Mainstream Media is the Public Relations Firm for Russian Intelligence

The mainstream media has become obsessed with the made up story of “collusion” between Trump and Russia, though there has been absolutely no evidence presented to substantiate such intense coverage.

In a lot of ways, an objective observer could make the case that mainstream media (MSM) is actually colluding with the Russian government.

But before I lay out my case, let’s set the stage.

So-called journalists that work in MSM argue that they are the arbiters of the truth and the guardians of our democracy. Their mission from God, in their narcissistic view, is to protect American’s free speech and keep the government in check.

Let me make this perfectly clear: MSM is not an integral part of our democracy; MSM journalists are not the arbiters of truth. The American people are the only integral part of our democracy and the final arbiters of the truth. We don’t need a biased middleman.

I graduated from Oral Roberts University with a degree in tax accounting. When I worked in corporate America, I was bound by the standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA); those standards were my Bible for all things accounting.

Likewise, journalists are “supposed” to be governed by the principle established by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). But of course, journalists in MSM believe they are not bound by the standards delineated therein.

I wrote about this last October, when I critiqued MSMs coverage of the presidential campaign last year. It was discovered that journalists from CNN, New York Times, POLITICO etc., were shown to be aiding and abetting the Clinton campaign and were never pulled off the campaign beat. This was proven through emails sent from the reporters to the Clinton campaign and revealed by WikiLeaks; not with “anonymous” sources.

Recently, I have written several columns explaining how Russia has unleashed a psychological operations (PSY-OPS) campaign on the American people and the mainstream media has been in direct collusion with them.

MSM has been using Russian officials as some of their anonymous sources. Yeah, you heard right, Russian officials. This is how ridiculous Russia’s pys-ops campaign has gotten. The Russians are good.
The story goes like this: MSNBC reports that The New York Times is reporting that an anonymous source tells their reporter, that Jared Kushner is a person of interest in the FBI probe into possible collusion of the Trump campaign with Russia.

Do you have a headache yet? I do. Furthermore, there is absolutely no such legal term in law enforcement as a person of interest! Either you are under investigation or you are not.

More importantly, MSM and their sanctimonious reporters are in total violation of their own code of journalistic ethics, not that MSM ever had any.

According to the SPJ, “The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.” Their four principles are: Seek Truth and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act Independently, and Be Accountable and Transparent.

How many journalists can say with a straight face that the mainstream media has lived up to these standards?

Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy issued an interesting study in May. The center analyzed coverage of Trump’s first 100 days in the MSM.

A few of their findings were: CNN’s coverage was 93 percent negative, NBC was 93 percent negative, and CBS was 91 percent negative. The New York Times was 87 percent negative, The Washington Post was 83 percent negative, and The Wall Street Journal was 70 percent negative.

Juxtapose that with other facts from the study. Obama got 41 percent negative stories during his first 100 days; G.W. Bush received 57 percent negative coverage, and Clinton received 60 percent negative.

The study didn’t survey any Black media outlets, but I know from personal experience that many of them are far worse than the mainstream media.

Radical leftist Black media like The Root, The Grio, TV One, The Tom Joyner Morning Show are all part of the Democratic National Committee for all practical purposes. Did you know that The Root is owned by Univision Communications and that the company’s chairman is an ardent Clintonite?

Yes, you heard right, The Root—a website which is supposed to be the quintessential platform for Black intellectual thought from the diverse perspectives in the Black community—is run by a company that largely caters to Hispanics.

So, we now have empirical data the supports Trump’s theory of a “dishonest media.”

This whole debate about alleged Russian collusion with Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton is simply the Russians showing everyone that they control the American media, when it comes to how the media covers the Trump Administration. MSM has become the personal public relations firm of record for Russian intelligence.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Black Press USA.

The 2016 Election & the Demise of Journalistic Standards by Michael Goodwin

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 20, 2017, in Atlanta, Georgia, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar.

I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.

It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at The New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species. For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government—and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in All the President’s Men. Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.

During the years I spent teaching at the Columbia University School of Journalism, I often found myself telling my students that the job of the reporter was “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I’m not even sure where I first heard that line, but it still captures the way most journalists think about what they do. Translate the first part of that compassionate-sounding idea into the daily decisions about what makes news, and it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that every person afflicted by something is entitled to help. Or, as liberals like to say, “Government is what we do together.” From there, it’s a short drive to the conclusion that every problem has a government solution.

The rest of that journalistic ethos—“afflict the comfortable”—leads to the knee-jerk support of endless taxation. Somebody has to pay for that government intervention the media loves to demand. In the same vein, and for the same reason, the average reporter will support every conceivable regulation as a way to equalize conditions for the poor. He will also give sympathetic coverage to groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.

A New Dimension

I knew all of this about the media mindset going into the 2016 presidential campaign. But I was still shocked at what happened. This was not naïve liberalism run amok. This was a whole new approach to politics. No one in modern times had seen anything like it. As with grief, there were several stages. In the beginning, Donald Trump’s candidacy was treated as an outlandish publicity stunt, as though he wasn’t a serious candidate and should be treated as a circus act. But television executives quickly made a surprising discovery: the more they put Trump on the air, the higher their ratings climbed. Ratings are money. So news shows started devoting hours and hours simply to pointing the cameras at Trump and letting them run.

As his rallies grew, the coverage grew, which made for an odd dynamic. The candidate nobody in the media took seriously was attracting the most people to his events and getting the most news coverage. Newspapers got in on the game too. Trump, unlike most of his opponents, was always available to the press, and could be counted on to say something outrageous or controversial that made a headline. He made news by being a spectacle.

Despite the mockery of journalists and late-night comics, something extraordinary was happening. Trump was dominating a campaign none of the smart money thought he could win. And then, suddenly, he was winning. Only when the crowded Republican field began to thin and Trump kept racking up primary and caucus victories did the media’s tone grow more serious.

One study estimated that Trump had received so much free airtime that if he had had to buy it, the price would have been $2 billion. The realization that they had helped Trump’s rise seemed to make many executives, producers, and journalists furious. By the time he secured the nomination and the general election rolled around, they were gunning for him. Only two people now had a chance to be president, and the overwhelming media consensus was that it could not be Donald Trump. They would make sure of that. The coverage of him grew so vicious and one-sided that last August I wrote a column on the unprecedented bias. Under the headline “American Journalism Is Collapsing Before Our Eyes,” I wrote that the so-called cream of the media crop was “engaged in a naked display of partisanship” designed to bury Trump and elect Hillary Clinton.

The evidence was on the front page, the back page, the culture pages, even the sports pages. It was at the top of the broadcast and at the bottom of the broadcast. Day in, day out, in every media market in America, Trump was savaged like no other candidate in memory. We were watching the total collapse of standards, with fairness and balance tossed overboard. Every story was an opinion masquerading as news, and every opinion ran in the same direction—toward Clinton and away from Trump.

