Poetic Injustice: Final Debate of the 2016 Presidential Election


The transmogrification of reality in America continued earlier tonight as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump engaged in the third and final debate of the 2016 presidential election. Clinton came out in Las Vegas, Nevada, dressed as a cream-colored corrupt criminal bureaucrat while Trump wore his usual attire of orange tear-gas tinted facial features and a blood-soaked tie tucked underneath his suit jacket. Fox News hardballer Chris Wallace was set to moderate. He wore glasses. I almost wrote class. There was very little to be involved.

First issue up for debate was debt and entitlements. (At least I think it was.) To me, this was strange. What do Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump know about debt and entitlement?

The debate started off boring as hell. Typical, you might say, for presidential elections — but unexpected for what we’ve seen this entire year, with 16 Republican candidates outrageously whittled down to a billionaire versus a millionaire. One has property and investments spanning more countries than the average American will ever visit in his or her dreams. The other has stipulated a private mandate to enrich herself with public service. In other words, the culmination of what used to be atypical for political standards across the U.S.A. is now a symptom of poetic injustice on a massive scale.

With the entire country now enshrouded in this political mystique (misery), or at least most of it anyway, the climax of the 2016 presidential election hit the Seventh Circle of Hell. Boredom in rhetoric. Claustrophobia in a country with over 300 million people. Fifty states and territories to boot. I almost said loot.


Then it was time to discuss immigration. We all know Trump’s policies, even our friends in outer space. What the hell’s going on here?

I began talking to myself, immediately, with Clinton’s first comments. As she doused the cameras, the moderator, the audience, and her opponent with her public experience, I came across this story from Reason. “Clinton’s 700-Mile Border Fence Is Just 300 Miles Shorter Than Trump’s.” It discusses her bragging, back in November of 2015, about voting for a wall on the Mexican border in 2006. Maybe.

To sum it up, here are Reason’s editor in chief Nick Gillespie’s final sentiments in the piece, from Sept 1:

“So the distance between Clinton and Trump on immigration, especially now that he has ‘softened’ his deportation language, is pretty narrow. Indeed, it might just be 300 miles of useless pork-barrel spending on fencing in the Southwestern desert.”

Clinton, at this moment in the debate, accused Trump of saying he’d send nukes to Saudi Arabia. Trump responded by calling Clinton a liar. Then, Clinton said that the “US has kept peace with alliances.”

During Barack Obama’s tenure as President of the United States, the US government has sold $115 billion in weapons to Saudi Arabia. That’s more than the previous Bush administration by $30 billion. Since March 2015, Saudi Arabia has indiscriminately bombed Yemen, the poorest country in the middle East. Multiple mainstream news media outlets have deemed these actions war crimes. Today, with regard to Obama’s responsibility in the middle East, US News and World Report called the ongoing attacks “unconstitutional and very unwise.”

Within the last two weeks, Saudi Arabia bombed a funeral in Yemen. The New York Times reported on this story, as well as a variety of other publications. In the horrific incident more than 100 people were killed, in addition to hundreds wounded.

As of August 30, Reuters/The Huffington Post reported that 10,000 people have died in Yemen’s civil war, nearly 3,800 of which have been civilians. Sixty percent of 3,800 equates to how many civilians have died in the conflict at the hands of Saudi bombs.

What does this have to do with immigration?

“… the conflict has displaced three million Yemenis and forced 200,000 to seek refuge abroad. The United Nations had information that 900,000 of the displaced intended to try to return to their homes.”


Next, Clinton stated that she wanted a “growing economy.” She wanted America to “compete.” She said she wanted to “raise the national minimum wage.”

“The money is going to the top.”

This, from a woman who gave three speeches to Goldman Sachs — one of the largest investment banks on the planet — at $225,000 a pop. You know, as a private citizen. According to Mic, and the rest of the public domain, Clinton gave over 90 speeches which aggregated nearly $22 million in speaking fees. The total for her speaking fees to big banks? One point eight million dollars. ($1.8 million.)

There’s something oddly strange about a candidate for president, who has become exorbitantly wealthy from her work in public service, in collusion with the private sector, informing the American public where their money is going.


Clinton continued, remarking that 3.5 million jobs would be lost with Trump’s tax plan. He’d add $20 trillion to the debt, she claimed. Could he possibly match Obama in that regard?

