How to Break Up Google, Facebook & Other Tech Giants | Open Letter to President Donald Trump & AG Jeff Sessions

How to Break Up Google, Facebook & Other Tech Giants | Open Letter to President Donald Trump & AG Jeff Sessions

Google, we need to break up
"Google, we need to talk about us."

Dear Mr. President Donald Trump,

As the most powerful man in the world, you seek a solution to bias on the Internet. We the People seek freedom from censorship. An effective solution to both goals, short of breaking up the tech giants, while at the same time protecting the free market we love, is simple and within reach. I have not read anyone propose it, but the IT experts I have on my team agree it is the solution.


Google controls 90% of all internet searches
Google controls 90% of all internet searches

Google controls 90% of all internet searches; they decide what you get to see. Google's monopoly has been compared to that of Standard Oil and AT&T, both of which were broken up by Anti-Trust Legislation. Based on this past experience, Google critics have proposed things like separating Google search engine from its parent company Alphabet, or separating YouTube from Google, but these solutions miss the point.

Tech giants are not like old banks, which were separated into retail and investment banks by the Glass-Steagall Banking Act of 1933. Online interconnectivity means these companies can collude and manipulate data without leaving a paper trail, even if they were broken up. Facebook, YouTube, Spotify, Apple iTunes and Twitter (supposedly non-related entities) were able to coordinate a take down of Alex Jones' social media platforms within roughly 24 hours. They are not merely monopolies, but a cartel of monopolies. Alphabet Inc. is the biggest lobbyist in history. You can be sure they will spend considerable resources to make sure the broken entities retain power and maintain a stranglehold over the Internet.

2017 federal lobbying spending by tech giants
2017 federal lobbying spending by tech giants

Mr. President, We the People demand more than breaking up the tech tyrants. Our goals are bigger than that. We ask the Leader of the Free World to:

  1. Enshrine DATA RIGHTS - give PEOPLE back CONTROL over their personal data.
  2. Give people FREEDOM to migrate out of any social media, just like you can change phone companies or utility providers. 
  3. Protect COMMUNICATION as a basic need and basic human right. 
  4. Promote FREE SPEECH online.
  5. End CENSORSHIP by Big Techs. They and their surrogates are not authorized to determine what is fake news or trusted news.
  6. Stop Big Tech from MEDDLING with National ELECTIONS.
  7. Restore DATA PRIVACY.

The challenge is you cannot force Big Tech companies to be unbiased nor to clean their content. They (and their algorithms) are ideologically and politically-driven. They want the next Hillary Clinton to win. Their ideal is to promote globalist, anti-American values.

What you, Mr. President, can do immediately is order them to comply with standards. The AC electric power grid is standardized; this allows for competition among electricity providers. The landline telephone network is standardized, so we can have large competition. SMS is standardized. The Internet is standardized with protocols such as HTML. (Protocols are the communication languages of the servers and clients.) Big Tech, by contrast, refuses to operate by standard protocols. But the solution is simple.

No new standards need to be written. They have already been written by the IETF [The Internet Engineering Task Force], the committee that standardizes internet protocols. Tech Giants ignore these standards to create their monopolies, and by extension their censorship. This, rather than their mere size, is the crux of the problem!

Let's compare it to the telephone. If all telephone companies had not agreed to support one standard, we may need to get 10 lines into our home just to access different kinds of phones. The standard for mobile protocol right now is 4G, with 5G on its way. All phones with this protocol can connect, regardless of whether they operate on iOS or Android, and phone calls can even be passed from tower to tower owned by different companies. 

Twitter, Facebook and Google do not follow these protocols, even though most of them did when they first started. Google developed a social media protocol in 2007 called “open social” which was supposed to be "inter-operable" with all other social networks. In other words, had Tech Giants all followed the standard, you could migrate from one platform to another with all your data protected as your own intellectual property. 

