Reset Show Field Borders Purchase: Fill & Download for Free

I will share with you the experience and tips how to benefit from RFM even without a three-year sales history.We provided the RFM analysis to dozens of different shops and faced a number of obstacles on the way to achieving real results.Before to describe them all, let us once again recall what RFM gives us. It is based on three indicators:Recency — the most recent purchase dateFrequency — the total frequency of purchasesMonetary — the average billI think the Monetary indicator is not necessarily tied to money. It can be any filter superimposed on the basic parameters of this method: Recency and Frequency. For example, the information portal can be considered by views of the page or the depth of viewing pages on the website. RF matrix can be considered separately for different types of clients, filtering by the client's source, by region, by category of purchased goods, by age, and more.If you divide all your clients by recency of last purchase into several groups and the number of purchases made, it is possible to construct a matrix which shows how to divide your clients into groups based on their activity:NewcomersOne-time buyersGrowingLost clientsVIPThere are much more groups, but we will get back to them later. I usually build scales by frequency and recency, according to the principle: from bad to good. So by the recency: on the left, those who bought a long time ago, and on the right - who recently bought. By frequency: those who made a single purchase are lower, and who made a lot of purchases - on the top. Then the visual separation of groups will look something like this:We have mentioned it before, but let's look in details how to split the base into groups and mark scale, how many groups to allocate and what to do with them next.The most important indicator is — «Recency». The more time has passed since the last sale, the less likely the next purchase. And this probability drops very rapidly. Let's review the "Recency" from the beginning. For example, we have three clients (square, circle, triangle) and on the graph, we noted the time when each client had made a purchase.Please note, for some reason I drew a graph of limitations in the opposite direction from good to bad. I am sorry and promise to correct it later :(The task is to determine how many clients fall into each of the periods by recency. It is important to realize that the recency is the indicator which takes into account only the last purchase, previous purchases will be marked by the frequency. So the correct answer to the puzzle is:Period 1: 1 (only the circle)Period 2: 1 (only the triangle)Period 3: 1 (only the square, because circle and triangle bought after as well)Period 4: 0 (each one made a purchase after this)If you calculate how many clients fall within each segment, it is possible to build charts, which may look something like this::Once again there is a question: which of the three options is the best?I often hear that «the red (3)» — because it is stable in fact, it shows that we are constantly attracting clients who make a purchase and do not come back again. It is good that figure is slightly growing, but still «purple (1)» is better. As it can be seen that the majority of our audience recently bought something and is strongly involved in the buying process. Of course, the worst is the — «green (2)» график. In this case, we had a surge of activity (may be New Year or strong investments in context), and then we lost everything.Most books on the analysis, including the popular edition of «Strategic Database Marketing»by Arthur M. Hughes, proposed a very simple mechanism of separation of "Recency" by segments: sort all your contacts by recency and divide into 5 equal groups. The same is recommended to do with the frequency and the monetary:This method works and helps to break all the clients on: recently bought, rarely, long time ago, a very long time relatively to each other.But what it is «when»? If we can not say exactly «when», then it is too hard to evaluate this group.For example, in the neighboring group can get contacts that bought something in the same day. It means that we will treat differently the same clients... Why then do we conduct such an analysis?I will try to show the entire depth of the problem on two examples:Example 1: Everything was well in your store, and suddenly no purchase within a month. Everything is bad, but if you split into equal parts - nothing will change, and the last buyers fall into the segment «recently bought».Example 2: If you do not have sales data for several years yet, and you have just started your business, the borders will be very different every day, and there is no point to use the results of this analysis.Seasons, promotions and holidays also strongly influence the overall picture.It seems to me logical to fix not quantity, but time. Then the optimization of the number in the group will be our priority. We will need to get more contacts in the group, «recently bought» and as little as possible in «a long time ago».It remains only to determine which time limits are better to expose. To do this, ask yourself a few questions:What is the natural period of the purchase?Seasonality?How much time do the most clients need to make a repeat purchase?What period of inactivity of the client can we assume that we have lost him/her? (the length of the client life cycle)For companies which do not have the data, these periods can be assumed. There are some charts with the difference between purchases (which I will discuss later) might help for companies «with history».I gave an example of the schedule with the difference in months between the first and second purchases.Most stores have similar pictures as in Fig. Here we see that 50% of all repeat purchases were made during the first two months. During the six months, up to 75% percent make their second order and 90% of those who buy again — buy within 13 months.Which one of you can make a practical conclusion? I think, there is no need to give a discount to those who buy without our help.Discount prices should be 2 months after the first purchase. Before this, it is necessary to show the relevant offers, to be a household name and the main thing — to be useful to the client.If you build a matrix difference between any adjacent purchases, you get approximately the following:It is interesting, that the difference between the first and second purchases is always greater than between the second and third.And between the second and third purchase is greater than between the third and fourth, but the more purchases, the less influence to the difference between the each next one. It turns out that a person needs some time to believe at first.Maybe next time he/she will try to buy elsewhere or just will wait for a little. But the more often he buys, the less time between purchases. Jim Novo in his book «Drilling Down« says that the diagram falls in the beginning and then stabilizes, and then begins to grow. This is very similar to the life cycle of the client, when he buying less and less, gradually ceases to be the client. But I've never seen this picture in practice.Please note:: to obtain these figures better to use the median, then the average . I will try to explain the difference. The average is the sum of all values divided by their number, and the median is the value of this element, which is in the middle in the sorted sequence. That is guaranteed 50% of all values are less or equal to the median and the other 50% are greater than or equal to the median. The median is better than average because it is free from influence of «outliers». Those values, which are very rare, but much beyond the most. Typically, the median is much less than the average.It would be good to take a look the seasonality that is usually 12 months. After looking at all the figures, we can conclude how to sort the groups by the period. For example:up to a monthup to six monthsup to a yearup to two yearsover two yearsBut even with this approach some issues remain open. And what if some clients have a short natural period of purchasing and others have a long one? In this case, I create a profile for each of the client and a gradation for each profile which ought to be normalized by recency axis to relative categories:the expected time of purchaseif you do not buy —something strangewe lose a clientwe lose a client, but there is one last chancewe definitely lost himThere is the same story for the «Frequency», but almost always I get the similar scale. Those who made:1 purchase (the majority)2 purchases (those who had overcome the psychological barrier and came again, knowing how the store works)3-4 purchases (in spite of everything, they continue to buy, so it is necessary to keep them at any costs)5-15 purchases (believed