Trump responded that Clinton would “raise and double taxes.”

Clinton quickly retorted that Obama had cut the country’s deficit by two-thirds. She said that he had saved the economy.

Meanwhile, the national debt on the debt clock is set to stand at a whopping $20 trillion by the time Obama leaves office. That figure is nearly double from where it was when he began to “save the economy,” according to Clinton. Forty-three presidents came before Obama. In two terms, he doubled the debt they accumulated over the course of approximately 220 years.

Trump then referenced Clinton’s deletion of tens of thousands of emails, after she’d been subpoenaed by Congress. He intimated that a four-star general who now faces jail time for leaking classified information was abhorrently comparable. Trump called Clinton’s campaign “corrupt.”

What this all has to do with the economy, I couldn’t tell you.


Wallace then inquired Clinton about the Clinton Foundation. He questioned that, with recent Wikileaks revelations, it was concerning that there had been some quid pro quo going on. A la pay to play.

Clinton responded, without budging in her facial expression, that she was thrilled to be talking about the Clinton Foundation, and all the great work it has done. She droned on, that she could talk about it all night if she’d been allotted the time.

Trump characteristically responded that the Clinton Foundation was a “criminal enterprise.” He mentioned Saudi Arabia and Qatar, specifically, and how both countries had delivered millions of dollars in donations to the foundation. He questioned the humanitarian records of the two countries which, with the Wikileaks emails, equated Clinton to accepting money from countries she knew had hands in funding terrorism.

She was then asked, by Trump, to give back that money to both countries.


This is where my notes got hazy. I couldn’t take it any more. It’s what wasn’t mentioned by both candidates, that was getting to me.

One of the most important issues of our time, climate change.

And the longest war in the history of the United States, Afghanistan. Where two Americans were recently killed, with three more wounded.

“The shooting [in Afghanistan] comes as the Afghan government in Kabul has come under growing pressure from the Taliban and other armed insurgents despite 15 years of war.”

The fact that these two issues weren’t mentioned and discussed in the final presidential debate is hard to take.

Not to mention two of the other candidates, in the Libertarian and Green parties, who are both on the ballot in more than 40 states.

So we’re all left with the question:

What’s next for democracy in America?

Bryan is a freelance writer/copy editor/copywriter. He reads, researches and drinks beer. He also writes poetry, short stories, essays, and is working on various novels, some of which include private documentation of traveling and living in Philadelphia, Colorado, and New Jersey. Currently, he lives in South Philadelphia. He also paints and records his own music.

Wikileaks Releases Part Two Of John Podesta’s Email Leak

On October 10, Wikileaks released part two of their email dump from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.


The second batch has revealed that current DNC chair Donna Brazile, when working as a DNC vice chair, forwarded to the Clinton campaign an email obtained from the rival Bernie Sanders campaign announcing a Twitter storm. “FYI,” Brazile wrote to the Clinton staff forwarding the email.

“Thank you for the heads up on this Donna,” replied Clinton campaign spokesperson, Adrienne Elrod.

In addition to outing another DNC official as corrupt and neglecting to do her job fairly and unbiased, other emails leaked reveal further collusion between the mainstream media and the Clinton Campaign.

In one email received by Clinton donor Haim Saban and forwarded to Clinton staff, the friendly to Clinton moderators in the early March 2016 Democratic primary debate were praised.

“Haim, I just wanted to tell you that I thought the moderators for last nights Debate were excellent. They were thoughtful, tough and incisive. I thought it made Hilary appear direct and strong in her resolve. I felt it advanced our candidate. Thanks for Univision,”

~Rob Friedman, former co-chair of the Motion Picture Group.

Another email discusses planting a favorable Clinton story in The New York Times, manipulating voters’ opinions on Hillary Clinton.

“NYT heroine. Should she call her today?” Podesta wrote to other Clinton campaign staffers. “I do think it’s a great idea! We can make it happen,” Huma Abedin, said in an email.

Then there are the emails that expose corruption such as an email from Marc Elias of the law firm Perkins Coie, in which he outlined “legal tricks” to circumvent campaign finance laws to raise money together with Super PACs.

Then there’s the email of Clinton Campaign manager Robby Mook of the “Mook Mafia” expressing frustration that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz hired a Convention CEO without consulting the Clinton campaign first. This suggests that the Clinton campaign had an influence on the DNC the entire time, a clear violation of the FEC (Federal Election Commission) rules.