Why don't they follow standard protocols? The answer is in one word: monopoly. Whatsapp has been able to create a monopoly of 1 billion users by ignoring xmpp protocol. Xmpp is a communication protocol for message-oriented middleware (MOM) to standardize short-text communication (like Twitter). The IETF made xmpp the standard in 2004, but the monopolies do not have to follow it. Whatsapp started with xmpp, then once they had enough users, they locked every user into their environment. When we users wish to turn to competitors, we end up with a myriad of chat clients or text messaging apps like Messenger, Telegram, Line, Wechat and Signal, none of which communicate with each other. It is a mess.

Your son Don Jr. publicly called for the building of "conservative social media". Any number of developers, including my IT Team, could do it. Many of us are working on it. But without industry compliance to standard protocols, who will be willing to migrate from one social media company to another, and lose all their friends, followers, posts, texts, photos and stories at switch over? Not many people. The Tech Giants know this.

My IT team will agree to build our clean social media on an agreed protocol like xmpp, so users are NEVER LOCKED into one company, but remain FREE to choose the best company, whoever that may be in the future. When other companies are mandated to comply with the same standard, user choice and free market will reign again. 

Since communication is a human need and a human right, users should be FREE to migrate to any other system, without the threat of being silenced or “de-platformed". The President should open up social media, then the best platforms will compete and win, not merely the ones with early-mover advantage or monopolistic power. 

Right now the control of data by the powerful few is unacceptable. When Facebook shut down “Diamond and Silk” or YouTube de-platformed “Infowars”, those conservatives instantly lost millions of views, thousands of hours of their personal content or intellectual property, and invaluable accumulated social credit. This can all be prevented with the next step of my proposal: an "Internet Address Book” or your “Personal Data Vault”. 

All social media is built first on an “Address Book” of user personal data. This personal data is then used by companies such as Google and Facebook to advertise to you and monetize on your content. A neutral Internet Address Book would securely store all the properties of an entity (person or company), including first name, last name, birthday, social security, addresses, phone numbers, all electronic publications, likes, comments and mentions. 

We the People are concerned about the potential abuse of such a database by Big Brother. I believe the abuse is already here, and what I propose gives for the first a viable solution where there has been none offered before. The current reality is most Big Tech companies and central governments already have access to their citizens’ data, and with the spread of cameras and facial recognition, We the People have less and less control over how others use our information.

A “personal data vault” will give every entity the right to withdraw sharing anything to any other person or company. Every entity will have the right to "profile synonyms" or anonyms called “avatars”; but in criminal cases, those avatars can be traced back to the true identity easily. State-verified entities and injured parties can apply for access to your personal data. Otherwise, you regain control over your privacy, including everything mentioned about you on social media. Victims of defamation and libel can have the right to access the true identity of any anonymous person who is defaming them. There should be no anonymity in cyber crime. 

Europe’s GDPR [General Data Protection Regulation] will require some sort of “Internet Address Book” in which every person has a unique identification. Such an Address Book will be a core part of the clean, trusted social media my IT Team is building. At some later stage, individual States may wish to dedicate national servers to store all personal data and social media posts in an encrypted vault. Security is key.

The third step is to create the world's first clean social media. I do not use the word “alternative” as none has existed before. I propose we can do it in the next year for only $1 million. Tech giants routinely raise hundreds of millions from angel investors to fund their ventures. I do not believe this is necessary. My IT Team believes in this cause to the degree that they are willing to volunteer their time to make this a reality. All we and any new social media platforms require to compete is a level playing field.

Mr. President, if you listen to business and legal experts, they do not agree on how to break up Google and other Tech Giants. Some propose Anti-Trust lawsuits. Others propose that the government treats Big Tech companies as Publishers instead of neutral platforms; Publishers may be liable for defamation, violation of personal data, and influencing elections by smear campaigns and illegal campaign contributions. Either case will take years in court and be difficult to prove. My IT experts agree there is a softer and faster way to loosen the grip of tech tyrants on We the People.