us, they are our main hope. The upper limit here can be very different)more than 15 purchases (freaks, often resellers, partners, etc. They need to be reviewed separately)Well, that is it for RF analysis. If you look at the RF matrix, knowing how to divide segments, then it is clear who are the newcomers: those who made a purchase recently. Disposable — made a purchase a long time ago, and probably have already forgotten about it. It is unlikely that they will come to us again. Jim Novo said that these clients are always 50-60% of the total client base, and this should be accepted. Usually, I see 70% of the base in this “sad” segment. In order to make sure that the segment is “sad”, you can try to return someone and for that Jim Novo offers a strategy — «to accept», but if you do not believe, start with:those who have a few items in billthose who have a bigger billthose who have a bigger bill- probably, they will come to you for a second purchase, than those who are «happy with everything».If you can not get them back - you won't get back anybody.The only way to get the clients back for the second purchase - is to contact them as soon as possible but not too early.If you contact them too early, you will be intrusive and offer extra murderous for business discounts.Let's look at the RF in the dynamics. It is worth to note that we always start with a good (recently bought) on a scale by recency and slipping into bad (have not bought for a long time). And as soon as the purchase is made, we always come back again to the most optimistic segment:There is an opposite situation with the frequency. We always begin with the poorest segment (1 purchase) and it is getting better with each next purchase. You almost have no chance to get back (if you count the frequency of a certain field (eg, 2 years), the frequency may be reduced)And now look at the whole picture in the RF matrix:We always start in the segment «recently bought" and «1 purchase». We dream that all clients were in the VIP segment. And the quickest way to do this is a permanent purchase. If the client does not do anything from the beginning, he «slides» by recency into «rarely» in the segment of «one-time client». Our goal is not to let him go, that is why automatic reactivation emails have been created ;)There is another sensitive issue: what if a pause «delayed» and the client did not buy anything for a long time (significantly exceeding the client life cycle). I think, in this case, he will come to us again, only if we «buy» him with good context or SEO or he will just stop liking the shop where he had been bought it all before. In any case, we will come to a completely different person with different interests and abilities. Therefore, we propose to make a «reset» like in a children's game.The main feature of this approach to the RFM is that it can be applied on the first day of using the online store. You can immediately set up triggers based on the client inactivity and to observe the dynamics of the activity of your clients. Who are you going to lose? What should you do to get clients when it is still possible?That’s it for now. I promise to write one more digest where I will try to give answers to the following questions:How does each of the segments read emails? Does the «lost» segment respond to emails at all?What is the contribution of each segment in overall sales?What ratio between clients segments is typical?How does the work strategy varies for each segment?Whom should you sell to and who should not be disturbed during purchasing?I wish you to have good clients who go by the shortest path: from newcomers to the VIP :)

I LOVE that you pointed this out.I thought you would like to see an article I wrote where I put US Election Meddling in our history and compare these against the things the press said about these events. I would love your thoughts and opinions on this article, as I look back on a list of the times the USA has meddled in the election of other countries.TOP FIVE TIMES THE USA HAS MEDDLED IN ANOTHER NATIONS ELECTIONSBefore the United States Presidential elections, the Washington Post broke a story about the Kremlin's ''alleged'' meddling into the Presidential elections. The story made front page news and yet prompted a most unusual reply from the President. ''No thinking person believes that Russia could get away with meddling of an American election.'' But at this time, Hillary Clinton was almost TEN points ahead in every poll.History demands a verdict. And it demands the truth.The Post reported, ''One of the more alarming narratives of the 2016 U.S. election campaign is that of the Kremlin's apparent meddling. Last week, the United States formally accused the Russian government of stealing and disclosing emails from the Democratic National Committee and the individual accounts of prominent Washington insiders.The hacks, in part leaked by WikiLeaks, have led to loud declarations that Moscow is eager for the victory of Republican nominee Donald Trump, whose rhetoric has unsettled Washington's traditional European allies and even thrown the future of NATO — Russia's bête noire — into doubt.Leading Russian officials have balked at the Obama administration's claim. In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed the suggestion of interference as “ridiculous,” though he said it was “flattering” that Washington would point the finger at Moscow. At a time of pronounced regional tensions in the Middle East and elsewhere, there's no love lost between Kremlin officials and their American counterparts.''One of the more alarming narratives of the 2016 U.S. election campaign is that of the Kremlin's apparent meddling. Last week, the United States formally accused the Russian government of stealing and disclosing emails from the Democratic National Committee and the individual accounts of prominent Washington insiders.The hacks, in part leaked by WikiLeaks, have led to loud declarations that Moscow is eager for the victory of Republican nominee Donald Trump, whose rhetoric has unsettled Washington's traditional European alliesand even thrown the future of NATO — Russia's bête noire — into doubt.Leading Russian officials have balked at the Obama administration's claim. In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed the suggestion of interference as “ridiculous,” though he said it was “flattering” that Washington would point the finger at Moscow. At a time of pronounced regional tensions in the Middle East and elsewhere, there's no love lost between Kremlin officials and their American counterparts.Then came the revelations of Donald Trump Jr and the meeting that took place last summer.NBC and CNN reported that the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, was a ''Kremlin Lawyer.'' Well, ''Nyet'' not quite. President Trump wondered aloud today, '' how is it was she even here in the USA when her VISA had expired is a story that has to be reviewed in its own merit.Apparently, (according to Fox News) Veselnitskaya showed up the very next morning at a congressional hearing that happened to be on 'Russian Aid.' If this is true - watch out. This will fall like a lead weight on the Democrats if true.I read ''Clinton Cash'' and there are serious charges leveled against Hillary Clinton. Now, I am a TRUTHSEEKER. I am not out to bust Hillary Clinton or exonerate Donald Trump. I believe it is crucial to differentiate between partisan accusations and true, hard-core historical research. As always, I look into great detail for myself, looking for Primary Documentation. I am well sourced and very ACCURATE.Almost lost in this never-ending cycle of anti-Trump vitriol is the Hillary Clinton deal for Uranium to Vladimir Putin after her famous ''reset'' button. There is much truth and much in the way of false information on Hillary Clinton.IT is deliberately confusing. Did Clinton deal 20% of America's uranium to Russia? According to A chapter in the book suggests that the Clinton family and Russia each may have benefited from a “pay-for-play” scheme while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, involving the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the new Russian owners of an international mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.My first issue with this has to do with my own research.I looked for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a statement. And I found it. ''NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property.The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.''In other words,it seems as if NO uranium ever left the country. It's hard to make any sense out of the rest of the story when it falls short here. If you look at the timing of the donations, it also appears to be inconsistent with the news stories regarding the Clinton foundation. I know - because I spent hours