Finally we have leaked emails that show Hillary Clinton saying “Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding ISIS.”

“While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region,” Hillary Clinton wrote.

An obvious conflict of interest – all the money that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have given to Hillary Clinton’s Clinton Foundation. If she knowingly knew that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding ISIS and she still took money from them, what does that say about her own ethics and judgment? In fact she is basically supporting terrorism by taking money when she knows that the Saudis and Qatar are providing material support for the Islamic State.

Qatar has given an estimated $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and Saudi Arabia has donated at least $25 million dollars to the Foundation.  Will she be forced to denounce support for the two countries or will she act like this leak never happened? No matter what she does eventually it’s all going to catch up to her.

I am an Activist a writer a blogger and an investigative journalist writing for (www.wearechange.org)

A Radio host of the Blog-talk Radio Series:

My Sources are everywhere..
Enemy of the New World Order.

The Real Truth Behind The October Surprise

In this video Luke Rudkowski goes over the whole truth about the October Surprise and why everyone is really disappointed now.

Reference links and Sources available [HERE]


Hillary Clinton Proposed Drone Strike on Julian Assange

DOD Paid PR Firm $540 Million to Make Fake Terrorist Videos

Facebook Has given the Police the Ability to Remove Public Access to Posts

Support WeAreChange by Subscribing to our channel HERE http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c…


Sign up become a patron and Show your support for alternative news

for Just 1$ a month you can help Grow We are change
We use Bitcoin Too !  
Join and Up Vote Our STEEMIT


Danny F. Quest, is an artist, blogger, journalist, and media personality. Co. Founder of TheTruther.us, Danny works as a Freelance journalist and graphic designer for WeAreChange.org, is currently working on publishing the WeAreChange memoir with Brian Kenny, If you would like to contribute to getting our book out click this link https://igg.me/at/Wearechangebook

Hillary Clinton Proposed Drone Strike on Julian Assange

Under Intense Pressure to Silence Wikileaks, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Proposed Drone Strike on Julian Assange.


Julian Assange and his free-speech brainchild Wikileaks were once lauded as global heroes of public service among United States politicians and policy makers. But by 2010, four years after its inception during the President George W. Bush administration, Assange and his organization were no longer considered lovable troublemakers and mavericks.

A year into President Barack Obama’s first term, Wikileaks was suddenly considered an out-of-control free-speech Frankenstein wreaking havoc on United States foreign policy and intelligence gathering at the direction of Assange, its proverbial Dr. Frankenstein.

The honeymoon for the whistle-blower web site, once a darling of the Democratic Party, was now over. Even more alarming, Assange’s personal safety and organization were increasingly at risk from U.S. concerns.

By November 2010, Assange was a household name globally, but especially on Capitol Hill. And in the State Department alone his prowess of releasing otherwise secret, damning military documents and emails were filling conference rooms at Foggy Bottom and the White House with policy wonks and bureaucrats desperately seeking to squelch the upstart Wikileaks. At the State Department, meeting after meeting was conducted about how Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her inner circle were going to squash Assange and Wikileaks latest planned document dump on the United States. Deemed “CableGate,” Assange planned to release confidential cables, or communications, unveiling damaging internal conversations between State Department personnel and its foreign assets and allies.

Prodded by the looming CableGate, Clinton met with staff on Tuesday November 23, 2010 shortly after 8 a.m. on Mahogany Row at the State Department to attempt to formulate a strategy to avert Assange’s plans to release an enormous batch of 250,000 secret cables, dating from 1966 to 2010. Assange had professed for months to rain the internal cables down on Clinton and President Obama. The collective fear was the context of the secret cables would hamper U.S. intelligence gathering and compromise private correspondences and intelligence shared with foreign governments and opposition leaders. Splashing such juicy details on television news shows and the front pages of major newspapers in the country was great for the media but lousy for intelligence and foreign policy. Many, including Clinton and her elected boss, expressed fear these revelations would embarrass and expose intelligence allies of the United States and set America’s already fragile foreign policy back decades.

“By its very nature, field reporting to Washington is candid and often incomplete information,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement responding to Wikileaks’ anticipated tidal wave release of intelligence. “It is not an expression of policy, nor does it always shape final policy decisions.”

