia in the Classroom.

North Carolina State University Libraries has a short video that explains what Wikipedia is and how information is entered into it. Take a tour of the “article,” “discussion,” “edit this page” and “history” tabs to go “beneath the surface” of Wikipedia.

Stephen Colbert takes a satirical view of Wikipedia in a segment on his show and on his own user-generated encyclopedia, Wikiality. Though intended for laughs, it captures, in an entertaining fashion, why Wikipedia can't be relied upon as a sole source of information.

Fat Bastardo's Op Ed:  Since Mark E Moran's was published in October of 2011 Wikipedia's governance has descended into a state of what can best be described as a chaotic cabal of dictatorships run by a cadre of agenda driven despots and expert liar. At this point Wikipedia is beyond redemption. It's governance and integrity have clearly become victims of the post truth era. 

Wikipedia can still be used as resource for subjects such an engineering, or entertainment but for subjects like sociology, history or politics, the agenda trolls and SJWs have ensured that their biased agendas and misinformation will go unchallenged unless you take the time to edit the pages yourself and challenge the Wiki-Nazis. 

When you come across an article that shows clear bias, edit it. If the Wiki-Nazis revert it back edit it again until they block you. At that point retaliate in any way you see fit.

Asshole Rand Paul

Wikipedia Sucks

Wikipedia Sucks: Here are 10 Reasons Why | SMO Blogger

Wikipedia Sucks: Here are 10 Reasons Why

There are many reasons why Wikipedia represents a flawed model for publishing accurate information. These 10 reasons critique Wikipedia and will hopefully provide some impetus for improvement.

1. The theory that everyone’s contributions to a topic are equally valuable sounds good, but is clearly nonsense.
2. Wikipedia has no way of recognizing expert knowledge over inexpert knowledge. The members with most authority are the ones who have spent the most time working on Wikipedia – their “knowledge” is often just a combination of Google results and prejudice.
3. Wikipedia gives people’s opinions undeserved authority by virtue of its search engine rankings and authoritative presentation and identity.
4. Too many people (especially students) who use Wikipedia believe the articles will be reliable – and Wikipedia’s stance as an encyclopedia encourages this misguided belief.
5. At the core of Wikipedia is the idea that bad articles will eventually be edited by the community until they become good (i.e. factual and well-written). In fact, they are likely to be edited until all but one member loses interest or gives up trying.
6. “If you don’t like an entry, you can fix it yourself”(1). But I came here for information, not to provide it.
7. “Wikipedia pages have become increasingly complex and Wikipedia doesn’t support a WYSIWYG editor.”(3) This and other technical aspects of Wikipedia effectively prevent many people with valuable knowledge from participating.
8. The lack of any required standard of writing, error-checking and fact-checking means that many Wikipedia entries are poorly-written and contain factual inconsistencies.(1)(2)(4)
9. Wikipedia articles only ever skim the surface. Which is fine – but they don’t ever indicate what might be below the surface either, leading people to believe that everything is as simple and uncontroversial as Wikipedia says it is. (2)
10. Wikipedia entries are meant to be “notable” – but only Wikipedia’s (self-appointed) editors have to think so. Is Stroyent really important?

Publish this article on your blog with a followed link to http://www.smoblogger.com/.

The Abuse and Harassment of New Editors

In order to maintain control and power over their own pathetic echo chambers the trollish editors and administrators will accuse you of wrong doing where there was none and if you complain of file a dispute the will claim that you insulted them when they were the ones who insulted you.

Wikipedia has lost 1/2 of its administrators and editor because they god sick of the demagoguery, censorship and the agenda trolling of the editors and administrators who are still there.

Wikipedia is lawless. It is pure anarchy and the anarchist there are particularly virulent rule breakers.

Anyone can be an editor there but if say something one of the agenda trolls dislikes they will remove your edit, accuse you of something called disruptive editing with no explanation given, inappropriate discussion again with no explanation. Basically, they fuck with you and lie to you and about you. The will even accuse you of "vandalizing" a page simply because your facts conflict with their narrative and agenda.

If your go to YOUR talk page and discuss the subject of the article for review by another less biased editor they will lie and say that you are using the talk page as a "forum". The talk page is a forum.

They will make up rules. One of their favorites is "Cross-Wiki Abuse" There is no such thing as cross-Wiki abuse. It's gibberish made up by abusive rule breaking power hungry loser administrators must of whom now are nasty millennials. 

RELATED: HORROR STORIES BY DISGRUNTLED ADMINISTRATORS ABOUND: 

Wikipdia Administrators Suck. Software Engineer Geoffrey Liu Explains Why <-------CLICK

Anonymity assures that there is accountability. Established gangs of administrators collude under their cloak of anonymity so that can defame you, falsely accuse you, and harass you with impunity.



According to Wikipedia everyone is an editor and this repeating. What this means is anyone can change and article. This invites what the call vandalism only the real vandalism of inserting links that look legit but go to porn sites, somebody just pasting in "Fuck you" 1000 times of starting their own articles bashing the power hungry loser administrators at Wikipedia and even if they ban your IP a vandal could go to an internet cafe or use a proxy server of VPN to continues to vandalize in order to get a little do it yourself justice on a corrupt administrator.

DISCLAIMER: I am not advising anyone to vandalize Wikipedia pages. In spite of the fact that the appeals process is tantamount to a kangaroo court and the administrators are corrupt assholes who are held to no standard of accountability I would advise you that you don't vandalize pages on Wikipedia. That said, I am not trying to inflict my morals or judgment onto you so do what you think is right.  

Vandalizing is another BS open ended term that Wikepedia uses to justify their fucking with new editor. It's kinda like being falsely arrested for disorderly conduct. It's mostly made up bullshit. The links below may be helpful in your understanding of the "wicked Wiki game.

How do you mass vandalize wikipedia? | Yahoo Answers

A Crash Course in Wikipedia Vandalism | Mental Floss

Back up. What is wiki vandalism in the first place?

Wikipedia defines it as any "addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia," which can come in variety of flavors, such as...

Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense.
Page creation: Creating new pages with the intent of malicious behavior, like blatant advertising pages, personal attack pages and hoaxes.
Page lengthening: Adding large amounts of bad-faith content in order to make the page's load time abnormally long or even make it impossible to load without browser crashing.
Spam: Adding external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites or sites that have some relationship to the subject matter, but advertise or promote in the user's interest.
Silly vandalism: Adding profanity, graffiti, random characters or other nonsense to entries or creating nonsensical and non-encyclopedic pages.
Image vandalism: Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explicit images on pages, or using images in other disruptive ways.

   

My Country Tis Of Thee Lyrics

Not only is Trump mentally ill, he is sickly as well. With any luck he will drop dead while tweeting some bullshit. Real Americans will celebrate like they did when Obama had bin Laden killed. A lot of democracy loving people throughout the world would like it if Trump were assassinated. That is wrong thinking. Trump need to die of natural causes and we need him around for another year or so to continue fucking things up so that when he dies people of every political will be damn happy.

To be added to My Country Tis of Thee upon Trump's demise.

Tyrants rot in their graves

Gone are their rants and raves

Reason prevails

Gone are the Alt Right lies

Dead are the Russian spies

Truth will not be denied 

Trump rots in Hell

Democracy will always have its enemies and we must remain vigilant in protecting it. Trump is a symptom of a virus that is attacking democracy and we must kill that virus.