Here is a summary of my proposals to Mr. President:

  1. The first step is to enforce the IETF standards. Big Tech companies must comply with standard protocols. This will challenge their monopolistic control and dismantle some of them through increased competition.
    Specificallyrder social media companies to use the same protocols. By doing so, Big Tech cannot LOCK developers or users into their environment. We will be free to have an interface to all social communications.
    As an adjunct, Mr. President, you can issue an Executive Order that their algorithm must be the same for everyone. Google's search engine manipulation through biased algorithm has been documented by psychologist Robert Epstein and private investigator Michael Roberts. Mr. Roberts verified your allegations that Google elevates negative content. He coined the term "humiliation algorithm" to explain how Google has a financial incentive to humiliate you and not act against smear campaigns. Making algorithm equal for everyone could be called a “Tech Transparency” Order.
  2. The next step is to hand control over personal data back into the hands of users through an “Internet Address Book” or “Personal Data Vault”.  Silicon Valley has long operated on the assumption that "personal privacy is a history". This is untrue. My IT team can design a system that restores personal privacy to everyone except for criminals.
  3. The third step is to support a clean social media. I do not use the word “alternative”. My plan is to build the world’s first clean social media. Our features will be proprietary. Terrorists will have no place on such social media.
    With your support, this new concept will succeed! But we need you, Mr. President, because no other word leader will act till you take the lead and fight for our freedoms.
  4. The fourth step in ensuring that corruption does not creep into the new system is to introduce a digital currency which will not lose its value as a medium of exchange. Many experts see the need for this as paper currency is inherently flawed and unstable. My team has innovative and proprietary concepts in this area. 

Mr. President, all of us who love the Truth have witnessed the unprecedented decline in civility and rise of evil. You are not alone. I, too, have fought against the censorship and bias of Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter and have assembled a team of developers to create a better platform. We the People need your leadership. You are called to shake the Establishment and to drain the swamp. The dirtiest swamps are in Silicon Valley and Washington DC.

I find strength from these words from the LORD, so humbly offer them to you:

..."Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens." This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the REMOVAL of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. (Hebrews 12:26-27 ESV)
Blessed be the Lord my Rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle (Psalm 144:1 NKJ)


Rev. Steve Cioccolanti
Discover Ministries
The Donald Trump Prophecy
Me at Mar-a-Lago
My Twitter

Is Biased? by social media influencer Steve Cioccolanti

Is Biased? by social media influencer Steve Cioccolanti

In the world of free blogging or free blog hosting services, these are the most popular:

1. Wordpress

2. Blogger or Blogspot (owned by Google)

3. Tumblr

4. Medium

Medium welcomes you. Do you feel welcomed to express your viewpoints?

There is a lot to like about from a blog writer's standpoint. Its streamlined interface allows writers to focus on writing. Posting a blog is nearly as easy as posting an update on Facebook. In contrast, to post on Wordpress or Blogger, you must login to the backend and fill in many more complicated details like SEO focus keywords, slug, snippet, category, tags, featured video and/or featured image. Medium SEO is already optimized. The site has an active community. The only major concern is the same one troubling the world of social media: trust.

Social trust is now the greatest online commodity. Can we trust Medium to be a neutral platform, as opposed to being a biased publisher than tries to mold minds and push a political slant?

First, we should define the word neutrality (the opposite of bias). A media platform is not “neutral” because you can post anything you want. That would qualify Facebook, Google and YouTube as “neutral”. We are aware how these companies rank, recommend and hide your post is a far more important indicator of neutrality; then secondarily the community’s reaction, likes, upvotes and comments contribute to the perception of neutrality, too. No one informed believes these companies are neutral anymore.

