DNC adopts rule to block Bernie Sanders from 2020 run!?

by Kylie Handler, editor

Critics suggest the Democratic National Committee has been desperately seeking out a way to block Senator Bernie Sanders from running for the 2020 presidential elections — and they just may have found a way.

According to Fox News, the DNC has adopted a new rule that limits anyone from competing for the Democrat nomination unless they “run and serve” as a Democrat.

Unfortunately for Sanders, an independent, that means he will be barred from running for the Democratic nomination for president.

The sudden move by the DNC to block anyone who does not declare their party affiliation from running under their party has been widely ridiculed by Sanders supporters.

Randi Weingarten


@DNC just changed the rules to ensure to run for President as a Democrat you need to be A Democrat

Critics of the new rule have suggested that the DNC has adopted the new rule out of “spite” because Sanders gave former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a run for her money during the 2016 Democratic primaries.

Sanders who describes himself as a democratic socialist, lost the primary spot to Hillary  after superdelegates from the states he won chose not to vote for him.

“You had superdelegates voting for Hillary Clinton in states that I won pretty handsomely,” Sanders told Post this week. “And now there is agreement among [DNC Chairman] Tom Perez and our people, and a lot of the Clinton people, to say we should reduce the number of superdelegates.”

Perez began floating the idea of eliminating superdelegates in early June.

Many Sanders supporters are puzzled as to why a losing party would want to become inclusive. They suffered a major blow when Hillary lost the presidential election, and blocking Sanders could be a bad decision.

“We just came off a devastating presidential loss in 2016,” Mark Longabaugh, a senior adviser to Sanders’ 2016 campaign, told Yahoo News. “It would seem to me the actual impetus would be to expand the Democratic Party. I, just for the life of me, don’t see any motivation for this beyond personal spite.”

“At the time a presidential candidate announces their candidacy publicly, they must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat,” the printout says. “Each candidate must then affirm in writing that they: A. are a member of the Democratic Party; B. will accept the Democratic nomination; C. will run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party.”

According to Fox News, Sanders may be protected from the new rule thanks to a resolution passed in his home state. To Rhode Island he is considered a Democrat, “for all purposes and [is] entitled to all the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level,” Politico reported.

–Kylie Handler is a news editor for The Horn News

CONFIRMED: Google is actively censoring natural health websites to protect Big Pharma and destroy knowledge of natural medicine

Image: CONFIRMED: Google is actively censoring natural health websites to protect Big Pharma and destroy knowledge of natural medicine

(Natural News) There’s a strong argument to be made that if iron-fisted tyranny ever comes to America, the statists in Silicon Valley will be leading the charge. These people (including workers at Facebook, Twitter, and especially Google) think nothing of undermining the United States Constitution and the freedom of speech in order to fulfill the Left’s twisted political agendas. Silicon Valley’s ongoing and seemingly unstoppable censorship of the Internet is, to a large extent, planting the seeds of tyranny in the fabric of America.

Google censors content it doesn’t like

Late last month, Ray Gano published an article on his website discussing how Google is suppressing medical information and other content that the company deems unfit for readers. On page 108 of Google’s handbook, for example, Google states that “pages that directly contradict well established scientific or medical consensus for queries seeking scientific or medical information” are suppressed on its search engine, “unless the query indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.”

Notably, Google also states that “pages that directly contradict well-established historical facts (e.g., unsubstantiated conspiracy theories)” are also hidden from users, again, “unless the query clearly indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.”

The question, of course, is as follows: does Google have to abide by the United States Constitution and the freedom of speech as outlined in the First Amendment, or does it get to dictate which users get to practice their rights and which users don’t? Considering the fact that the Constitution is the highest law in the land, Google should be compelled to abide by it, regardless of whether or not the page contradicts “well established scientific or medical consensus” or “well-established historical facts.”

Support our mission to keep you informed: Discover the extraordinary benefits ofturmeric gummy bears and organic “turmeric gold” liquid extract, both laboratory tested for heavy metals, microbiology and safety. Naturally high in potent curcuminoids. Delicious formulations. All purchases support this website (as well as your good health). See availability here.

A history of censorship

Google’s censorship of what it considers to be “fake news” or “inaccurate information” is nothing new; in fact, the company has developed a pattern of suppressing Internet content that it deems unfit for the public. One of the best examples of this actually occurred through the Google-owned video sharing site YouTube, with the victim being conservative radio host Dennis Prager and his digital media organization PragerU.  (Related: Google insiders warn that outright censorship of the Internet is Google’s top priority.)

Google’s censorship of PragerU got so bad that Dennis Prager and his team were forced to file an official lawsuit against the company last October, alleging that they were being discriminated against for their conservative viewpoints and that their free speech rights were being violated.

“Prager University has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to stop Google and YouTube from unlawfully censoring its educational videos and discriminating against its right to freedom of speech,” stated an official press release put out by PragerU. The lawsuit noted that over 50 PragerU videos have either been “restricted” or “demonetized” by YouTube and Google, even though the videos were extremely educational and based in fact.

Videos with the titles, “Why America Must Lead,” “The Ten Commandments: Do Not Murder,” “The World’s Most Persecuted Minority: Christians,” and dozens more were all restricted, prompting Prager and his team to finally take legal action against Google and YouTube, which Google has owned since 2006. Sadly, the lawsuit was thrown out and Google faced no consequences for their unconstitutional acts of censorship. (Related: If Google is not regulated, it’s politically-motivated censorship will lead to open warfare in the streets.)

The freedom of speech doesn’t stop the second somebody opens up their laptop and logs on to the Internet; it exists for all Americans to enjoy, regardless of what a team of so-called “fact-checkers” in Silicon Valley might think of the content being published. If we want to keep America free, then this type of political suppression on the Internet needs to be brought to an end. Otherwise, tyranny will arrive sooner than we think.

Sources include:



POLL: Do You Agree With Italy Closing Border to Migrants? #FuturisTrendcast Wants Your Opinion!

Futurist Trendcast

#FuturisTrendcast WANTS YOUR OPINION! This is your chance to participate and get your voice heard!


Do you believe Italy has been accepting a disproportionate number of refugees/migrants from the Middle East/Africa, without sufficient support from EU, or do you think their actions are ‘cynical and inhumane,’ as French president Macron has suggested?

Do France and EU have the right to criticize and point fingers?

Is it a good idea for the EU to accept that many migrants?

Is this karma after the West mercilessly bombed, colonized and sucked dry all those countries?

Do you have better ideas where people who suffer from ISIS, wars and US/NATO bombings should go?

What will happen to Europe if the uncontrolled migrant flow continues?

All opinions are welcome, but they have to be civilized and reasonable. No rudeness or xenophobia allowed! (This a moderated forum and anything that doesn’t comply…

View original post 137 more words