Clinton’s State Department was getting pressure from President Obama and his White House inner circle, as well as heads of state internationally, to try and cutoff Assange’s delivery of the cables and if that effort failed, then to forge a strategy to minimize the administration’s public embarrassment over the contents of the cables. Hence, Clinton’s early morning November meeting of State’s top brass who floated various proposals to stop, slow or spin the Wikileaks contamination. That is when a frustrated Clinton, sources said, at some point blurted out a controversial query.

“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States. Clinton was upset about Assange’s previous 2010 records releases, divulging secret U.S. documents about the war in Afghanistan in July and the war in Iraq just a month earlier in October, sources said. At that time in 2010, Assange was relatively free and not living cloistered in in the embassy of Ecuador in London. Prior to 2010, Assange focused Wikileaks’ efforts on countries outside the United States but now under Clinton and Obama, Assange was hammering America with an unparalleled third sweeping Wikileaks document dump in five months. Clinton was fuming, sources said, as each State Department cable dispatched during the Obama administration was signed by her.

Clinton and other top administration officials knew the compromising materials warehoused in the CableGate stash would provide critics and foreign enemies with a treasure trove of counterintelligence. Bureaucratic fears about the CableGate release ultimately proved to be well founded by Clinton, her inner circle and her boss in the White House. The revelations of these U.S. diplomat generated correspondences were damaging on many levels, and among thousands of examples, included:

  • One cable detailed a discussion between Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh and Gen. David H. Petraeus where Saleh indicates he would cover up and accept blame for America’s missile strikes against al-Qaeda in Yemen.
  • U.S. diplomats offered various countries a meeting with President Obama and untold millions of dollars, if these countries agreed to accept detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison.
  • U.S. diplomats engaged in low-level spying by collecting foreign diplomats’ personal information, including credit card numbers to track their global travel itineraries.
  • The cables also exposed the sensitive behind-the-scenes diplomacy involved in winning sanctions against Iran,
  • The cables exposed U.S. officials’ plan to extract highly enriched uranium from Pakistan,
  • Intelligence was divulged on North Korea’s ties to Tehran’s weaponry program, how it helped Iran obtain missiles that could strike Moscow and Western European cities.
  • Documents were released naming Arab officials and their concerns and complaints about Iran’s nuclear program,
  • One such leak detailed King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia pleading with  the United States to “cut off the head of the snake,” meaning Iran’s nuclear program.
  • In cables from U.S. diplomats, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is described as an “alpha-dog.”
  • Afghan President Hamid Karzai, confidential U.S. diplomat correspondences alleged, was “driven by paranoia.”
  • German Chancellor Angela Merkel “avoids risk and is rarely creative.”
  • Gaddafi spends much time in public with a “voluptuous blonde” Ukrainian nurse.
  • Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, “appears increasingly to be the mouthpiece of Putin” in Europe after receiving “lavish gifts” including large energy contracts thanks to the negotiations  of a “shadowy,” Russian-speaking Italian intermediary.
  • And thousands more of additional intelligence revelations along the same lines.

Following Clinton’s alleged drone proposal, another controversial remedy was floated in the State Department to place a reward or bounty for Assange’s capture and extradition to the United States, sources said. Numbers were discussed in the realm of a $10 million bounty. A State Department source described that staff meeting as bizarre. One minute staffers were inquiring about the Secretary’s blue and black checkered knit sweater and the next minute, the room was discussing the legalities of a drone strike on Assange and financial bounties, sources said.

Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton’s top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.”

“Nonlegal strategies.” How did that phrasing make it into an official State Department email subject line dealing with solving Wikileaks and Assange? Why would the secretary of state and her inner circle be discussing any “nonlegal strategies” for anything whatsoever? Against anyone? Shouldn’t all the strategies discussed by the country’s top diplomat be strictly legal only? And is the email a smoking gun to confirm Clinton was actually serious about pursuing an obvious “nonlegal strategy” proposal to allegedly assassinate Assange? Numerous attempts were made to try and interview and decipher Slaughter’s choice of email wording, however, she could not be reached for comment. Insiders said Slaughter is keeping a “low profile” in Princeton, NJ until she is nominated for a position in Clinton’s cabinet if the Democrat is elected in November. Likewise, True Pundit attempted to contact Mills, Abedin, and Sullivan for their perspectives on this story. None commented on the record.