upon hours of looking in an effort to factually stand up this story. But it seems to be very circumstantial.So why does ''Clinton Cash'' come unglued when it comes to this story? Perhaps its because the Clintons did not report all of their contributions. One fault investigations into the Clinton Foundation’s practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed — specifically, those over a three year period by Ian Telfer.The foundation admitted this shortcoming and pledged to correct it, but as the Guardian pointed out in its May 2015 discussion of Clinton Cash, the fact that it happened is reason enough to sound alarm bells:The mining company, Uranium One, was originally based in South Africa, but merged in 2007 with Canada-based UrAsia Energy. Shareholders there retained a controlling interest until 2010, when Russia’s nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake.Hillary Clinton played a part in the transaction because it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security — uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves — thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits. But when we examine intent and pay-for-play, we see that in some cases, accusations fall short.It is important to stay on the side of truth. Neither side is exclusive in its rewrite of past events. Pay-for-Play certainly seems true based on Wikileaks. The Clinton-Cash book has plenty of accurate and good points, but not in the case of the Uranium story.As for the news we see today on the Clintons - well - the other Clinton scandals are being completely buried right now.So - That Brings us to today. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren have all been ''aghast'' at Russian ''meddling'' with our presidential election process. They are demanding one investigation after another.Where was this disgust toward Russia when Obama leaned into Putin and told him, ''Don't worry, i'll have much more leverage after the election.''Where was this disgust toward Russia when they invaded Crimea? They will say that these pathetic sanctions are enough. Under Obama's lead from behind, we never had a chance. Russia got away with an invasion where citizens lost their lives, homes, and their press was overrun.President Trump pointed out that the meddling HAD to have happened during Obama's presidency. (Well- he IS right) Then he asserts that Obama didn't act on any of the intel because he was sure Hillary Clinton was going to win the election. It didn't happen that way.And now -we are suddenly struck by this mock anger over Russia meddling in our election process when we OURSELVES, have been doing it for years. But nothing as vast as the past decade.KENYAThe BBC is a historically left-of-center news agency. And yet, Investigative reporter Jerome Corsi of BBC broke this story when he visited Kenya and was able to confirm that Obama, as a U.S. Senator, illegally used a taxpayer-financed trip to campaign for far-left presidential candidate Raila Odinga in Kenya’s 2006 elections.Odinga, according to the BBC, was distantly related to Obama and both families belonged to the Luo tribe. Indeed, both of their fathers served in the administration of Jomo Kenyatta in the 1960s. According to a document obtained by Corsi, Odinga promised Kenya’s growing Islamic movement that if elected, he would “rewrite the constitution of Kenya to recognize Sharia as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared religions.”The secret agreement also called for the creation of Muslim “madrassa classes,” a crackdown on Christian evangelical events and gospel programs, and legal protections for Muslims suspected of terrorism, even international terrorism.Sources: ****1) Beckett Fund of Religious Liberty - The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute with a mission to protect the free expression of all faiths.Biased Right/LeftRight: *2) Writer: Jerome Robert Corsi (born August 31, 1946) is an American author, political commentator and best known for his two New York Times bestselling books: The Obama Nation and Unfit for Command (with co-author John O'Neill). He is Right of Center, so we will downgrade accordingly knowing that the story, while true, are going to be interested in pushing that agenda. This is one star to the right of center, maybe even two. But the sources back up the story which gives Corsi great credibility.Accuracy: **/5Misleading Paragraph: According to a document obtained by Corsi, Odinga promised Kenya’s growing Islamic movement that if elected, he would “rewrite the constitution of Kenya to recognize Sharia as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared religions.”The Truth Revealed:Since the Kenyan Constitution was drafted, no mention of madrassas or Sharia Reform. HOWEVER - The government has been powerless to stop a steep rise in radicalism in Kenya, especially in the north.Integrity Chapter, requires an Independent Ethics Commission to be set up that will monitor compliance with Integrity in all government institutions and make investigations,recommendations to the necessary authorities i.e. Attorney General and any other relevant authority.(Chapter Six)An advanced Human Rights and Equality Commission that will also have power to investigate and summon people involved in Human Rights abuses within the government and with the public.(Article 252)Equitable Sharing of resources between the National government and the County government through a resolution of Parliament. Chapter 12- Part 4.Impact in USA: * 1/2This went almost completely unreported here in the USA but was heavily reported within Kenya. The President, Uhuru Kenyatta, has kept a low profile and Kenya remains largely peaceful save several pockets of extreme Islamic radicalism.---------------------------------ISRAELObama tried to cost Netanyahu the Election - something he did not deny when asked about it.During Israel’s 2015 elections, the Obama administration — led by Secretary of State John Kerry — illegally intervened when they attempted to defeat the reelection of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by covertly funneling State Department grants to opposition groups. The Obama administration detested Netanyahu due to his refusal to cave into Palestinian demands, a group that even refused to recognize the existence of Israel.Furthermore, Netanyahu rallied Arab allies and told them ahead of time what Obama's intentions with Iran were. An Aid package was approved by congress for Israel, but Obama punished Israel by capping the aid and insisting that a good portion of it go to the removal of Israeli settlers in Palestinian areas.Obama’s State Department gave $350,000 to a group called the “One Voice Movement (OVM),” for supporting “peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine.” However, the State Department then used leftover funds to organize an effort against Netanyahu’s reelection.OVM contracted out a group called “V15,” which in turned hired five campaign experts from the U.S., including Obama’s field director from his last presidential campaign. As the Weekly Standard’s Jim Swift wrote, “once the infrastructure was built, it was used in an attempt to topple the government of one of America’s closest allies.”An investigation by the U.S. Senate found that the “State Department failed to adequately guard against the risk that resources built with government grants would be deployed for political purposes.” As with most investigations of Obama scandals, emails documenting this illegal election activity were destroyed. And, as usual, no one was held accountable.Sources: *****There are many sources on both sides that agree with the major points of this story. Even Politifact said, ''...Yes, Obama sent money to OneVoice, a group that promoted a two-state solution. And yes that group partnered with a different group V15 that wanted Netanyahu defeated.''Accuracy: ****There is no doubt of our intervention in Israel. The one uncertainty is the amount of money given to OVM. It may have been as little as $233,000 and as much as $350,000.Biased Right/Left: -*- Right Down the MiddleThis is not under any dispute by the Left or the Right. The LA Times, Boston Globe, NYTimes and WaPo have ALL reported it as truth. The Conservative Right wanted Netanyahu to win. Both sides have not disputed this story.Impact in USA: **Surprisingly this had little play in the American press and only a few members of the American Jewish electorate openly disagreed with Obama. The voting block and lobbyists were almost silent in our own election.