Facebook’s own founder Mark Zuckerberg admitted to bias and censorship among tech giants before the US Congress on April 10, 2018, “I understand where that concern is coming from because Facebook and the tech industry are located in Silicon Valley, which is an extremely left-leaning place.” Silicon Valley is the ideological ground zero of the most left-leaning state in America. is headquartered in Mountain View, the birthplace of the term “Silicon Valley” and Google’s corporate HQ.

To avoid guilt by association, I did some test searches on The two main areas of bias for which to test are political and religious. Here are my results.

  1. When I search “White House”, the top result is “The Obama White House”. There is no current “White House” account, such as you would find on Instagram and even Flickr, a relatively small social media platform. The current administration has no presence on Medium at all. Odd for the most active Presidency on social media!
  2. When I search “Donald Trump”, the top 4 suggested accounts are: The Economist, The Washington Post, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and an account with a swear word I’ll omit here. Neutral? Not by a long shot.
Type “Trump” as keyword, left-wingers are the search results on

To my recollection, The Economist has not featured a positive article about Trump since he has been elected. The Washington Post, the media arm of Jeff Besoz’ empire, is Trump’s archenemy, right next to The “Failing” New York Times (as Trump likes to call it). As for Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton being recommended when one searches for “Trump”, well, let’s call it a serious error in algorithm. There seems to be a lack of pro-Trump/ conservative accounts on Medium, or else they exist but don’t show up on search results. Either way is an indication of bias.

3. I changed the search filter for “Trump” from “People” to “Stories”. Here is the #1 recommended story, so old (from July 2016) I wonder has no one posted an update worth recommending?

Two years later, not a single prediction has happened. Why is this still the top recommended post?

Note the applause from Medium staff and 17K other Medium readers means the company and community are sympathetic towards this piece. Nothing, not even one thing, predicted by this article has occurred because of Brexit or Trump’s election — no nuclear war, no economic collapse, no plague, no second Holocaust. Why is it still highly recommended by Medium staff? Why is there no counterpoint to contest it? Two years into the Presidency, we can now compare the assumptions of this blogger with facts.

Written by a Brit who extols the superiority of British education (for demanding multiple viewpoints), he proceeds to assert one anti-Trump viewpoint. Trump is compared to Hitler, Mussolini and Mugabe on an emotional appeal level, with no economic data, no financial argument. Far from collapsing, Americans are thriving again, GDP is over 4%, black unemployment has never been lower, and a historic meeting with Kim Jong Un has halted nuclear testing which Barack Obama could do nothing about. Can any of the Trump critics do better? These are facts that do not align with the “dictator” stigma.

What is a true common denominator of all dictators the writer listed is the fact that they all consider themselves “intellectuals”, just as this blogger sees himself. Intellectuals justify enforcing their agendas on others by claiming to be more learned, more read, more endowed with the gift to lead. The writer laments that Trump got elected only because the people “don’t read”, “don’t think”, and “ignore experts” (of whom he is one, just as all past dictators think they are). One thing Trump cannot be accused of is seeing himself is an “intellectual”. Even though he wakes up at 4 am every day and the first thing he does is read profusely, he is a street-smart negotiator. Street smart people are always disdained by book smart intellectuals.

4. The above results suggesting bias come from my user search of “Trump”. What does Medium recommend that I read based on my reading history (without searching any key word)? I am a Christian evangelical — Medium seems to know that. So here is my suggested reading: recommends anti-evangelical Christian, anti-Trump blogs. Where are the pro's?

The first post is a hit piece on evangelicals dumb enough to support Trump. The third is a promotion of “Non-Trump Evangelicals”. Given a higher percentage of evangelicals voted for Trump than any other Republican President before (some estimate as high as 80%), this promoted post is obviously a minority view, leaning towards anti-Trump, anti-conservative and anti-evangelical.

5. Next, I wanted to look for some good Christian content, as I can easily find by searching on YouTube and Twitter. Here is my recommended reading list from Medium:

The best Christian content recommended by Medium Staff.