For the most part, I blame The New York Times and The Washington Post for causing this breakdown. The two leading liberal newspapers were trying to top each other in their demonization of Trump and his supporters. They set the tone, and most of the rest of the media followed like lemmings.

On one level, tougher scrutiny of Trump was clearly defensible. He had a controversial career and lifestyle, and he was seeking the presidency as his first job in government. He also provided lots of fuel with some of his outrageous words and deeds during the campaign. But from the beginning there was also a second element to the lopsided coverage. The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, meaning it would back a dead raccoon if it had a “D” after its name. Think of it—George McGovern over Richard Nixon? Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan? Walter Mondale over Reagan? Any Democrat would do. And The Washington Post, which only started making editorial endorsements in the 1970s, has never once endorsed a Republican for president.

But again, I want to emphasize that 2016 had those predictable elements plus a whole new dimension. This time, the papers dropped the pretense of fairness and jumped headlong into the tank for one candidate over the other. The Times media reporter began a story this way:

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalist tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

I read that paragraph and I thought to myself, well, that’s actually an easy question. If you feel that way about Trump, normal journalistic ethics would dictate that you shouldn’t cover him. You cannot be fair. And you shouldn’t be covering Hillary Clinton either, because you’ve already decided who should be president. Go cover sports or entertainment. Yet the Times media reporter rationalized the obvious bias he had just acknowledged, citing the view that Clinton was “normal” and Trump was not.

I found the whole concept appalling. What happened to fairness? What happened to standards? I’ll tell you what happened to them. The Times top editor, Dean Baquet, eliminated them. In an interview last October with the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, Baquet admitted that the piece by his media reporter had nailed his own thinking. Trump “challenged our language,” he said, and Trump “will have changed journalism.” Of the daily struggle for fairness, Baquet had this to say: “I think that Trump has ended that struggle. . . . We now say stuff. We fact check him. We write it more powerfully that [what he says is] false.”

Baquet was being too modest. Trump was challenging, sure, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be abandoned without consequence.

With that decision, Baquet also changed the basic news story formula. To the age-old elements of who, what, when, where, and why, he added the reporter’s opinion. Now the floodgates were open, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper—all the tools that writers and editors have—were summoned to the battle. The goal was to pick the next president.

Thus began the spate of stories, which continues today, in which the Times routinely calls Trump a liar in its news pages and headlines. Again, the contrast with the past is striking. The Times never called Barack Obama a liar, despite such obvious opportunities as “you can keep your doctor” and “the Benghazi attack was caused by an internet video.” Indeed, the Times and The Washington Post, along with most of the White House press corps, spent eight years cheerleading the Obama administration, seeing not a smidgen of corruption or dishonesty. They have been tougher on Hillary Clinton during her long career. But they still never called her a liar, despite such doozies as “I set up my own computer server so I would only need one device,” “I turned over all the government emails,” and “I never sent or received classified emails.” All those were lies, but not to the national media. Only statements by Trump were fair game.

As we know now, most of the media totally missed Trump’s appeal to millions upon millions of Americans. The prejudice against him blinded those news organizations to what was happening in the country. Even more incredibly, I believe the bias and hostility directed at Trump backfired. The feeling that the election was, in part, a referendum on the media, gave some voters an extra incentive to vote for Trump. A vote for him was a vote against the media and against Washington. Not incidentally, Trump used that sentiment to his advantage, often revving up his crowds with attacks on reporters. He still does.

If I haven’t made it clear, let me do so now. The behavior of much of the media, but especially The New York Times, was a disgrace. I don’t believe it ever will recover the public trust it squandered.

The Times’ previous reputation for having the highest standards was legitimate. Those standards were developed over decades to force reporters and editors to be fair and to gain public trust. The commitment to fairness made The New York Times the flagship of American journalism. But standards are like laws in the sense that they are designed to guide your behavior in good times and in bad. Consistent adherence to them was the source of the Times’ credibility. And eliminating them has made the paper less than ordinary. Its only standards now are double standards.

I say this with great sadness. I was blessed to grow up at the Times, getting a clerical job right out of college and working my way onto the reporting staff, where I worked for a decade. It was the formative experience of my career where I learned most of what I know about reporting and writing. Alas, it was a different newspaper then. Abe Rosenthal was the editor in those days, and long before we’d ever heard the phrase “zero tolerance,” that’s what Abe practiced toward conflicts of interest and reporters’ opinions. He set the rules and everybody knew it.

Here is a true story about how Abe Rosenthal resolved a conflict of interest. A young woman was hired by the Times from one of the Philadelphia newspapers. But soon after she arrived in New York, a story broke in Philly that she had had a romantic affair with a political figure she had covered, and that she had accepted a fur coat and other expensive gifts from him. When he saw the story, Abe called the woman into his office and asked her if it were true. When she said yes, he told her to clean out her desk—that she was finished at the Times and would never work there again. As word spread through the newsroom, some reporters took the woman’s side and rushed in to tell Abe that firing her was too harsh. He listened for about 30 seconds, raised his hand for silence, and said (this is slightly bowdlerized): “I don’t care if you have a romantic affair with an elephant on your personal time, but then you can’t cover the circus for the paper.” Case closed. The conflict of interest policy was clear, absolute, and unforgettable.

As for reporters’ opinions, Abe had a similar approach. He didn’t want them in the news pages. And if you put them in, he took them out. They belonged in the opinion pages only, which were managed separately. Abe said he knew reporters tended to lean left and would find ways to sneak their views into the stories. So he saw his job as steering the paper slightly to the right. “That way,” he said, “the paper would end up in the middle.” He was well known for this attitude, which he summed up as “keeping the paper straight.” He even said he wanted his epitaph to read, “He kept the paper straight.” Like most people, I thought this was a joke. But after I related all this in a column last year, his widow contacted me and said it wasn’t a joke—that, in fact, Abe’s tombstone reads, “He kept the paper straight.” She sent me a picture to prove it. I published that picture of his tombstone alongside a column where I excoriated the Times for its election coverage. Sadly, the Times’ high standards were buried with Abe Rosenthal.

Looking to the Future

Which brings us to the crucial questions. Can the American media be fixed? And is there anything that we as individuals can do to make a difference? The short answer to the first question is, “No, it can’t be fixed.” The 2016 election was the media’s Humpty Dumpty moment. It fell off the wall, shattered into a million pieces, and can’t be put back together again. In case there is any doubt, 2017 is confirming that the standards are still dead. The orgy of visceral Trump-bashing continues unabated.

But the future of journalism isn’t all gloom and doom. In fact, if we accept the new reality of widespread bias and seize the potential it offers, there is room for optimism. Consider this—the election showed the country is roughly divided 50-50 between people who will vote for a Democrat and people who will vote for a Republican. But our national media is more like 80-20 in favor of Democrats. While the media should, in theory, broadly reflect the public, it doesn’t. Too much of the media acts like a special interest group. Detached from the greater good, it exists to promote its own interest and the political party with which it is aligned.