Slaughter’s cryptic email also contained an attached document called “SP Wikileaks doc final11.23.10.docx.” That attachment portion of Slaughter’s “nonlegal strategies” email has yet to be recovered by federal investigators and House committee investigators probing Clinton’s email practices while at State. Even Wikileaks does not have the document. Slaughter, however, shed some light on the attachment: “The result is the attached memo, which has one interesting legal approach and I think some very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy.”

But did it also include details on the “nonlegal strategies” teased in the subject line?

Sources confirm Clinton took the email and attachment with her to the White House for an afternoon meeting with Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon prior to an additional evening meeting at the White House. President Obama, sources said, did not attend the early meeting with Gates as he was traveling with Vice President Joe Biden. President Obama did attend the second meeting, however, and Wikileaks and Assange’s planned release of secret cables were discussed at length, sources said. Attending this meeting were President Obama, Clinton, Gates, Donilon, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral “Mike” Mullen, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright as well as a half dozen or more various policy aides, sources confirmed.

Did Clinton also share her alleged morning query of droning Assange with the members of the National Security Council and the President? Was it discussed among the top secret subjects in the meeting? Or was Clinton planning to conduct or hatch her own secret foreign policy in defiance of the President, a likely violation of the Logan Act?

Now, almost six years after allegedly threatening to assassinate Julian Assange, some former State Department personnel believe perhaps Clinton’s comments were an attempt at brevity or humor by the former secretary of state, sources said. But since when is Clinton known for her beaming sense of humor and wit? Joking or not, is it appropriate for the top diplomat of the United States to even jest about droning the Wikileaks founder, largely considered an international journalist and whistle blower? State Department personnel would not talk on the record about the Assange meetings or Clinton’s comments. But sources familiar with the meeting said their recollections were jarred again by a recently released report from the FBI’s July interview with Clinton where she acknowledged a penchant for discussing drone strikes to eliminate troublesome foes.

The FBI’s 302 report from Clinton’s email investigation interview, again, specified that Clinton had “many discussions” related to “nominating” drone strikes on individuals:

“Clinton could not recall a specific process for nominating a target for a drone strike and recalled much debate pertaining to the concurrence process. Clinton knew there was a role for DOD, State and the CIA but could not provide specifics as to what it was. Due to a disagreement between these agencies, Clinton recalled having many discussions related to nominating an individual for a drone strike. When Clinton exchanged classified information pertaining to the drone program internally at State, it was in her office or on a secure call. When Clinton exchanged classified information pertaining to the drone program externally it was at the White House. Clinton never had a concern with how classified information pertaining to the drone program was handled.”

Sources said Clinton’s comments on neutralizing Assange fits a pattern of callousness when combined with the FBI testimony that she often considered droning individuals and then coupled with her reaction to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi’s death in Oct. 2011.

Gaddafi was tortured and killed, largely due to Clinton’s maneuvering in the Middle East and Libya. During a sit down interview with CBS News, a Clinton aide notified the room during a taping break of news reports that Gaddafi had been dragged throughout the streets of Libya and ultimately killed. Unaware the camera was still rolling, a jovial and proud Clinton pronounced: “We came. We saw. He died.” This was Clinton’s initial response to the dictator’s demise. A cackling Clinton was then joined in laughter by the CBS correspondent and off-camera aides and staff.  Again, more proof of a disturbing habit of treating human life as a disposable commodity like a soiled diaper.

Unable to legally counter or stop Wikileaks, and likely abandoning any and all legal and “nonlegal strategies,” Clinton and her staff were forced to weather the collateral damage of CableGate. In fact, just five days after Clinton’s meetings on Mahogany Row in the State Department and the White House, Wikileaks began releasing cables to news outlets globally on Sunday November 28, 2010.

Shortly after CableGate, the WikiLeaks founder sought refuge from authorities and threats by hiding at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

Now 45, Assange is in his fifth year living quarantined inside the embassy. Clinton remains the Democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States.