Needless to say, mocking Christianity and promoting sexual lifestyles like “transgenderism” and “sapiosexualism” are hallmarks of the radical left. I have no interest in reading about other people’s sex life. You don’t have to be Christian to share my view. Millions of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and traditionalists find it offensive to have sexualized content publicly pushed by a media platform. On what basis is Medium recommending this to us?

6. I decided to go to the home page of Medium on my mobile phone. Here is the recommended reading list:

The top recommended blog is a post attacking men, another characteristic of left-leaning “conversations”. Imagine an anti-feminist/ pro-masculine post being top of the recommended reading on Medium? No, I cannot either.

Fathers and Christians are not cool. Feminists and Leftists are preferred.

The next recommended reading is a post normalizing swearing by a “young minister”. Whether it’s “radical” or not is for you to decide, but this is leaning anti-conservative and anti-traditional. I know non-religious, conservative people who would never swear in private, much less in church.

The third article Medium recommended to a Christian based on his “reading history” (I read nothing to indicate I want to be recommended this tripe) is about “avoiding the either/or trap: lessons learned losing my religion”. As someone who came from a family of Buddhists, Catholics, Methodists and Muslims (see my book “From Buddha to Jesus”), I find another post about “relativism” boring and the title provocative only to be clickbait. There’s nothing new, fresh or interesting about a Westerner promoting “relativistic” values. It’s the groupthink, dominant culture.

You would have to have a wider frame of reference, a greater grasp of absolutist value systems as believed and practiced worldwide, before you can make an interesting claim of having “lost” something opposite to greyish relativism. When I accepted Jesus for whom He says He is, I did not lose any of my family or religious background, I gained personal forgiveness of sins and a relationship with the Creator who is both absolutist sometimes and relativist sometimes. This surrender to His ways, not my own opinions, is the beginning of being Christian.

The Conclusion

Medium is a simple blogging site that requires minimum effort. It is not focused on building social trust. It does not pass the test of neutrality in my limited search for political and religious content. When a company ranks and recommends one political or religious ideology consistently above another, it is biased.

Yes, you can post anything you want about Donald Trump and Christianity, but the staff of Medium will rarely recommend a traditional viewpoint and the reaction of the community will not be many “claps”. You may not get "discovered" or positively promoted on Medium posting Christian content, unless by "Christian" you mean Bible-doubting, church-abandoning, pastor-mocking, tradition-rejecting and Trump-hating. The same applies to conservative content, unless by "conservative" you mean you disagree with your conservative parents and have seen the light that Trump is a fascist as evil as Hitler. Perhaps you will never see this article on your Medium home page. Perhaps one day you will see this post "erased" off the platform.

You can find me contributing alternative views to the recommended reading on Medium, on NewsWars, and on my personal blog.

Originally published at

Serena William's Shameless Name-Calling | How "Racist" & "Sexist" Became Labels for Losers

Serena William's Shameless Name-Calling | How "Racist" & "Sexist" Became Labels for Losers

Which cartoon caricature is racist and sexist - Serena Williams or Condoleeza Rice?
Which cartoon caricature is racist and sexist - Serena Williams or Condoleeza Rice?

When the Left cry "racist" and "sexist" it's become a political stunt. What a shame for people undergoing real racism and sexism.

"Social justice" activists express little outrage over real gender discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia or racial persecution of white farmers in South Africa. This is hypocrisy.

Serena William's cry that she lost the US Open due to racism and sexism is more than a personal outburst, it's symbolic of a way of thinking. The labels "racist" and "sexist" now signal that left-wingers have lost, they have no argument left, so the only thing left to do is name-calling. Serena Williams is a prominent reminder to the rest of us that these labels are no longer being used rationally, but politically.