-------------------------LibyaMy knowledge of the history and culture of Libya is quite extensive. After Ronald Reagan bombed Libya in 1986, we had heard very little from Gaddafi. It wasn't as if he wasn't still staunchly Pro-Palestinian, but he prevented Libya from falling into the same quagmire that Iraq had become.Gone were the chemical and biological weapons and in its place were the monies needed to rebuild critical infrastructure in the cities as well as new hotels and tourist attractions. Libya - for a number of years - was the safe and affordable ''Go-To'' place for travel within Europe.Gaddafi was the other reality that the world had to consider in the wake of Saddam's removal from office. But in successive moves, Obama interfered with the Egyptian election, seeing to it that Morsi, (head of the Muslim Brotherhood) would win and then see him overthrown by a conservative and Pro-American president. That chaos spilled over the border into Libya, where America interfered again. And this time, it was in front of the ENTIRE world.In 2011, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, not only interfered politically in Libya but militarily as well, by orchestrating a series of policies designed to remove Muammar Gaddafi from power. While it would be a stretch to call Gaddafi a U.S. ally, he was cooperating with the U.S.A. in fighting Islamic extremists and had turned over all his WMDs to American officials. Western investment was flowing into Libya, the country was becoming more westernized and, most certainly, it was no longer a threat to the USA.As National Review wrote, “all that vanished when Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice ordered the bombings that turned Libya into a terrorist paradise.”One explanation for the abrupt attack on Libya was that Gaddafi was a rival to the Saudis over the leadership of the Islamic faith and since the Saudis had contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, Secretary Clinton had, as usual, a money motive to intervene in Libya.The opposition to Gaddafi’s regime was led by the Libyan Transitional National Council, whose leaders include many radical Muslims such as Abdel Hakim Belhaj. Belhaj also headed an al-Qaeda affiliate called the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which was designated a terrorist organization by the State Department.Nevertheless, Obama spent at least $1 billion to fund a military operation to topple Gaddafi, with American soldiers actually fighting alongside jihadist-dominated rebel groups.Moreover, the Washington Times reported that the “CIA was providing covert assistance to elements of the Transitional National Council,” again, a group dominated by radical jihadists. Under Obama, Libya was transformed from a moderate Islamic regime which posed no threat to the USA, to a violent wasteland dominated by various ISIS and al-Qaeda linked militias.Sources: *****/5 It was (A) well-documented, (B) had multiple high-level and mid-level sources whose statements have been with one or two degrees of similarity and accuracy. The sources were many and well researched. Let's look at NEWSEEK'S coverage of the story.A more democratic region will ultimately be more stable for us and our friends. Even if someone wants to be dictatorial, it’s going to be difficult.”—An American diplomat, after the overthrow of a Middle Eastern dictatorThat quote sounds as if it came from what the foreign policy elite in the Obama administration would call some “neocon nut job,” with an eerie echo of the blindly confident rhetoric from the early days of the U.S. occupation of Iraq in 2003. Except this time the speaker wasn’t a neocon nut job, and it was May 2012. Denis McDonough, then Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser, was taking a victory lap in a speech at a Washington think tank. And he wasn’t boasting about Iraq; he was crowing about Libya.Accuracy: *** 1/2I give this episode three and a half out five stars because time has elapsed and much that is written is written from the vantage of hind-sight. To me, this is where a story loses integrity and accuracy. The best way to understand this story is to realize that the outcomes - and who they benefitted - may not have been the initial intention.Impact on America: Negligible to date.HONDURASRiots in Tegucigalpa, NYTimesThis was a no-win situation for Obama, who should have left well-enough alone. Honduras has been a criminal paradise for the worst of the worst in the Western Hemisphere. Drugs, human-trafficking, murder, wire-fraud and international smuggling have riddled Honduras for years, So when an uprising began there during the early part of Obama's second term, it was a bit surprising that the President wanted to involve himself there.But it was a high-level diplomatic meeting between emissaries of America and Venezuela's Hugh Chafez that seemed to change Obama's viewpoint. Suddenly, and without much explanation, Obama announced he was supportive of hard-Left President Manuel Zelaya attemp to illegally amend the Honduran Constitution so as to allow himself to serve as President longer than one term.Wait - this did NOT make sense!As a result, on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court, he was forcefully removed from office as Honduran law calls for.But the power of the USA became evident Obama attacked Zelaya’s removal, falsely calling it a “coup d’état” and a WikiLeaks cable revealed that Obama backed Zelaya’s reinstatement. The chaotic reasoning for Obama's support of a ruthless dictator was in stark contrasts to his support of popular uprisings elsewhere in the world.Eventually, WE would see new elections were a new president elected, but there’s little doubt that the Obama administration meddled in the Honduran political process in an effort to support the hard left in that country. Indeed, when Obama announced that he supported the return of Zelaya from exile, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen announced “Now that everything is in place for Zelaya’s return, there are no more false reasons for the Obama administration to continue its pressure tactics against those in Honduras who opposed Zelaya’s attacks on their country’s constitution and the rule of law.”Sources: **** /5There is no limit to the number of reliable sources who have contributed, it's just that these particular sources come with an axe to grind. Visual Documentation is aplenty, both with communiques and Wikileaks. Given the chance to counter the charges on Wikileaks, Obama did not.Accuracy: ***Careful what you read and who writes it - when it comes to this story, there are those on the Left, and those on the Right, and not much in-between.Biased (Right/Left) * ALTHOUGH we can read these scandals, you would have to visit Honduras to see how they feel about it. The Left loved Obama in Honduras.Impact on USA: **** Very strong, especially given the Benghazi fiasco.MACEDONIAThe ramifications of what we have done in Macedonia are being felt to this day. Charges of collusion, bribery and theft have left a government that was backed by the Obama administration on the edge of collapse. The leadership of the country finally fell apart in December 2016, after Obama's promised support fell through when Clinton lost the election.Consider the British News Source, The Times of London. They reported on street riots just two months ago, in May of 2017. They wrote, ''Thousands of furious Macedonians took to the streets yesterday in anger over alleged EU interference in country's elections. Following weeks of pressure from the EU, the Macedonian Assembly announced that Talat Xhaferi had been elected as the speaker of its parliament.In response, protesters in the country's capital of Skopje said the European bloc had "issued an order to choose our leaders". The furious demonstration comes after months of political turmoil in the country, which has been without a government since December last year.The government watchdog group, Judicial Watch, obtained government documents that “show the U.S. government has quietly spent millions of taxpayer dollars to destabilize the democratically elected, center-right government in Macedonia by colluding with leftwing, billionaire philanthropist George Soros.”Indeed, Obama’s ambassador to Macedonia, Jeff Baily, worked to funnel millions of dollars from the State Department and USAID to groups created by Soros which were, according to JW, working to overthrow the conservative government.Leading Republican House representative Christopher Smith announced an investigation in the activities of the US Embassy in Macedonia, and the allegations that it has acted in an openly partisan way in the past years, supporting the left wing SDSM party, MIA reported.The call comes after the Embassy failed to respond to a letter signed by Smith and five other GOP representatives, who demanded answers over meddling in domestic politics, but also over Embassy funding for activities of the George Soros-led Foundation Open Society Macedonia.The Independent of England took an especially strong investigative stand. "The US Ambassador should not have a role in forming the Government or take sides during the coalition making process. It is not the place of the United States or the US representatives in Skopje to do so.We, as a group of members of Congress, sent specific question in our letter asking whether there was collusion between the Embassy and left wing parties during the elections. We need to have free and fair elections and to work with the media, but under no circumstances should we take sides. This Ambassador has taken a side and he should be fired immediately!''...I've served in the Congress for 37 years, I am a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I chair the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Global Human Rights and International Operations Subcommittee. And I think it is unheard of that our Ambassador in Skopje takes a side in these elections, or in any other past or future elections.''''That is not his job. We intend to get to the bottom of this. We did not receive a response to our letter and we are asking the Inspector General to file a report. If they violated the law, they will be held responsible", representative Smith told the Macedonian Television correspondent in Washington D.C.More details about this intervention were exposed by Victor Gaetan in a series of exposés in The American Spectator. Gaetan has confirmed that Soros, in conjuction with the Obama administration, “financed a left-wing agenda to divide the nation and bring a socialist-Muslim coalition to power.” Incredibly, Obama’s USAID “selected Soros’ Foundation Open Society Macedonia (FOSM) to manage $2.5 million in taxpayers’ dollars earmarked for oxymoronic ‘democracy building,’ an amount increased to $4.8 million two years later.”This funding was directed to a coalition of socialist groups that work in conjunction with the Social Democrat Union of Macedonia (SDSM), a socialist party with close ties to Soros.The intervention is, incredibly, still ongoing with the result being chaos and disruptive street demonstrations. Gaetan’s investigative work also indicates that Obama’s agencies intervened politically with a number of other Balkan counties, including Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania and Greece.It appears the Trump administration knows little about such interventions since many leftist Obama-appointed ambassadors continue to hold on to their positions. And USAID funds continue to pour into leftist political groups in the Balkans as if Trump never came to power. Indeed, as one Macedonia Member of Parliament quoted by Gaetan said, “Under Obama’s ideological programs, it [USAID] became the super crack of the left.”they are now announcing an investigation in the allegations and say they will take the matter before the newly appointed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson."Our message is that, if the US Government took a political side, it has made a major error and all those involved should apologize and stop immediately. Ultimately, diplomats who were acting in this way will be held responsible. We are all for free and fair elections, but not for taking sides. I will be in touch with Secretary Tillerson, and I have already been in touch with members of the Trump transition team. ''''We need to have a detailed oversight into what the Administration has been doing over the past eight years because we have been taking sides politically in other countries as well, and there have been other similar incidents. That undermines US public diplomacy and our diplomacy in general. It is against the law and is unheard of. Again, he (Baily) needs to be fired!", Smith told the Macedonian National Television.''Sources: *****/5: This story is excellently sourced and proven by multiple news agencies and primary documentationAccuracy: ****/5: The major news agencies agree with the story but on several fronts it is worded differently.Impact on The USA: */5 This story got absolutely NO press play in the USA EXCEPT when it became Donald Trump's headache. Little explanation was given as to why Trump should have been held responsible, but the New York Times and NBC both agreed that his temerpment and demeanor were the cause of horrible riots and unrest in Europe. Not only was this story NOT reported when it actually happened, but when it DID happen, the current president gets the blame for it.There are many elections across the world that are due to happen in 2017-2018. America is certainly not the only nation to demonstratively interfere with the elections of another country. Espionage and subterfuge has been a part of American history through the ages.But what is lost in American media today is the acknowledgement that we are a well-documented meddler ourselves. It isn't meant to justify any of this. In a perfect world, this doesn't happen.In baseball, it isn't uncommon for one team to pick up and steal another team's signs. It's frowned upon and can result in the hitter of the offending team being drilled by a 95-mph fastball to the ribs. I had it coming too. I know for a fact that I am good at stealing the signs of the opposing teams catcher. But it isn't against the rules. It's perhaps unethical - but the countries of the world know that they are going to be drilled.Although I end this article with a bit of good natured humor, I hope i made the point. Every news agency and network is handling this election meddling story as if it is the first time in history that it has happened. But history requires us to take a good look at ourselves.If we are going to manipulate the world around our own grand design, we have to be open to the fact that we are going to get caught and the outcome is not going to be good. The level of obvious ''projection'' by House Democrats, Senators and by almost every press agency in the country is insulting to the average person.It is like the old adage, ''He who throws mud gets dirt on his hands too.'' ###You can steal your opponents signs if they let their guards down. But be prepared for retaliation when you do.

I am SO happy that you asked this question. It seems like no one remembers how badly president Obama wanted to BiBi Netanyahu to lose the Israeli election - even making a donation to his opponent. Could you imagine if Putin had done that to Trump?I am a Historian and a Specialist in Computer Cyberwar. Here is an article I wrote on the History of Election Meddling - including OUR own! It has been picked up for publication and i spoke about this at The TEXAS Public Policy Foundation and on TV.When a Super-Power Meddles In Another Nation's ElectionsRobert BluesteinAmerica's History of Doing Exactly What We Are Accusing Russia of DoingBefore the United States Presidential elections, the Washington Post broke a story about the Kremlin's ''alleged'' meddling into the Presidential elections. The story made front page news and yet prompted a most unusual reply from the President. ''No thinking person believes that Russia could get away with meddling of an American election.'' But at this time, Hillary Clinton was almost TEN points ahead in every poll.History demands a verdict. And it demands the truth.The Post reported, ''One of the more alarming narratives of the 2016 U.S. election campaign is that of the Kremlin's apparent meddling. Last week, the United States formally accused the Russian government of stealing and disclosing emails from the Democratic National Committee and the individual accounts of prominent Washington insiders.’’The hacks, in part leaked by WikiLeaks, have led to loud declarations that Moscow is eager for the victory of Republican nominee Donald Trump, whose rhetoric has unsettled Washington's traditional European allies and even thrown the future of NATO — Russia's bête noire — into doubt.Leading Russian officials have balked at the Obama administration's claim. In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed the suggestion of interference as “ridiculous,” though he said it was “flattering” that Washington would point the finger at Moscow. At a time of pronounced regional tensions in the Middle East and elsewhere, there's no love lost between Kremlin officials and their American counterparts.''One of the more alarming narratives of the 2016 U.S. election campaign is that of the Kremlin's apparent meddling. Last week, the United States formally accused the Russian government of stealing and disclosing emails from the Democratic National Committee and the individual accounts of prominent Washington insiders.The hacks, in part leaked by WikiLeaks, have led to loud declarations that Moscow is eager for the victory of Republican nominee Donald Trump, whose rhetoric has unsettled Washington's traditional European alliesand even thrown the future of NATO — Russia's bête noire — into doubt.Leading Russian officials have balked at the Obama administration's claim. In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed the suggestion of interference as “ridiculous,” though he said it was “flattering” that Washington would point the finger at Moscow. At a time of pronounced regional tensions in the Middle East and elsewhere, there's no love lost between Kremlin officials and their American counterparts.Then came the revelations of Donald Trump Jr and the meeting that took place last summer.NBC and CNN reported that the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, was a ''Kremlin Lawyer.'' Well, ''Nyet'' not quite. This was pnly the beginning of LIES and untruths spread by our own media to advance an anti-Trump agenda at the expense of the truth. President Trump wondered aloud today, '' how is it was she even here in the USA when her VISA had expired?’’ This is a story that has to be reviewed in its own merit.Apparently, (according to Fox News) Veselnitskaya showed up the very next morning at a congressional hearing that happened to be on 'Russian Aid.' If this is true - watch out. This will fall like a lead weight on the Democrats if true.I read ''Clinton Cash'' and there are serious charges leveled against Hillary Clinton. Now, I am a TRUTHSEEKER. I am not out to bust Hillary Clinton or exonerate Donald Trump. I believe it is crucial to differentiate between partisan accusations and true, hard-core historical research. As always, I look into great detail for myself, looking for Primary Documentation. I am well sourced and very ACCURATE.Almost lost in this never-ending cycle of anti-Trump vitriol is the Hillary Clinton deal for Uranium to Vladimir Putin after her famous ''reset'' button. There is much truth and much in the way of false information on Hillary Clinton.IT is deliberately confusing. Did Clinton deal 20% of America's uranium to Russia? According to A chapter in the book suggests that the Clinton family and Russia each may have benefited from a “pay-for-play” scheme while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, involving the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the new Russian owners of an international mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.My first issue with this has to do with my own research.I looked for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a statement. And I found it. ''NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property.The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.''In other words,it seems as if NO uranium ever left the country- by ‘’way of the USA.’’ It's hard to make any sense out of the rest of the story when it falls short here. If you look at the timing of the donations, it also appears to be inconsistent with the news stories regarding the Clinton foundation. I know - because I spent hours upon hours of looking in an effort to factually stand up this story. But it seems to be very circumstantial. Now there seems to be a record of the Uranium actually being shipped out of the USA - to CANADA.So why does ''Clinton Cash'' come unglued when it comes to this story? Perhaps its because the Clintons did not report all of their contributions. One fault investigations into the Clinton Foundation’s practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed — specifically, those over a three year period by Ian Telfer.The foundation admitted this shortcoming and pledged to correct it, but as the Guardian pointed out in its May 2015 discussion of Clinton Cash, the fact that it happened is reason enough to sound alarm bells:The mining company, Uranium One, was originally based in South Africa, but merged in 2007 with Canada-based UrAsia Energy. Shareholders there retained a controlling interest until 2010, when Russia’s nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake.Hillary Clinton played a part in the transaction because it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security — uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves — thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits. But when we examine intent and pay-for-play, we see that in some cases, accusations fall short.It is important to stay on the side of truth. Neither side is exclusive in its rewrite of past events. Pay-for-Play certainly seems true based on Wikileaks. The Clinton-Cash book has plenty of accurate and good points, but not in the case of the Uranium story.As for the news we see today on the Clintons - well - the other Clinton scandals are being completely buried right now.So - That Brings us to today. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren have all been ''aghast'' at Russian ''meddling'' with our presidential election process. They are demanding one investigation after another.Where was this disgust toward Russia when Obama leaned into Putin and told him, ''Don't worry, i'll have much more leverage after the election.''Where was this disgust toward Russia when they invaded Crimea? They will say that these pathetic sanctions are enough. Under Obama's lead from behind, we never had a chance. Russia got away with an invasion where citizens lost their lives, homes, and their press was overrun.President Trump pointed out that the meddling HAD to have happened during Obama's presidency. (Well- he IS right) Then he asserts that Obama didn't act on any of the intel because he was sure Hillary Clinton was going to win the election. It didn't happen that way.And now -we are suddenly struck by this mock anger over Russia meddling in our election process when we OURSELVES, have been doing it for years. But nothing as vast as the past decade.Here are some examples of USA Meddling in Other Nation’s ElectionsKENYAThe BBC is a historically left-of-center news agency. And yet, Investigative reporter Jerome Corsi of BBC broke this story when he visited Kenya and was able to confirm that Obama, as a U.S. Senator, illegally used a taxpayer-financed trip to campaign for far-left presidential candidate Raila Odinga in Kenya’s 2006 elections.Odinga, according to the BBC, was distantly related to Obama and both families belonged to the Luo tribe. Indeed, both of their fathers served in the administration of Jomo Kenyatta in the 1960s. According to a document obtained by Corsi, Odinga promised Kenya’s growing Islamic movement that if elected, he would “rewrite the constitution of Kenya to recognize Sharia as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared religions.”The secret agreement also called for the creation of Muslim “madrassa classes,” a crackdown on Christian evangelical events and gospel programs, and legal protections for Muslims suspected of terrorism, even international terrorism.Sources: ****1) Beckett Fund of Religious Liberty - The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute with a mission to protect the free expression of all faiths.Biased Right/LeftRight: *2) Writer: Jerome Robert Corsi (born August 31, 1946) is an American author, political commentator and best known for his two New York Times bestselling books: The Obama Nation and Unfit for Command (with co-author John O'Neill). He is Right of Center, so we will downgrade accordingly knowing that the story, while true, are going to be interested in pushing that agenda. This is one star to the right of center, maybe even two. But the sources back up the story which gives Corsi great credibility.Accuracy: **/5Misleading Paragraph: According to a document obtained by Corsi, Odinga promised Kenya’s growing Islamic movement that if elected, he would “rewrite the constitution of Kenya to recognize Sharia as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared religions.”The Truth Revealed:Since the Kenyan Constitution was drafted, no mention of madrassas or Sharia Reform. HOWEVER - The government has been powerless to stop a steep rise in radicalism in Kenya, especially in the north.Integrity Chapter, requires an Independent Ethics Commission to be set up that will monitor compliance with Integrity in all government institutions and make investigations,recommendations to the necessary authorities i.e. Attorney General and any other relevant authority.(Chapter Six)An advanced Human Rights and Equality Commission that will also have power to investigate and summon people involved in Human Rights abuses within the government and with the public.(Article 252)Equitable Sharing of resources between the National government and the County government through a resolution of Parliament. Chapter 12- Part 4.Impact in USA: * 1/2This went almost completely unreported here in the USA but was heavily reported within Kenya. The President, Uhuru Kenyatta, has kept a low profile and Kenya remains largely peaceful save several pockets of extreme Islamic radicalism.---------------------------------ISRAELObama tried to cost Netanyahu the Election - something he did not deny when asked about it.During Israel’s 2015 elections, the Obama administration — led by Secretary of State John Kerry — illegally intervened when they attempted to defeat the reelection of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by covertly funneling State Department grants to opposition groups. The Obama administration detested Netanyahu due to his refusal to cave into Palestinian demands, a group that even refused to recognize the existence of Israel.Furthermore, Netanyahu rallied Arab allies and told them ahead of time what Obama's intentions with Iran were. An Aid package was approved by congress for Israel, but Obama punished Israel by capping the aid and insisting that a good portion of it go to the removal of Israeli settlers in Palestinian areas.Obama’s State Department gave $350,000 to a group called the “One Voice Movement (OVM),” for supporting “peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine.” However, the State Department then used leftover funds to organize an effort against Netanyahu’s reelection.OVM contracted out a group called “V15,” which in turned hired five campaign experts from the U.S., including Obama’s field director from his last presidential campaign. As the Weekly Standard’s Jim Swift wrote, “once the infrastructure was built, it was used in an attempt to topple the government of one of America’s closest allies.”An investigation by the U.S. Senate found that the “State Department failed to adequately guard against the risk that resources built with government grants would be deployed for political purposes.” As with most investigations of Obama scandals, emails documenting this illegal election activity were destroyed. And, as usual, no one was held accountable.Sources: *****There are many sources on both sides that agree with the major points of this story. Even Politifact said, ''...Yes, Obama sent money to OneVoice, a group that promoted a two-state solution. And yes that group partnered with a different group V15 that wanted Netanyahu defeated.''Accuracy: ****There is no doubt of our intervention in Israel. The one uncertainty is the amount of money given to OVM. It may have been as little as $233,000 and as much as $350,000.Biased Right/Left: -*- Right Down the MiddleThis is not under any dispute by the Left or the Right. The LA Times, Boston Globe, NYTimes and WaPo have ALL reported it as truth. The Conservative Right wanted Netanyahu to win. Both sides have not disputed this story.Impact in USA: **Surprisingly this had little play in the American press and only a few members of the American Jewish electorate openly disagreed with Obama. The voting block and lobbyists were almost silent in our own election.-------------------------LibyaMy knowledge of the history and culture of Libya is quite extensive. After Ronald Reagan bombed Libya in 1986, we had heard very little from Gaddafi. It wasn't as if he wasn't still staunchly Pro-Palestinian, but he prevented Libya from falling into the same quagmire that Iraq had become.Gone were the chemical and biological weapons and in its place were the monies needed to rebuild critical infrastructure in the cities as well as new hotels and tourist attractions. Libya - for a number of years - was the safe and affordable ''Go-To'' place for travel within Europe.Gaddafi was the other reality that the world had to consider in the wake of Saddam's removal from office. But in successive moves, Obama interfered with the Egyptian election, seeing to it that Morsi, (head of the Muslim Brotherhood) would win and then see him overthrown by a conservative and Pro-American president. That chaos spilled over the border into Libya, where America interfered again. And this time, it was in front of the ENTIRE world.In 2011, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, not only interfered politically in Libya but militarily as well, by orchestrating a series of policies designed to remove Muammar Gaddafi from power. While it would be a stretch to call Gaddafi a U.S. ally, he was cooperating with the U.S.A. in fighting Islamic extremists and had turned over all his WMDs to American officials. Western investment was flowing into Libya, the country was becoming more westernized and, most certainly, it was no longer a threat to the USA.As National Review wrote, “all that vanished when Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice ordered the bombings that turned Libya into a terrorist paradise.”One explanation for the abrupt attack on Libya was that Gaddafi was a rival to the Saudis over the leadership of the Islamic faith and since the Saudis had contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, Secretary Clinton had, as usual, a money motive to intervene in Libya.The opposition to Gaddafi’s regime was led by the Libyan Transitional National Council, whose leaders include many radical Muslims such as Abdel Hakim Belhaj. Belhaj also headed an al-Qaeda affiliate called the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which was designated a terrorist organization by the State Department.Nevertheless, Obama spent at least $1 billion to fund a military operation to topple Gaddafi, with American soldiers actually fighting alongside jihadist-dominated rebel groups.Moreover, the Washington Times reported that the “CIA was providing covert assistance to elements of the Transitional National Council,” again, a group dominated by radical jihadists. Under Obama, Libya was transformed from a moderate Islamic regime which posed no threat to the USA, to a violent wasteland dominated by various ISIS and al-Qaeda linked militias.Sources: *****/5 It was (A) well-documented, (B) had multiple high-level and mid-level sources whose statements have been with one or two degrees of similarity and accuracy. The sources were many and well researched. Let's look at NEWSEEK'S coverage of the story.A more democratic region will ultimately be more stable for us and our friends. Even if someone wants to be dictatorial, it’s going to be difficult.”—An American diplomat, after the overthrow of a Middle Eastern dictatorThat quote sounds as if it came from what the foreign policy elite in the Obama administration would call some “neocon nut job,” with an eerie echo of the blindly confident rhetoric from the early days of the U.S. occupation of Iraq in 2003. Except this time the speaker wasn’t a neocon nut job, and it was May 2012. Denis McDonough, then Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser, was taking a victory lap in a speech at a Washington think tank. And he wasn’t boasting about Iraq; he was crowing about Libya.Accuracy: *** 1/2I give this episode three and a half out five stars because time has elapsed and much that is written is written from the vantage of hind-sight. To me, this is where a story loses integrity and accuracy. The best way to understand this story is to realize that the outcomes - and who they benefitted - may not have been the initial intention.Impact on America: Negligible to date.HONDURASRiots in Tegucigalpa, NYTimesThis was a no-win situation for Obama, who should have left well-enough alone. Honduras has been a criminal paradise for the worst of the worst in the Western Hemisphere. Drugs, human-trafficking, murder, wire-fraud and international smuggling have riddled Honduras for years, So when an uprising began there during the early part of Obama's second term, it was a bit surprising that the President wanted to involve himself there.But it was a high-level diplomatic meeting between emissaries of America and Venezuela's Hugh Chafez that seemed to change Obama's viewpoint. Suddenly, and without much explanation, Obama announced he was supportive of hard-Left President Manuel Zelaya attemp to illegally amend the Honduran Constitution so as to allow himself to serve as President longer than one term.Wait - this did NOT make sense!As a result, on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court, he was forcefully removed from office as Honduran law calls for.But the power of the USA became evident Obama attacked Zelaya’s removal, falsely calling it a “coup d’état” and a WikiLeaks cable revealed that Obama backed Zelaya’s reinstatement. The chaotic reasoning for Obama's support of a ruthless dictator was in stark contrasts to his support of popular uprisings elsewhere in the world.Eventually, WE would see new elections were a new president elected, but there’s little doubt that the Obama administration meddled in the Honduran political process in an effort to support the hard left in that country. Indeed, when Obama announced that he supported the return of Zelaya from exile, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen announced “Now that everything is in place for Zelaya’s return, there are no more false reasons for the Obama administration to continue its pressure tactics against those in Honduras who opposed Zelaya’s attacks