Source of Article = http://truepundit.com/


Sign up become a patron and Show your support for alternative news

for Just 1$ a month you can help Grow We are change
We use Bitcoin Too !  
Join and Up Vote Our STEEMIT
Danny F. Quest, is an artist, blogger, journalist, and media personality. Co. Founder of TheTruther.us, Danny works as a Freelance journalist and graphic designer for WeAreChange.org, is currently working on publishing the WeAreChange memoir with Brian Kenny, If you would like to contribute to getting our book out click this link https://igg.me/at/Wearechangebook

Exclusive: Audio Interview With Haitian Activist Theova Milfort

I sat down to talk to Haitian activist Theova Milfort, who recently passed out in front of the White House during his six day hunger strike.

Milfort was protesting for Barack Obama to visit his country Haiti and to apologize publicly for what the Clintons did to Haiti before he leaves office.

Theova was rushed to the hospital after passing out in front of the White House during a campaign for Barack Obama to visit Haiti before he leaves office.

Theova expressed that he wanted the betterment of his people, especially the youth. Theova runs an organization that helps the youth and other struggling Haitian residents to help get his people out of poverty. He spoke about how the Clintons raped his country of it’s resources and destroyed his country’s economy after the Haitian earthquake. Speaking about the Clintons mining deal, he called it an economic crime against Haiti.

“After 50 years to get a permit for Tony Rodham, to export gold in Haiti less than 2% of royalties, this is insane this is actually an economic crime against Haiti,” Theova said.

Theova additionally talked about the history of slavery in Haiti and Haiti’s history that influenced the U.S. and other countries, and how the Haitians were the first independent black nation in the world. This is a major reason he feels that Barack Obama should go over to Haiti before he leaves office, being the first U.S. African American president.

“We the people of Haiti have a slogan shut down Haiti to rebuild it,” Theova said.

“We beat up the first army the french and Napoléon army and we declared that Haiti was free and the first black nation in the world. Back in the 1820’s African American’s were in Haiti fleeing from racism and misery and slavery in America. Then back to 1920-30s-40s-50s-60s there was still slavery going on in the USA, then in 1979 some fifty hundred soldiers went to Sabadah to fight against the British for independence.

Then back to 1960’s we saw that blacks weren’t allowed to share the same bathrooms. Slavery didn’t end until Rosa Parks stood up and said I won’t give up my seat for you. A big time blow, that got inspired from the Haitian revolution because we are the first to say “Black Lives Matter” and were the first ones to say All lives matter. We helped South America get independence Brazil, Argentina, Panama etc.,” Theova said.

Theova also talked about how Haitians are seen as unskilled workers and paid less despite working for years for a manufacturing corporation.

“The main problem is the wages aren’t good and the government is taking wages out of those wages and they give only 1,000 – 3,000 people jobs.”

We also discussed the corruption of the current Haitian government, opening the market for foreign businessmen while selling out their own people.

Theova told me how it’s been an uphill battle, constantly facing hardships in trying to get his message across to help his county.

Thoeova helps run the non-profit organization FTMDhaiti.org, which provides micro-loans to help Haitians. Theova added “handouts don’t work in Haiti, we say that the best way to help people is teach them how to catch a fish not give them a fish daily, we do financial training, how to run a small business,  how to run it, how to deal with customer service, how to maintain stocks and we give them a small amount of money to open up or add to their existing businesses.”

If you can afford it and want to help out the people of Haiti, you can donate and reach Theova through FTMDhaiti.org. Stay tuned to We Are Change.

Theova Milfort @theovaMilfort Theova Milfort

CEO at Fondation Theova Milfort pour le Dev. Inc.The voice of the voiceless!Human Rights Activist,Researcher,Actor,Microfinance expert,The upright man of Haiti!

Haiti W.I.and Florida, USA

In this video former Haitian President of Senate is speaking out to tell the truth about the Clinton Foundation at a Trump event! The former president said that Hillary Clinton was trying to buy him. Clinton’s brother was later granted a rare permit by the Haitian government to mine for gold.

In this video Luke Rudkowski interviews Haitian American Joseph Mathieu a member of the Haitian community that has been in the streets protesting against Hillary Rodham Clinton. 


Sign up become a patron and Show your support for alternative news

for Just 1$ a month you can help Grow We are change
We use Bitcoin Too !  
Join and Up Vote Our STEEMIT
I am an Activist a writer a blogger and an investigative journalist writing for (www.wearechange.org)

A Radio host of the Blog-talk Radio Series:

My Sources are everywhere..
Enemy of the New World Order.

Pin It on Pinterest