The three terms most widely used today to this avail are detailed below.

1) Conspiracy Theorist – This term is so overused that it really is devoid of any practical meaning. If you were to examine it at face value, though, it describes a person who is looking to understand injustices in our world and is willing to look at uncomfortable facts in search of negative influence… of which there is plenty in our world today.

However, ‘conspiracy theorist’ has literally become a derogatory term that is attributed to anyone who refuses to accept mainstream narratives at face value. It doesn’t matter that there is overwhelming evidence to indicate that mainstream media does not value objectivity or report on important issues thoroughly or truthfully.

2) Alt – We see the label ‘alt’ being applied more and more frequently as an adjective for sentiments that supposedly do not fit in with the accepted status quo. Ideas outside of the box. Alt-Media. Alt-Right. Alt-Left. Alt-News. Alt-Health. And so on. The signal here is that the mainstream is the safe space, and that any segment of ideas or thought given this prefix is outside of that mainstream and, therefore, not something ordinary people would want to associate with.

3) Hate Speech – This term is one of the all-time favorites of politicians and tyrants. After all, what could be more dangerous than hate? It is fascinating to watch how people use this term so freely as if speech itself can be criminal. American society is founded on the idea of freedom of speech and self-expression, which at its core is the recognition that as human beings we do not and never will all see the world in the same way. It is an acknowledgement of the fact that different people have different ideas about how the world is and should be. That these differences shouldn’t be used as a basis for discrimination.

The term hate speech is one of the most loaded and ambiguous terms in the political lexicon. Beware. Next time you see or hear these terms being used, ask yourself what it is about the story that you’re not supposed to think too deeply about. Allow both sides of the argument to share equal time in your mind, and honor the independent, sovereign being within yourself that deserves a chance to make up its own mind about how it wishes to view the world.

Formerly, if a prosecutor staged an arrest for publicity purposes, as Mueller did by placing a CNN presstitute on the scene and sending a couple of dozen heavily armed men in a pre-dawn raid to arrest a well known political consultant for allegedly “lying to Congress” when the appropriate procedure is for Mueller to inform Stone’s lawyer to present his client for indictment, the judge would throw out the case on the grounds that the prosecutor’s unethical action had biased the juror pool and made a fair trial impossible.

The judge might also have thrown out the case on the grounds of selective prosecution. James Clapper while serving as Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress under oath and suffered no consequences, and Hillary Clinton has clearly broken the law and lied about it.

Today judges permit unethical behavior by prosecutors that deprives defendants of a fair trial, because judges don’t want the bother of trials any more than prosecutors do. Consequently, according to official statistics 97% of federal criminal cases are settled by a defendant pleading guilty to a charge negotiated by his attorney and a prosecutor. As the charge is a negotiated or made-up one, most people in prison are there for confessing to crimes that never occurred.

As for Roger Stone, the media’s instructions are to convict Stone in the public’s mind as a facilitator of the Trump/Putin theft of the US presidential election. The actual facts do not matter, and the facts will never emerge from the media or from Mueller’s “investigation.”

According to Ryabkov, Russia is witnessing a decline in strategic stability in the world against the background of some states' attempts to shatter the architecture of non-proliferation regimes and arms control. Moreover, the "nuclear five" refused to adopt a final joint statement at a meeting in Beijing, Sergey Ryabkov said.

The INF Treaty was signed in 1987 by then leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev and then US President Ronald Reagan. The leaders agreed to destroy all cruise or ground-launched ballistic missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (310 and 3,400 miles).

“It is no longer such that the United States simply protects us, but Europe must take its destiny in its own hands. That's the task of the future," Merkel reportedly said during a speech honoring French President Emmanuel Macron. Both Merkel and Macron tried their hand at persuading the Trump administration not to abandon the Iranian nuclear deal completely. The leaders even issued a joint statement with British Prime Minister Theresa May, someone whose hawkish attitude towards Iran should not go unnoticed.

The lifting of sanctions on Iran already led to an increase in trade between Germany and Iran from €2.7 billion in 2014 to €3.5 billion last year. It is also worth noting that Iran will now start accepting euros for its oil in an attempt to not only avoid the US dollar, but in a move that will directly threaten it. This topic is probably best suited for another article, but it is definitely something worth keeping an eye on – and will most likely only bolster Germany’s resolve to protect Iran.

Either way, Germany and China have both agreed to stick to the Iran deal. Think for a second what this means: John Bolton openly warned European companies and countries against continuing business with Iran, stating that they could be targeted by sanctions. The newly appointed ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, also immediately warned Germany directly that German companies must halt their business activities with Tehran or face sanctions. Germany and China have essentially given the US the political middle finger in response, and arguably kowtowed to Iranian interests instead.

As reported by The Daily Caller, Snopes’s “fact-check” page for Nathan Phillips, which asks the question, “Did Nathan Phillips Falsely Claim He Was A Vietnam Veteran?” is still designated as “Unproven,” along with the false claim that Phillips told news outlets “that he was a ‘Vietnam-times’ or ‘Vietnam-era’ veteran.”

We also now have Phillips’ records, which were bravely dredged up by Former Navy SEAL Don Shipley. These records show that, contrary to an image of a certificate also on Phillips’ Facebook page suggesting that he received a “Medal of Valor,” Phillips was never deployed overseas, and actually went AWOL several times, before eventually becoming a refrigerator repair technician.

All of this is undeniable, based on the records Shipley and others have unearthed, proving Phillips to be a liar. But Snopes is doubling down on the claim that Phillips never actually claimed to be a Vietnam Vet, and is continuing to try to paint him in a positive light while vilifying the Covington boys.

It’s really very simple: the European Union is a totalitarian superstate run by sharp-suited, hatchet-faced technocrats who have no interest whatsoever in freedom, fairness, justice, probity, logic, first principles, or economic reality.

Their project is — and always has been — an end in itself: a conspiracy against the people by the liberal elite to subsume them, whether they like it or not, into a vast, anti-democratic, politically correct, socialistic, borderless supranational bureaucracy with its own government, military, currency, tax regime, rules system.

Why am I repeating this obvious truth? First because it pays always to know your enemy. Second because our Remainer elite — from Westminster to big business to our largely supine mainstream media — has been putting up so much chaff of late that it’s easy to lose sight of the basic fact.

This is an independence war we are fighting for the future of our country. In such circumstances, almost any amount of inconvenience, even suffering, is worth it for the end prize of victory — and freedom.

Granted, if the UK crashed out of the union without a new trade agreement, the pain would be very much worse for Britain than for the EU. It’s also true that the resulting disruption would send a clear message to other countries about the foolishness of following the Brexit example.

Yet parts of Europe would also suffer serious disruption. Few of Europe’s economies are in a strong position to cope with a new economic shock. Regarding the need to discourage others, the UK’s political collapse has, you might think, already sounded a sufficiently clear warning. Bear in mind, as well, that exit would be vastly more difficult and therefore even less appealing for countries that, unlike Britain, have adopted the euro. The disciplinary benefits of a cliff-edge Brexit are overkill. They come at a potentially high cost, and aren’t needed.

The EU needs further integration to make a success of the single currency. The bare minimum is an EU fiscal instrument powerful enough to make a difference. In the end, the monetary union is likely to demand a comparably far-reaching fiscal union as well.