on their country’s constitution and the rule of law.”Sources: **** /5There is no limit to the number of reliable sources who have contributed, it's just that these particular sources come with an axe to grind. Visual Documentation is aplenty, both with communiques and Wikileaks. Given the chance to counter the charges on Wikileaks, Obama did not.Accuracy: ***Careful what you read and who writes it - when it comes to this story, there are those on the Left, and those on the Right, and not much in-between.Biased (Right/Left) * ALTHOUGH we can read these scandals, you would have to visit Honduras to see how they feel about it. The Left loved Obama in Honduras.Impact on USA: **** Very strong, especially given the Benghazi fiasco.MACEDONIAThe ramifications of what we have done in Macedonia are being felt to this day. Charges of collusion, bribery and theft have left a government that was backed by the Obama administration on the edge of collapse. The leadership of the country finally fell apart in December 2016, after Obama's promised support fell through when Clinton lost the election.Consider the British News Source, The Times of London. They reported on street riots just two months ago, in May of 2017. They wrote, ''Thousands of furious Macedonians took to the streets yesterday in anger over alleged EU interference in country's elections. Following weeks of pressure from the EU, the Macedonian Assembly announced that Talat Xhaferi had been elected as the speaker of its parliament.In response, protesters in the country's capital of Skopje said the European bloc had "issued an order to choose our leaders". The furious demonstration comes after months of political turmoil in the country, which has been without a government since December last year.The government watchdog group, Judicial Watch, obtained government documents that “show the U.S. government has quietly spent millions of taxpayer dollars to destabilize the democratically elected, center-right government in Macedonia by colluding with leftwing, billionaire philanthropist George Soros.”Indeed, Obama’s ambassador to Macedonia, Jeff Baily, worked to funnel millions of dollars from the State Department and USAID to groups created by Soros which were, according to JW, working to overthrow the conservative government.Leading Republican House representative Christopher Smith announced an investigation in the activities of the US Embassy in Macedonia, and the allegations that it has acted in an openly partisan way in the past years, supporting the left wing SDSM party, MIA reported.The call comes after the Embassy failed to respond to a letter signed by Smith and five other GOP representatives, who demanded answers over meddling in domestic politics, but also over Embassy funding for activities of the George Soros-led Foundation Open Society Macedonia.The Independent of England took an especially strong investigative stand. "The US Ambassador should not have a role in forming the Government or take sides during the coalition making process. It is not the place of the United States or the US representatives in Skopje to do so.We, as a group of members of Congress, sent specific question in our letter asking whether there was collusion between the Embassy and left wing parties during the elections. We need to have free and fair elections and to work with the media, but under no circumstances should we take sides. This Ambassador has taken a side and he should be fired immediately!''...I've served in the Congress for 37 years, I am a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I chair the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Global Human Rights and International Operations Subcommittee. And I think it is unheard of that our Ambassador in Skopje takes a side in these elections, or in any other past or future elections.''''That is not his job. We intend to get to the bottom of this. We did not receive a response to our letter and we are asking the Inspector General to file a report. If they violated the law, they will be held responsible", representative Smith told the Macedonian Television correspondent in Washington D.C.More details about this intervention were exposed by Victor Gaetan in a series of exposés in The American Spectator. Gaetan has confirmed that Soros, in conjuction with the Obama administration, “financed a left-wing agenda to divide the nation and bring a socialist-Muslim coalition to power.” Incredibly, Obama’s USAID “selected Soros’ Foundation Open Society Macedonia (FOSM) to manage $2.5 million in taxpayers’ dollars earmarked for oxymoronic ‘democracy building,’ an amount increased to $4.8 million two years later.”This funding was directed to a coalition of socialist groups that work in conjunction with the Social Democrat Union of Macedonia (SDSM), a socialist party with close ties to Soros.The intervention is, incredibly, still ongoing with the result being chaos and disruptive street demonstrations. Gaetan’s investigative work also indicates that Obama’s agencies intervened politically with a number of other Balkan counties, including Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania and Greece.It appears the Trump administration knows little about such interventions since many leftist Obama-appointed ambassadors continue to hold on to their positions. And USAID funds continue to pour into leftist political groups in the Balkans as if Trump never came to power. Indeed, as one Macedonia Member of Parliament quoted by Gaetan said, “Under Obama’s ideological programs, it [USAID] became the super crack of the left.”they are now announcing an investigation in the allegations and say they will take the matter before the newly appointed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson."Our message is that, if the US Government took a political side, it has made a major error and all those involved should apologize and stop immediately. Ultimately, diplomats who were acting in this way will be held responsible. We are all for free and fair elections, but not for taking sides. I will be in touch with Secretary Tillerson, and I have already been in touch with members of the Trump transition team. ''''We need to have a detailed oversight into what the Administration has been doing over the past eight years because we have been taking sides politically in other countries as well, and there have been other similar incidents. That undermines US public diplomacy and our diplomacy in general. It is against the law and is unheard of. Again, he (Baily) needs to be fired!", Smith told the Macedonian National Television.''Sources: *****/5: This story is excellently sourced and proven by multiple news agencies and primary documentationAccuracy: ****/5: The major news agencies agree with the story but on several fronts it is worded differently.Impact on The USA: */5 This story got absolutely NO press play in the USA EXCEPT when it became Donald Trump's headache. Little explanation was given as to why Trump should have been held responsible, but the New York Times and NBC both agreed that his temerpment and demeanor were the cause of horrible riots and unrest in Europe. Not only was this story NOT reported when it actually happened, but when it DID happen, the current president gets the blame for it.There are many elections across the world that are due to happen in 2017-2018. America is certainly not the only nation to demonstratively interfere with the elections of another country. Espionage and subterfuge has been a part of American history through the ages.But what is lost in American media today is the acknowledgement that we are a well-documented meddler ourselves. It isn't meant to justify any of this. In a perfect world, this doesn't happen.In baseball, it isn't uncommon for one team to pick up and steal another team's signs. It's frowned upon and can result in the hitter of the offending team being drilled by a 95-mph fastball to the ribs. I had it coming too. I know for a fact that I am good at stealing the signs of the opposing teams catcher. But it isn't against the rules. It's perhaps unethical - but the countries of the world know that they are going to be drilled.Although I end this article with a bit of good natured humor, I hope i made the point. Every news agency and network is handling this election meddling story as if it is the first time in history that it has happened. But history requires us to take a good look at ourselves.If we are going to manipulate the world around our own grand design, we have to be open to the fact that we are going to get caught and the outcome is not going to be good. The level of obvious ''projection'' by House Democrats, Senators and by almost every press agency in the country is insulting to the average person.It is like the old adage, ''He who throws mud gets dirt on his hands too.'' ###