Look at the hypocrisy of the Left when they criticized Australian Mark Knight's cartoon of Serena Williams as "racist", yet they expressed no outrage over countless caricatures of Condoleeza Rice drawn by Martin Rowson, Ted Rall, Bob Horare, etc. Ted Rall called the then-Secretary of State "Bush’s house nigga.” Where was the outrage over such overt racism?

Compare the contexts: Serena lost and acted up. She deserved to be made fun of, not because of her gender or skin color, but because she showed poor sportsmanship. Did Rice lose? Did she ever throw a public tantrum? On the contrary, she is black woman who was promoted to high ranks in a conservative government, and that was simply intolerable to the Left. 

When a Leftist cries "you're a racist" or "you're a sexist", be assured that the fellow they're attacking has a better argument, or a better meme or a better cartoon. If these labels were rational, then they would apply in defense of conservative blacks like Dr. Ben Carson and conservative women like Condoleeza Rice, yet both are vilified by the left-leaning mainstream media.

When political power matters more than anything, real racism is ignored and true sexism is swept under the carpet (especially when it's against a man). Dirty politics will bury any truth and crush any victim.

Does anyone believe Serena Williams' loss to a 20-year-old half-back, half-Japanese tennis player who's already defeated her before is the result of sexism or racism? Serious name calling is now a ploy. And a distraction from the genuine winner: Naomi Osaka!

Congratulations on becoming the first Japanese citizen to win a Grand Slam singles tournament, and for reaching a world ranking of No. 7.


Steve Cioccolanti is not a white person and has no white privilege. You will have to use logic, reason and civility to communicate with him, as race-baiting and name-calling won't work.

Like his thoughts? Get more while supporting him on Discover Church Online!

What's the Difference between US Congress & British Parliament? | American vs. Commonwealth Governments Compared - Steve Cioccolanti

In a Parliamentary system, the "prime (first) minister" is chosen by his/her own party, not the population. Therefore a Prime Minister is always an insider, a professional party member, and the possibility of an outsider like Donald Trump coming in to "shake things up" in countries like Australia or England is virtually nil.

The party can even oust a sitting Prime Minister and switch the country's main leader at will, without any consent of the people, as happened from 2010-2015 when Australia had 5 different prime ministers in 5 years! Though Democrats would love to override the will of the people, ousting Donald Trump as President will never happen.

Impeachment is possible in the US by vote of both houses of Congress, yet no President has even been removed from office. The House of Representatives impeached 2 presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, but the Senate acquitted them both. The House of Representatives started an impeachment process against Richard Nixon but it was never completed. Nixon resigned in 1974, becoming the only President to ever remove himself from office.

The US system of government was carefully crafted by the principally Christian founders who referred to the Bible for a template of governance. They saw 3 distinct branches with separate powers that were able to hold each other on "checks and balance".

The only Biblical check and balance they omitted to enshrine was the authority of the religious branch (Prophets, later Sanhedrin and latest Church), which is the only body entirely independent of and impervious to politicians. Despite their broadmindedness, the Founding Fathers were victims of their time; they reacted to the circumstances of the context they lived in. Many early European immigrants to America were Christians from smaller churches fleeing persecution, oppression and control by a) the Catholic Church on the continent and b) the Anglican Church in England. Understandably they had a bias against established religion, but not Christian religion itself. They could in no way foresee the political bias against all Christian churches today. It would have been unfathomable to them!

Here is one lesson: the founding fathers were educated in history, philosophy and theology, yet they should not have neglected to recognize and protect the role of the Church. If ever all 3 branches (or 2 for a Parliamentarian system) become corrupt, then only the Church is left to educate the public and correct the immorality of the "powers that be" (PTB). Even when one branch is corrupt, such as seen in America by "judicial activism" or judges making laws without Congress or the people's consent, the main institution that stands by to oppose such corruption by informing  voters is the Church. Few politicians want to risk their careers by rocking the boat. They are all in the same "club" and must scratch each other's backs, unless they are an outsider like Donald Trump.