Ronald Reagan’s optimism is often expressed in a story that is surely apocryphal, but irresistible. He is said to have come across a barn full of horse manure and remarked cheerfully that there must be a pony in it somewhere. I suggest we look at the media landscape in a similar fashion. The mismatch between the mainstream media and the public’s sensibilities means there is a vast untapped market for news and views that are not now represented. To realize that potential, we only need three ingredients, and we already have them: first, free speech; second, capitalism and free markets; and the third ingredient is you, the consumers of news.

Free speech is under assault, most obviously on many college campuses, but also in the news media, which presents a conformist view to its audience and gets a politically segregated audience in return. Look at the letters section in The New York Times—virtually every reader who writes in agrees with the opinions of the paper. This isn’t a miracle; it’s a bubble. Liberals used to love to say, “I don’t agree with your opinion, but I would fight to the death for your right to express it.” You don’t hear that anymore from the Left. Now they want to shut you up if you don’t agree. And they are having some success.

But there is a countervailing force. Look at what happened this winter when the Left organized boycotts of department stores that carried Ivanka Trump’s clothing and jewelry. Nordstrom folded like a cheap suit, but Trump’s supporters rallied on social media and Ivanka’s company had its best month ever. This is the model I have in mind for the media. It is similar to how FOX News got started. Rupert Murdoch thought there was an untapped market for a more fair and balanced news channel, and he recruited Roger Ailes to start it more than 20 years ago. Ailes found a niche market alright—half the country!

Incredible advances in technology are also on the side of free speech. The explosion of choices makes it almost impossible to silence all dissent and gain a monopoly, though certainly Facebook and Google are trying.

As for the necessity of preserving capitalism, look around the world. Nations without economic liberty usually have little or no dissent. That’s not a coincidence. In this, I’m reminded of an enduring image from the Occupy Wall Street movement. That movement was a pestilence, egged on by President Obama and others who view other people’s wealth as a crime against the common good. This attitude was on vivid display as the protesters held up their iPhones to demand the end of capitalism. As I wrote at the time, did they believe Steve Jobs made each and every Apple product one at a time in his garage? Did they not have a clue about how capital markets make life better for more people than any other system known to man? They had no clue. And neither do many government officials, who think they can kill the golden goose and still get golden eggs.

Which brings me to the third necessary ingredient in determining where we go from here. It’s you. I urge you to support the media you like. As the great writer and thinker Midge Decter once put it, “You have to join the side you’re on.” It’s no secret that newspapers and magazines are losing readers and money and shedding staff. Some of them are good newspapers. Some of them are good magazines. There are also many wonderful, thoughtful, small publications and websites that exist on a shoestring. Don’t let them die. Subscribe or contribute to those you enjoy. Give subscriptions to friends. Put your money where your heart and mind are. An expanded media landscape that better reflects the diversity of public preferences would, in time, help create a more level political and cultural arena. That would be a great thing. So again I urge you: join the side you’re on.


Michael Goodwin is the chief political columnist for The New York Post. He has a B.A. in English literature from Columbia College and has taught at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Before joining the Post in 2009, he was the political columnist for The New York Daily News, where he served as executive editor and editorial page editor and led its editorial board to a Pulitzer Prize. Prior to that, he worked for 16 years at The New York Times, beginning as a clerk and rising to City Hall Bureau Chief. He is the co-author of I, Koch and editor of New York Comes Back.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Inprimis Digest.

Huffington Post lays off 39 employees amid cutbacks

Huffington Post published an article titled “HuffPost Lays Off Dozens Amid Corporate Cutbacks” on June 14, 2016.  The article states in part:

Writers Guild of America, East, HuffPost’s union, said Wednesday that they were notified of 39 members being laid off.

The HuffPost layoffs come as Lydia Polgreen, who took over as editor-in-chief earlier this year, is assembling a newsroom leadership team, which includes former Daily News Editor-in-Chief Jim Rich, and charting a new editorial vision. She recently oversaw a rebranding of the site, which was co-founded by Arianna Huffington, who left the company in August.

Is it possible the Huffington Post?

  • laid off the 39 employees because their revenues dropped after Florida Family Association influenced 420 out of 439 companies to stop advertising.
  • decided to “chart a new editorial vision” after Florida Family Association’s contact with advertisers influenced a drop from 61 companies advertising during the month of September 2016 to 19 companies in May 2017.

It is unlikely the Huffington Post’s “new editorial vision” will change its passion to publish fake news, Islamist propaganda.  It is also unlikely that it will stop spewing the vitriol and leftist hate aimed at President Trump and conservatives.

It is important to keep the pressure on companies to stop supporting this leftist, Islamist loving, America hating website.  Florida Family Association will diligently keep the pressure on.

Your emails to advertisers is making a huge difference.  Thank you for supporting Florida Family Association’s email campaigns.

Your support is very important to our ability to continue the fight.  To make your donation by credit card, debit card, checking account or PayPal please click here or mail your gift to Florida Family Association (FFA), PO Box 46547, Tampa, FL 33646-0105.

CNN: The Most Busted Name in News

CNN’s news is fake news. CNN’s stories are lies. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria is an exposed plagiarizer, but beyond all that, CNN anchors are the worst hypocrites on the air. Legitimate journalists present the news fairly regardless of their personal political views. CNN “journalists” still need safe spaces if someone criticizes Obama yet they endorse every vile lie and vicious action against Trump. CNN anchors are the talking puppets of their corporate owners who are driven by a singular ambition – to overthrow the America-first government of President Donald Trump. The globalists who own CNN want an internationalized America – they do not want a strong, independent, sovereign America lead by an America-first President. They want a weak internationalized socialized America with globalized trade agreements that benefit themselves at the expense of American workers.

The overpaid CNN bobbleheads deliberately create confusion with their unremitting lies and outrageous talking points. They foment anarchy and violence against the President of the United States and should be exposed as the deceitful puppets they are. James Comey had already testified before Congress and made it crystal clear that President Trump never directed Comey to stop the investigation into the Russians – there was no wrongdoing and no basis for any case against Trump for obstruction of justice. Yet, plagiarist Fareed Zakaria pursued the matter and invited Elizabeth Foley of Florida International University and Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School to discuss pursuing President Donald Trump with charges of obstruction of justice.

Tribe tried to argue that there are “bigger” issues at play and talked about “abuse of power.” Tribe’s statement is typical of the left-wing liberal narrative that turns any specific debate into a scripted general diatribe against Donald Trump in an attempt to delegitimize and discredit Trump’s presidency. Our jurisprudence system in the United States was designed to be blind – it deliberately concerned itself with the WHAT of behavior not the WHO. This is an essential distinction because the Democrats under Barack Obama have turned our jurisprudence system upside down and ripped the blindfold off Lady Justice. The Democrats’ obsession with destroying Donald Trump has eradicated any semblance of fairness and transformed the left-wing liberal Democratic Party into an end-justifies-the-means movement of hypocrites determined to ignore the actual crimes committed by Hillary Clinton and focus on imagined crimes to discredit President Donald Trump.

The only Russian connection worth pursuing is Hillary Clinton’s mendacious sale of 20% of our American uranium to Russia disguised as a legitimate sale to Canada. The Canadians, who made staggering donations to the Clinton Foundation, sold their company to the Russians who now own 20% of our uranium and control much of the world’s uranium – a necessary ingredient for nuclear bombs. Hillary Clinton’s secret relationship with Russia continues to threaten our national security. That is the real Russian connection – not some fictitious concocted story about Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton has honed lying to an art form. The bogus “Benghazi video”that never existed was a lie created to protect the 2012 reelection of Barack Obama. Four Americans were killed but that is of little consequence to crooked Hillary.

In an unusually candid NYT article, “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal” dated April 23, 2015 writers Becker & McIntire discussed the matter. “The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.” It ended with a 31 million dollar donation to the Clinton Foundation and Russia controlling 20% of US uranium.

Excerpts appear below:

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well. And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Instead of plagiarist Fareed Zakaria focussing on the real crimes of Hillary and Bill Clinton he brings two lawyers onto his show to debate the false accusations against President Donald Trump. The ongoing and unremitting pursuit of a fictitious Russian-Trump connection is pure political theater and CNN is now additionally guilty of promoting Lawfare against President Trump. Lawfare is a form of asymmetric warfare consisting of using the legal system against an enemy. Lawfare is designed to be damaging or delegitimizing the enemy, tying up their time or winning a public relations victory.

Foley tried explaining that disliking a president is not grounds for impeachment or pursuing obstruction of justice charges. She tried to end CNN’s lawfare against Trump: 

“If you care about process and the rule of law — and this is not just about the ends justifying the means and taking down a president that you don’t like — then you need to care about what the statutes of obstruction say in this country, and I’m telling you that section 1503 has been interpreted by every court to be limited to a pending judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding; an FBI investigation is not that. So there is simply no violation of any existing statute under the facts as we know it right now. … To try to trump up an obstruction of justice statute is not respectful of the rule of law in this country.”

Fareed Zakaria continued with his Leftist lawfare script and brought up the possibility of perjury charges against Trump – perjury? Really? What about Hillary Clinton perjuring herself repeatedly about her illegal unsecured server in her basement that she used to send classified documents to Huma Abedin? CNN’s plagiarist was silent on the subject. The hypocrisy and blatant disregard for truth is staggering on CNN – but what else should America expect from the Clinton Network News?

CNN’s strategy of dishonest sensationalism is stolen from the tabloids who make up the most outrageous and egregious lies about famous people to sell papers. The dishonest sensationalism CNN creates against Donald Trump is a tactic designed to create social chaos in America. CNN is no longer a legitimate news outlet – it is the media arm of the globalist elite seeking to overthrow the constitutional government of the United States and replace our democracy with socialism. Social chaos is the necessary condition that precedes transforming American democracy into socialism. A socialized America could easily be transformed into an internationalized America and then onto one-world government ruled by the globalist elite. That was the “hope and change” that Obama’s lawless presidency brought to America and left behind as his legacy.

President Donald Trump is an American patriot who will continue to oppose those who seek the destruction of the United States. Donald Trump’s position of strength against the unremitting lies and lawfare promoted on tabloid station CNN is to ignore them. The President must speak directly to the American people – tweets are insufficient – he could address the American people weekly and tell them what is going on and talk about the accomplishments of his administration for the week. Americans need to know and will NEVER hear it from the crooked corrupt mainstream media. CNN is part of the swamp that needs to be drained.

No Good Can Come from Trying to Resurrect the Cold War by Brittany Hunter

A few days go, as I sat with my eyes fixated on my television screen during a particularly riveting Netflix marathon, an alert on my iPhone went off and interrupted an otherwise perfect night of binge-watching.

As I glanced down to see what fresh new hell awaited me in the hectic non-fiction world, I noticed that it was an alert from an Apple news app that I never bothered to deleted when I upgraded to a newer iPhone over six months ago. The app only goes off if there is significant breaking news, which, usually means a terrorist attack or another lost airliner.

This time, however, the news that disrupted my luxurious night of lounging was a headline about Jared Kushner, Trump’s loyal son-in-law, and his connection to Russia. The content of the alert was vague at best, something along the lines of “Kushner has Russian connection Proving Malicious Intent,” or something equally over-dramatic and sensationalized.

Enough Is Enough

Normally, I would roll my eyes at the media rushing to conclusions and go about my day, but after the roller coaster of an election cycle that the nation is still attempting to recover from, this alert somehow managed to become my own personal “straw that broke the camel’s back,” as they say.

For the record, I am no fan of Jared Kushner nor of Trump, but that is because I am no fan of any politician. However, given the amount of times I have personally been subjected to the “ fear Russia” rhetoric, I find myself quickly losing faith in what passes for “news” these days and am even more concerned that this fear mongering will inevitably turn to warmongering if the drums of war continue to beat in Russia’s general direction.

Between hearing the term “Russian meddling” every 30 seconds on CNN, and Time Magazine’s controversial cover depicting the White House being taken over by the Kremlin, I have had just about enough of this return to 1950s Cold War speak.

While I am wary of any news story that justifies the military industrial complex’s lust for war, the Time cover speaks volumes about the modern day media industry as a whole. When it comes to the purposefully shocking Time cover, no one bothered to notice that the “Kremlin” seen swallowing the White House into a sea of red is in fact St. Basil Cathedral. The sensationalism of the story, despite its possible consequences, was of more importance than fact-checking the actual content.

Some might argue that this is a small detail to get worked up over in the long-run, but as the country “celebrates” Memorial Day today, it is important to remember that any rhetoric that aims to perpetuate our country’s obsession with war should always be questioned and scrutinized to the utmost degree.

Reinventing the Red Scare

Russia has recently replaced the millennial generation as America’s favorite group to collectively throw under the bus every time something goes wrong.

At a pivotal moment just a few weeks shy of voting day, Wikileaks revealed leaked emails that showed collusion between the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign (as if either can be distinguished from the other). The content of these emails seemed to shed light on the combined efforts of the DNC and the Clinton campaign, who together had done everything within their power to rig the election against Bernie Sanders.

But rather than blame those actually responsible for the constructed demise of the Sanders campaign, Russia somehow became the enemy — again.

Suddenly, the shadiness on the part of the DNC and the Clinton camp were pushed aside as “Russian hackers” became the main cause for concern. While there has yet to be a definitive answer on the matter, the authenticity of the leaked emails was not a source of outrage for devoted Democrats. Instead, they wanted justice because how dare we let Putin interfere in our elections! This is America! This is a Democracy!

Overnight, the Democrats began to sound like the bloodthirsty Republicans of the Bush/Cheney era, calling for war without any logical forethought. What their candidate did was of less importance than punishing those who may or may not have brought the information to light.

Appearing almost out of thin air, Russia became the culprit even though there was evidence to the contrary and Wikileaks maintains that Russia is not involved. For those insistent that the Red Scare be brought forth from its warmongering grave, the idea of a foreign body meddling in the U.S. presidential elections was too egregious a reality to live with in an allegedly free country.

Apparently, these same people have forgotten about the numerous times throughout history where the United States Government has interfered in foreign elections over the years.

Blood on Our Hands

If for example, Russia was found to be explicitly and directly tied to the election of Donald Trump, it does not, at least thus far, come close to the disastrous consequences that arose from America’s role in the Iranian coup d’etat in 1953. It also pales in comparison with the American backing of the President of the Republic of Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem in the 1960s. In the predominantly Buddhist territory of southern Vietnam, the United States ushering a devout Catholic into the powerful role of President was not appreciated, as history proved.

While these are just a few instances of many, the aforementioned examples have both caused and perpetuated conflicts that are still ongoing today. The United State’s reputation of meddling in the Middle East is exactly what gave rise to the sentiment seen with Islamist extremists, such as Isis. But it didn’t begin in 2003 with the Invasion of Iraq.

The United States left Vietnam in shame after forcing their own men to go off and die in foreign jungles without a clear purpose. But U.S. intervention was largely to blame for the escalation of the conflict in the first time.

Simply knowing and understanding that the state has an unfortunate tendency of being all too hasty to declare war — or just attack without any formal declaration — should be enough to caution those who are calling for the nation to retaliate against Russia.

Let’s Really Remember

Memorial Day has unfortunately become a holiday that glamorizes war and glorifies professional state-sanctioned killing, rather than urging caution against escalating foreign conflict. While the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been an utter and complete disaster when it comes to honoring those who went off to die for undefined “American interests” abroad, the government has instead declared that Memorial Day is sufficient enough to at least calm the masses.

But as we spend the majority of the day enjoying our paid time off with BBQs and pool time, may we not forget to be increasingly skeptical of any propaganda that seeks to put the state’s interests ahead of individual life.

To be sure, the atrocities committed by Putin and other Russian agents of the state are reprehensible. However, not only does this not explicitly prove that Russia was involved in the leaks, those seeking to perpetuate this rhetoric are doing so only to save face and distract from the actions of the DNC and the Clinton camp.

For those who continue attempting to reignite the Cold War, protecting partisan politics is more important than sparing innocent lives from the brutal realities of war.

Brittany Hunter

Brittany Hunter is an associate editor at FEE. Brittany studied political science at Utah Valley University with a minor in Constitutional studies.

RELATED ARTICLE: Read the Confidential David Brock Memo Outlining Plans to Attack Trump

EDITORS NOTE: Get trained for success by leading entrepreneurs. Learn more at

How Trump should solve the Fake News problem

The ongoing character assassination of President Trump in the American fake news media is a political massacre the likes of which we have never witnessed before in history. There is a coordinated media effort to crucify Trump on the basis of fake accusations based on non-existent evidence and spread through a network of anti-American propaganda outlets called news rooms.

Every day our headlines are full of fake news stories attacking Trump. The Harvard Kennedy School just issued a comprehensive report on overall media coverage of Trump. That report demonstrates just how fake and anti-Trump today’s news coverage really is.

NOTICE: Before you discount this report just because it was issued by known left-wing Harvard, realize that the mere fact that even Harvard arrived at these findings means the findings are inescapable. If I were quoting Fox News in this piece, people would easily claim Fox News is in the bag for Trump. No such claim can be made against Harvard.

News time spent on President Trump, his administration and the FBI – 77%

Percentage of negative coverage of Trump

The most anti-Trump fake news outlets in America

( SOURCE: Harvard Kennedy School)

In recent days, the White House has even mentioned that they may stop White House briefings altogether due to the total lack of any journalistic standard governing the unprofessional behavior of reporters assigned to the White House.

It would be a mistake for the White House to stop all briefings just because of the unprofessional behavior of current White House reporters. It would only fuel their narrative that Trump has something to hide.

A better solution

However, there is no reason for the White House to continue extending press credentials to individuals who consistently turn every briefing into a fake news circus. Trump does not need to ban certain papers (Washington Post, New York Times) or networks (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS) to solve the problem.

Don’t stop the briefings and don’t ban any news (propaganda) outlet from the briefings. Instead, the White House should simply make a statement concerning the protocol for White House briefings including a Code of Journalistic Conduct that everyone must abide by to keep their press credentials.

The minute a reporter breaks protocol, strip them of their White House press credentials and have them physically removed from the briefing and White House property by Secret Service. Let the entire world watch as the fake news agent is walked out and permanently stripped of their press credentials.

Notify their employer that they will need to clear a new reporter for the White House and will not have representation in the briefings unless and until they send a real journalist able to follow journalistic standards and White House protocol.

In a previous column, I expose the whole truth behind the WaPo propaganda machine owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos. Left-wing globalists control 100% of the U.S. media and that’s why they are engaged in a coordinated assault on Trump, who threatens their efforts meld America into the global commune with his make America great again agenda.

But Trump won’t have to remove too many before they all get the message loud and clear. If you agree, forward, text, post and tweet this column to @POTUS right away!

RELATED ARTICLE: Barack Obama’s team secretly disclosed years of illegal NSA searches spying on Americans

Why We Must Defend Trump against the Creatures of the Swamp

While the media witch hunt of President Trump continues, the Deplorables who elected him have not become demoralized, as The Deep State had projected, they have become emboldened. Many still remember the DNC stealing the nomination from Bernie and giving it to Hillary. They still recall the media projecting a Hillary Clinton landslide to discourage Trump supporters from casting their ballots.  When the DNC couldn’t steal the election from Trump, ‘Deep State’ operatives and ‘Never Trumpers’ attempted to steal his delegates, and subsequently attempted to steal his electors. None of their efforts worked.

The political operatives in the ‘Fake Media,’ had called for Trump’s impeachment before he was even inaugurated, and according to Jerome Corsi, have now become part of the “Deep State.’ Unfortunately, The Swamp is being drained and all of the creatures that have survived and have fed off the murky quagmire are coming out in full force to make sure that Trump Is thrown out of office.  Just who are the creatures of The Swamp?

The first swamp creature that we’ve found is Washington Post and Amazon owner, Jeff Bezos.  He’s one of the swamp Bull Frogs making the loudest noise, as he’s upset because Trump wants to break up his monopoly, in accordance with anti-trust laws.

Another prominent swamp frog is Carlos Slim, a Mexican business magnate that owns The New York Times.  Mr. Slim is irritated that Trump wants to ‘Really Build the Wall’ on the southern border and make Mexico pay for it as well as threatening to ditch trade deals and impose tariffs on Mexican made goods.

The swamp crickets in the media, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and Univision have continued to chirp the NYT and WaPo articles about Trump’s collusion with Russia and his ‘political’ firing of F.B.I. director Comey, despite a lack of evidence to their claims, and reporters have not produced any sources.  A recent Harvard study found that 98% of Trump’s coverage in the media has been negative, with virtually no coverage of his successes.

More interesting swamp creatures have surfaced recently; they are the Dragon Fly Nymphs, who spend the first part of their lives underwater and then surface.  Three nymphs that have surfaced recently, who’ve been underwater for quite some time are Nancy Pelosi, who still thinks George Bush is still president, Maxine Waters, who believes that Putin has invaded North Korea, and Elizabeth Warren who has forgotten the senate protocol.

Other more devious swamp creatures are the Rattlesnake, Muslim Brotherhood operatives, like C.A.I.R, who fund a number of our politicians and disguise their true intentions, which is civilization jihad and sharia law.

Next we find the Swamp Rats, John Mc Cain, Paul Ryan and Lindsey Graham.  They scurry around and pretend to be conservative, yet attack their fellow Republicans.  We can add the ‘Never Trumpers’ to this species.

Another identified species is the Swamp Turtle, the slow moving GOP who ignored Fast & Furious, Betrayed the Tea Party when then IRS would not recognize their 501c’s, failed to prosecute Hillary, or anyone in the USG for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and refused to address the Obamacare nightmare until its implosion.

The Creeping Scorpions are interesting creatures in the swamp that slither around camouflaging themselves in the muck; these are the Globalists, including many members of congress, and corporate leaders who desire a U.N. dominated world and the destruction of nation states.  They are proponents of open borders and want to destroy any sense of nationalism.

Flying over the swamp we find the Vultures, like George Soros feeding of the destruction of the host and funding all of the gnats like Black Lives Matter, Antifa, the Women’s March and countless other groups that despise American virtues.

The most infamous specimen in the swamp is the parasitical team, Hillary and Bill who are funded and supported by corporate leeches and funded by rogue foreign dictators.

The carnivorous plant is also a dangerous species in the swamp, as it appears to be a harmless plant, but is a meat eater in disguise, fooling the passerby.  Obama’s Organizing for America fits nicely into this category.

Ticks are another pesky swamp specimen, like the CPUSA, (communist party), that latches onto its victim.  Its motivation is to bleed us out and destroy America’s free market system.

The remainder of the swamp creatures that have been found are annoying mosquitoes such as the Black Panther Party, La Raza, Code Pink, SEIU and other radicals, anarchists and leftists.

As one can see, President Trump has a host of internal predators that are ready and waiting to create disruption, chaos and anarchy.  However, we must be reminded that Trump was elected by the Deplorables: Republicans, Independents and disenfranchised Democrats. Perhaps it’s time for them to defend the president whom they’ve voted for, as the Swamp is being drained and our freedom and liberty is at stake.

VIDEO: The Atlantic documentary on The Church Militant

Back in March, The Atlantic sent a producer out to Church Militant headquarters in Detroit to produce a short video documentary of this apostolate. Over the course of three days, Daniel Lombroso shot dozens of hours of behind-the-scenes footage of our daily routine, including prayers said in chapel, staff interaction, daily TV productions, as well as interviews with Michael Voris and other apostolate staff.

Released Tuesday, this documentary is the result of those three days.

VIDEO: Prime Minister of Israel Denounces New York Times for ‘Fake News’

Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, called out the New York Times in a recent public remark for putting forward reports along the standard of fake news.

His scathing assessment came via a YouTube video.

Bibi was speaking of an Algemeiner report that faulted the New York Times for its coverage of Hamas. In a May 2 headline, Algemeiner wrote: “new York Times Touts Hamas ‘Moderation,’ Ignores ‘Truly Disgusting’ Video in Which Group Taunts Bereaved Israeli Parents.”

Netanyahy scolded the New York Times — to say the least.

From Algemeiner:

“Netanyahu’s video, published May 7, features the prime minister asking, ‘Ever wonder what fake news is?’

“Netanyahu took the Times to task for its headline touting purported “moderation” by the Hamas terrorist group.

“‘This is a complete distortion of the truth,’ the prime minister says in the video.

“‘Is moving from calling for genocide of all Jews everywhere to calling just for the annihilation of Israel, is that progress, or moderation?’ Netanyahu asks rhetorically. Then he answers his own question: ‘Only if you have no standards whatsoever.’

“‘It’s bad enough that Hamas lies to the world, we don’t also have to lie to ourselves,’ he says.

“The Times, which hyped the so-called Hamas moderation at the top of its front page, buried the news of the Netanyahu video in a single sentence in the 16th paragraph of an article complaining about a reorganization of Israel’s public broadcasting. The article itself appeared inside the newspaper, not on the front page.”

On top of that, the New York Times failed to provide a hyperlink so that readers could view the video themselves, Algemeiner reported.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Geller Report.

Tillerson Cuts 2,300 Jobs From Bloated State Department

Let’s hope that as he makes these cuts and streamlines State Department operations, Tillerson clears out the Obama loyalists who are trying to impede President Trump from draining the swamp and implementing needed reforms.

state_department“Tillerson Cuts 2,300 Jobs From Bloated State Department,” by V Saxena, Conservative Tribune, April 29, 2017:

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has begun fulfilling President Donald Trump’s mission to reduce the size of government and save taxpayers a boatload of money by proposing to eliminate 2,300 jobs at the State Department.

If implemented, the plan would trim the State Department’s budget by more than a quarter and its staff by approximately 3 percent, according to The Associated Press.

The majority of the job cuts would be attained through attrition, or the process of waiting for employees to simply retire, while the remainder would be acquired via buyouts. As noted by The AP, buyouts would be offered first to employees over the age of 50 who have at least two decades of government service under their belts.

The cuts were expected to take approximately two years to materialize, according to Bloomberg, though the results could wind up lasting far longer.

During an interview Friday with NPR, Tillerson explained that he was hoping to make the department far more efficient and effective.

“We are undertaking a reorganization of the State Department, but it’s not just a collapse of boxes,” he said. “What we really want to do is examine the process by which the men and women — the career foreign service people, the civil servants, our embassies — how they deliver on that mission.”

Suffice it to say, just throwing a bunch of people together into one department wasn’t doing the trick. Changes were needed, and he intended to bring forth those changes.

Also on the chopping block were departmental policies: “(T)here are a lot of rules — and people follow the rules, and you look at the rule, and you say … ‘Why do we do it that way?’ And no one can seem to remember why we did it that way.”…

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Geller Report.

Press Basks in Self-Pity as President Skips Media Event to Engage with America

President Trump has a busy schedule this week. On Friday, he becomes the first sitting president since Ronald Reagan in 1983 to address the members of the National Rifle Association during our Annual Meeting and Exhibits in Atlanta, GA. The next day he will hold a rally at the PA Farm Show Complex and Expo Center in Harrisburg to mark the 100th day of his presidency.

One event he will not be attending is the 103rd Annual White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) Dinner in Washington, D.C.  Here, too, he shares a parallel with Ronald Reagan, who was the last president to skip the event in 1981 (albeit because he was still recovering from a recent assassination attempt). Before Reagan, both Presidents Jimmy Carter (1978 and 1980) and Richard Nixon (1972 and 1974) skipped the dinner of their own volition.

The mainstream media have made no secret of their opposition to President Trump. Articles have openly questioned the “legitimacy” of his presidency, and some within the media have even admitted they do not believe ordinary journalistic ethics or practices apply to him. As a writer for the New York Times acknowledged during the election: “[L]et’s face it: Balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy.”

Meanwhile, the American people who voted the president into office have made no secret of their disgust with the media. During the election, an annual Gallup poll showed Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” dropped to its lowest level since the organization first began asking the question in 1972. Nearly 70% of the poll’s respondents found the media untrustworthy.

It cannot be said often or emphatically enough: the media elite just don’t get it. First, they blew the biggest political story of the 21st Century by failing to recognize the momentum of Trump’s presidential campaign. Then – rather than recognize and begin addressing their own colossal professional failure – they simply re-dedicated themselves to opposing his presidency. Even Poltico recently acknowledged that Trump’s election was “not just as an embarrassment for the press but … an indictment” and made clear “the national media just doesn’t get the nation it purportedly covers.”

The press’ reaction to Trump’s decision to skip the WHCA Dinner reinforces this negative view. Criticizing Trump for reaching out to the ordinary Americans who elected him, rather than the press figures who despise him, a former WHCA board member made clear in statements to The Hill that reporters really do continue to believe it’s all about themselves.

“I feel bad, because a lot of White House reporters are going to have to go and cover [Trump’s Pennsylvania rally] and not come to our own dinner,” she said. “It’s one thing for him to stay home, and that was fine. And he can just tweet about us and be mean, and that would be kind of funny, and it would feel right. But for him to stage a competing event — we just can’t even have our dinner? We just can’t even do that?”

This is a remarkable admission. They have to go to work “out there” in America, rather than gather in the Washington, D.C. Hilton with their like-minded colleagues and a bevy of like-minded Hollywood celebrities for a night of self-congratulation and mutual regard.

And as The Hill article noted, even for those who will attend, it won’t be like the good old days when Barack Obama was president and the real Tinseltown A-Listers flocked to bask in his presence. “That really mushroomed during the Obama years,” the WHCA board member told The Hill, “because celebrities love Democrats and big party-givers love celebrities.”

Most Americans probably have better things to do than to give the WHCA Dinner much thought at all.  And the press can at least look forward to the public re-emergence of Barack Obama, who a USA Today writer called “the ultimate media President” because he “made the media feel good.”

Obama reappeared on Monday to give a speech to a friendly crowd at the University of Chicago, where he used to teach in the law school.

The news also broke this week that Obama will follow in the footsteps of Hillary Clinton by accepting $400,000 to address a gathering of Wall Street investment bankers. In a shocking display of pay inequity, however, his fee will be nearly twice what Clinton charged private businesses for similar events. This follows on last month’s announcement that the former president and first lady landed a $65 million book deal – the largest ever – for the publication of their presidential memoirs.

Of course, it’s natural for people to gather with their friends and supporters. For Trump, that means the hardworking Americans who do the necessary but mostly unglamorous work of growing, building, moving, and fixing things the country relies on for our daily lives. For the media, it means each other. And for Barack Obama, it lately means “young people” and rich bankers at whom he sometimes wags his finger but from whom he always gladly accepts large sums of money.

Here at the NRA, we look forward to seeing the president in Atlanta.

As for the surly press corps that will begrudgingly covering the events while their colleagues feast in the Nation’s Capitol, consider it an opportunity to visit that part of America that you should at least know exists, even if you remain determined to misunderstand it.

Marine Le Pen is the ‘France First’ candidate

Marion Anne Perrine “Marine” Le Pen is a French lawyer and politician. Ms. Le Pen stepped down as the president of the National Front to become the people’s candidate. “Tonight, I am no longer the president of the National Front. I am the presidential candidate,” she said on French public television news after winning in the first round of the election.

If elected Ms. Le Pen would become the first woman to lead the Gouvernement de la République française

Marion Anne Perrine “Marine” Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron (right)

 has described Le Pen’s opponent Emmanuel Macron as, “[T]he horrible crossbreeding of Obama and Soros and Justin Trudeau.”

Breibart’s Jack Montgomery reports:

Marine Le Pen, the presidential candidate for France’s populist National Front (FN), has pledged to put France first, hitting out at “financial globalisation”, “mass immigration”, and “Islamic fundamentalism” in a landmark speech.

The 48-year-old said that “financial globalisation and Islamist globalisation are helping each other out”, and “those two ideologies aim to bring France to its knees”.

According to Le Pen, globalisation can be summed up as “manufacturing with slaves to sell to the unemployed”. She pledged that an FN-led republic would be “will be all about the local, not the global”.

So what does Le Pen stand for? According to her campaign website here are some items from her platform:

  1. To regain our freedom and mastery of our destiny by restoring to the French people its sovereignty (monetary, legislative, territorial, economic).
  2. Guarantee freedom of expression and digital freedoms through their inclusion in fundamental freedoms protected by the Constitution, while strengthening the fight against cyber-jihadism and pedophilia.
  3. Defending women’s rights : fighting against Islamism, which undermines their fundamental freedoms; Put in place a national plan for equal pay for women and men and fight against job and social insecurity.
  4. Ensure the freedom of schooling of children according to their choices , while at the same time strictly controlling the compatibility with the values of the Republic of the education provided in private non-contractual institutions.
  5. Massive re-armament of the security forces  : personnel (recruitment plan of 15,000 police and gendarmes), equipment (modernization of equipment, police stations and barracks, adaptation of armaments to new threats), but also morally and (Including the presumption of self-defense). Guarantee the military status of gendarmes.
  6. Fight against juvenile delinquency by empowering parents by eliminating the payment of social assistance to parents of repeat offenders in the event of manifest educational deficiencies.
  7. Restore national borders and exit the Schengen area (a special arrangement for border workers will be put in place to facilitate border crossing). Replenish the number of staff removed from customs by the recruitment of 6,000 staff during the five-year period.
  8. Reducing legal immigration to an annual balance of 10 000. To put an end to automatic automatic family reunification and reconciliation and the automatic acquisition of French nationality by marriage. Remove the suction pumps from immigration.
  9. Putting in place a plan for re-industrialization in the framework of cooperation involving industry and the state-strategist to give priority to the real economy in the face of speculative finance.
  10. Supporting French companies in the face of unfair international competition through the establishment of intelligent protectionism and the restoration of a national currency adapted to our economy, which is the lever of our competitiveness.
  11. Establish a true economic patriotism by freeing itself from European constraints and by reserving public order to French companies if the price gap is reasonable. Reserve a part of the public order to SMEs.
  12. Reducing the administrative and fiscal complexity of small and medium-sized  enterprises (SMEs): dedicated one stop-shop (social, fiscal and administrative), generalization of the “emploi emploi service entreprise” New device based on a personalized evaluation thanks to an occupational medicine that will be reconstituted. The penalty will be offset by an increase in pension annuities.

Go here to read Ms. Le Pen’s entire platform.

The media is characterizing Ms. Le Pen as the “far right candidate” and her opponent Macron as a “moderate.”  reports that Macron is anything but a moderate. Lépante writes:

Macron is an ultra-leftist who viscerally hates France and the French people. He has said many times that “there is no French culture”, that “he has never seen French art” (meaning that French art doesn’t exist), therefore he denies the very existence of the French people (because all people has his own culture)! And he has accused France of crimes against humanity in Algeria, when in fact it’s the Algerians who are guilty of crimes against humanity, because they reduced into slavery more than 1 million of our ancestors and slaughtered more than 1 million French people from 8th to 19th century!

Macron has said time and again that he supports mass immigration into France from Africa ! That millions of immigrants will continue to invade our European countries and that it’s a good thing! And he has praised the traitor to the German people Angela Merkel for letting 1 million illegal Muslim immigrants invade Germany in 2015, resulting in thousands of German women raped and numerous terrorist attacks!

Macron has said that he wants to create an “French-Algerian Youth Office” to increase the entry of Algerians into France, these Algerians being predominantly racist scums who insult and rape our wives and daughters, who attack and kill our parents and children, who rob, maim, kill, commit terror attack after terror attack. As a reminder, Muslims represent more than 70% of the prisoners in our prisons.

France has a choice on Sunday, May 7th, 2017 between Marine Le Pen, the French patriot and Emmanuel Macron, the establishment’s choice.

Choose wisely!


‘France First’ – Marine Le Pen Hits out at Islamism and Financial Globalisation

Front-runner for French presidency against arresting and deporting “radical Islamists”

The Phoney and the Fascist

Le Séisme?

RELATED VIDEO: Mark Steyn on the French Election

Women have become political and social IED’s

I have been thinking a lot about Bill O’Reilly and his departure from Fox News. This is the first time that I have commented on it because I wanted to thoroughly think it through first, and this is the conclusion that I have arrived at.

I am not a big fan of Bill O’Reilly, and never have been, but that isn’t because of any allegations of womanizing. I just find him to be an obnoxious bore, but Mr. Bill has become the latest victim of liberalism, that’s all. Nothing to do with sex, or harassment, or anything of the sort…just liberalism and here’s why.

Woman have gone the way of every other minority in this country, namely blacks, in the respect that they have become abusers of the very system that has given them equality and justice. At one time, that pendulum of justice swung far to one side and treated women unfairly…same as it did for blacks, but then things changed and there was a correction, rightfully so, and that pendulum swung the other way, but instead of stopping it in the middle where truth and fairness for all is found, they, like blacks, kept on pushing it far to the opposite side to where now they are able to manipulate and abuse the very system that sought to correct the uneven balance.

Women have become political and social IED’s.

The slightest provocation, and even no provocation, could cause them to explode, and if you are in their path… are going to get hurt.

One word from a woman, and without one iota or scintilla of evidence or proof, and a man is immediately under the microscope by the social and legal communities and his entire life is at risk. Let’s take a couple of scenarios that are going on right now and that I am personally familiar with:

The first, a young couple living together. He bought the house, and she is the “live in” girlfriend with three kids. They get into a fight, she calls the cops and accuses him of hitting her. He is arrested and cannot return to his house. This has become an old story. It is now almost commonplace for a woman to file a “protection from abuse” when couples seek divorce, just to get him out of the house, and if she files it, she automatically gets it. No proof of abuse, she just gets the order.

Next, did you know that it is a sad fact that many young fathers will not bathe their daughters? It’s a fact. Why? Because of the ever increasing accusations of sexual abuse if the couple becomes estranged. One accusation from a woman immediately puts a man under the microscope of the legal authorities. Yes, I know of such a case right now……and it never happened. The playwright, William Congreve said it best, “…Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turn’d, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.”

These are not isolated cases or situations. This has become the norm across the Nation. The American Woman has proudly taken her place alongside Black Lives Matter. Unless you have your head buried in the sand, you’ll have noticed that there is a war against whites, there is a war against boys and there is a war against men.

So if you’re a white boy who has grown to be a man? Well, you’re pretty much screwed.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Shadowy Extremist Group Behind the Anti-Trump Riots | LifeZette

How do you get your news?

If you had any doubt the news system was rigged, this might remove that doubt:

ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, former National Security Adviser.

CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s former Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.

ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s former Deputy Press Secretary.

ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s former Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.

CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to Clinton’s former Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.

And if that didn’t throw the final turd into the punch-bowl, the ultra-liberal New York Times is owned by Carlos Slim, the richest citizen of MEXICO! What a great big happy family!

Before you believe everything you read in the newspapers or see on TV — think about what these billionaire “insiders” have at stake when they lose their crooked “providers” in government.

news organizations

RELATED ARTICLE: Even as horrors exposed, AP news agency kept secret pact with Nazis | The Times of Israel

Media fails to report that Antifa woman taken down by Marine was throwing IEDs

antifa anarchist with bomb

Nathan Damigo, a Marine veteran, wrestling to the ground a woman with an IED (red circle).

There’s been media coverage of a woman Louise Rosealma being wrestled to the ground by a man. Rosealma was part of the Antifa group in Berkeley, California that attacked pro-Trump marchers.

Nathan Damigo, a Marine veteran who was there saw that Rosealma was putting M80 explosive devices inside glass bottles and throwing them at the pro-Trump rally marchers.

So Louise Rosealma was literally making IED’s. This makes her no better than the Boston Marathon bombers.

According to Wikipedia:

M-80s are an American class of large powerful firecrackers, sometimes called salutes. M-80s were originally made in the early 20th century by the U.S. military to simulate explosives or artillery fire; later, M-80s were manufactured as fireworks.

You can see in the picture (above right) that she has her weapon, a glass bottle with an M80 in it, in her hand as Damigo hits her in the face to subdue the bomb threat.

Marines are trained to run towards the fight not away from it, to put their lives on the line so others won’t get hurt. Perfect example of that here.

According to CBS Los Angeles, “The 20-year-old [Louise Rosealma] drove to the Bay Area with friends to march against the alt-right organized event. Rosealma, a member of the anti-fascist movement, says she had only been at the protest for about 20 minutes when a smoke bomb went off. At that point, she says, she and her boyfriend were charged.”

She was being charged by Damigo because she was a threat to the safety of others.

It seems the fakestream media never reports the truth anymore.