This explains why the Left introduces legislation against the Church every chance they get, on a yearly basis in Australia, because despite our imperfections, we are not taxed and cannot be cajoled into giving up our moral standards by political bribes. We cannot be bribed by government funding like schools and universities can, or by regulatory licenses like journalists and TV stations are. We (most of us ministers) take nothing from government and we give society far greater value in terms of social stability, personal morality, Sunday school, sports chaplaincy, youth counselling, marital counselling, social work and poverty alleviation (to name only a few benefits of Christianity). The Left hates us because we are the only major institution which they have not taken over. 

Every citizen, especially Christians, must understand why all liberties depend on religious liberty. Defend religious freedom from Marxist forces by prayer AND participation in politics! If you like this leave us a comment!

Steve Cioccolanti, Contributor to 

What's Obama got to do with Trump-Kim Summit in Singapore? NHK Left Slant Exposed by Steve Cioccolanti

Did anyone catch this right after the Norko Sumit in Singapore on 12 June 2018?

Yashushi Chimura, Former Abductee, on NHK Newsline

NHK (the state-sponsored, left-biased news channel of Japan) chose a striking background to interview Japanese people who were unhappy with the Trump-Kim meeting. Steve Cioccolanti spotted the subliminal message and posted on his Twitter account.

Obama, Japan.

Granted Obama is a real town in Japan, who thinks it "just so happened" that critics of Trump appeared on TV in a town of 30,000 people called "Obama", instead of the capital city of 13.8 million people called "Tokyo"? With a printed screen background of a small town ready for the cameras? It smacks of staging. "Subliminal stimuli," as it is commercially known, are engineered into advertising, movies and TV programming.

What was the Japanese interviewees' complaint? President Trump had just accomplished what no one else had ever done for Japan, South Korea and North Korea. The list of achievements include:

"The world will see historic change," said Kim Jong-Un

  • The release of three American evangelical Christians held as prisoners in North Korea: Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak Song and Tony Kim (prior to the Summit). 
  • The first-ever meeting between a US President and a North Korean Chairman. 
  • Remains of fallen heroes and family members in North Korea will be allowed to be recovered from North Korea.
  • All North Korean missile and nuclear tests will be halted. 
  • US-South Korea "war games" will end. 
  • Christianity will be allowed without persecution, according to Charisma Magazine

"We will have a terrific relationship," President Trump said.

The details of the negotiations and agreement reached are still being gradually disclosed, but somehow the Japanese who campaign for former abductees by North Korea knew that Donald Trump "didn't do enough".

Obama. That is the American leader NHK adored. They continue to promote him to the Japanese public. Who did he help? Obama sent billions in cash to Iran. His beneficiaries surely miss him. That may be why Obama is not going away fast.

Meanwhile Koreans are celebrating the overwhelming success of Donald Trump. He has exceeded all expectations. For years, the world witnessed the Hermit Kingdom test missiles and nuclear bombs. Months ago, the media accused Trump of risking nuclear war with North Korea. Now with the promise of complete de-nuclearization, Koreans are inspired to copy Trump's MAGA motto with their own MKOA T-shirts: MAKE KOREA ONE AGAIN.

Related articles
Lies About Donald Trump
Who is Steve Cioccolanti?

Steve Cioccolanti Exposes Lies About Donald Trump

Donald Trump in the Cross Hairs

What are we to believe when powerful forces have nothing good to say about a person? They put cross-hairs on the head of the US President implying they approve what should be a crime: the assassination of a sitting President.   

The mainstream media has become a contrarian indicator. Whatever they report, just believe the opposite. Here are some things they reported:
  • Brexit would never happen. 
  • If Brexit happened, Britain’s economy will go down the tube. 

Fake news! Brits wanted Brexit. Britain’s economy has done just fine after Brexit. Nigel Farage has accomplished what he promised the people. But no credit will be given to Nigel Farage in the mainstream media. 

Here are some more news reported by the media: