ACA-Health-Care-Reform

HEALTHCARE REFORM: Freedom Is Its Own Indispensable Goal

The healthcare debate in D.C. is following predictable form: Miles off track with the media hyperfocused on the politics, rather than the substance. The coverage focuses heavily on the daily ins and outs of the political struggle, the D.C. winners and losers.

Will Republicans be able to placate the Freedom Caucus and still keep moderates? Will they put together something that can get through the House and have any life in the Senate? Is Ryan back-peddling? Is Trump? Will McConnell detonate the nuclear option? Is it Trumpcare or Ryancare?

The thing is, most Americans outside of political junkies don’t really care about that.

They do care about whether they will be able to afford health insurance. They do care about whether our country will drowned itself in unsustainable debt. They do care about their children’s future. But those are rarely the story. Because the truth is that in Washington, D.C., Americans are basically pawns to be played in the furtherance of personal agendas.

On the rare occasions when the substance of the proposal is actually explored, it is mostly along the lines of how many people are covered, will be covered, won’t be covered, how much it will cost, how the changes will play out politically for each party, etc. Those are fine in their place, and should be regularly reported on. They are not.

What Washington and the media never, ever talk about is the principle of American freedoms, which is at the heart of this. Virtually no one wants to talk about it.

So, status quo in the swamp. And for Americans.

The Old Liberties for Security Trade

But here is the whittled down nub of the issue: How much personal freedom are we willing to give away to get a little healthcare security? Because the reality of the human condition always and forever is that some people will be irresponsible with their life decisions — from relationships to finances to health.

So there will always be a percentage of Americans who do not want to purchase, or simply will not purchase, health insurance. Here’s the thing: They should be free to not and that point of freedom should be argued strenuously.

Because the only way to stop that dynamic is to give government total authority to force every single person to have health insurance. That was what Obamacare attempted to do, require every American to either buy a product — health insurance — or be fined increasing amounts by the government to financially force them to to buy it.

In an enormously tragic precedence, the Supreme Court made a political calculation and approved the forcible purchase requirements under Obamacare by calling it what it was not, what is authors including President Obama argued it was not, so as the court could rule it “constitutional.” Truly, a constitutional travesty.

Among the many things wrong with Obamacare, this was perhaps the most egregious because it went to undermining fundamental freedoms. It wasn’t just bad policy, or inefficient, or expensive — which are all true. It was a denial of basic liberty, the concept upon which our nation was founded and thrived to be what she is today.

Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Franklin was looking at the real physical and economic threat of a distant tyrant.

And so are we, though not so distant.

The Real Cost

Obamacare undoubtedly reduced the percentage of uninsured Americans, or more accurately, uncovered Americans. This was accomplished by expanding Medicaid — direct welfare — subsidizing plans in the state exchanges — indirect welfare — and forcing every American to participate — coercion. Even then, the total number of Americans not covered in some fashion, only declined a few percentage points.

Trillions of dollars, catastrophic rises in premiums and deductibles, loss of health care insurance options — often down to one in an entire state — all to pick up a few percentage points. About 9 percent of Americans remain without health insurance.

If Republicans did nothing more than simply repeal the Obamacare mandate, at least 10 million people would no longer have coverage, according to the Office of Management and Budget estimate of the repeal measure. The media reports this as Americans who will “lose” their coverage, but this particular 10 million will actually choose not to have coverage.

Whether that is a good idea or not is debatable. What is not debatable is what it represents: Freedom.

Because unless the government forces people by law to have health insurance, some will not. Freedom calls us to allow them to not and accept the consequences. Otherwise, with this precedent in place, the government could also make the case for regulating what we eat (because eating healthy is good for us) and forcing us to exercise (because exercising is good for us.) It could also require us to buy, say, solar panels and electric cars, because it deems those to be a good thing like health care insurance is a good thing.

You see the problem here. There is really no end to it, which is why it was a line that should never have been crossed.

So yes, Obamacare is costing hundreds of billions of dollars and would continue to until its complete failure. But it’s real cost is the loss of American liberty. And precious few seem to care.

Alas, Republicans fighting on Democrat ground

Republicans however, will not fight this on the grounds of freedom, the high ground and the right ground. They allow Democrats and the media to define the terms and put Republicans on the defensive on bad ground.

Republicans are doing what they always do, and part of it is the swampy D.C. mentality. Republicans end up abandoning conservative principles and going with Democrat-lite. They are willing to expand government, just less so. They are willing to raise taxes, just not as high. They are willing to trade rights for securities, just not as fast. But inexorably this moves in the same direction: More government control, more “free” giveaways, fewer American freedoms.

The health care coverage debate is a perfect example.

Democrats built it on the Democrat ground of heavy-handed government control and giveaways, and dared Republicans to come after it. To boil it down, in Obamacare, Democrats gave more Americans more free stuff that was not their’s and that we cannot afford — at the cost of lost freedoms — and Republicans now want to take some of that free stuff and restore those freedoms.

Meanies.

This of course is rough politics for Republicans, as so many Americans have lost the sense of liberty, self-reliance and personal responsibility. Too many are willing to trade a lot of liberties for a little security. But part of the reason for that is that no one is making the case for this and other issues on the grounds of freedom.

But in reality, Republicans aren’t even making the freedom case — or do so rarely. They want to make sure enough Americans get enough free stuff so they can be re-elected.

Taking away an entitlement once in place is just never done, and Democrats knew that in 2010. A big part of Obamacare is the entitlement portion. But that is only a problem if Republicans fight this on the grounds of coverage and giveaways, and not on the grounds of essential liberties.

Republicans hold every nationally elected office of power and there is one window for fixing the Obamacare debacle. If it does not happen now, Obamacare will be a permanent fixture of our health care system until it totally fails, and sucks the healthcare system into its death swirl.

The final step will be nationalized healthcare.

And the result will be an even greater loss of freedoms, and precious little in the way of securities. The worst of trade-offs.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

GOP leaders unveil changes to healthcare bill

Nearly 200 State Lawmakers Are Pushing for Changes to GOP Obamacare Repeal Plan

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

american health care act read the bill

Citizens can actually read the ‘American Health Care Act’ bill Online! Refreshing

Remember this:

Speaker Paul Ryan in an email to all Americans wrote:

I want you to be the first to know: we just introduced our bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. It is called the American Health Care Act, and it is a plan to drive down costs, encourage competition, and give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance. It protects young adults, patients with pre-existing conditions, and provides a stable transition so that no one has the rug pulled out from under them.

Unlike the Democrats, we are not going to pass legislation to find out what is in it. The American Health Care Act will proceed through a transparent process of regular order in full view of the public.

Visit www.ReadTheBill.gop to download and read the bill.

How refreshing.

Michael A. Needham, Chief Executive Officer Heritage Action for America, in an email writes:

For seven years, Republican lawmakers have campaigned on the promise of full repeal. The American people elected a Republican House, Senate, and White House to ensure this promise was kept. For most people in the individual market, there would be no significant difference between the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and the new American Health Care Act proposed by Republicans.

This is bad politics and, more importantly, bad policy.

If Republicans move forward with this bill, they will be accepting the flawed premises of Obamacare. Instead, they should fully repeal the failed law and begin a genuine effort to follow through on their seven year promises to create a free market health care system.

Let the negotiations on the proposed American Health Care Act begin.

RELATED INFOGRAPHIC:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Conservative Lawmakers to Use Their ‘Enormous Power’ to Fight Obamacare Replacement Bill

House Republican Health Care Bill Misses the Mark

What if there’s no affordable insurance to buy?

House Republicans Release Text of Obamacare Repeal, Conservatives Call for Action ‘Now’

GOP Unveils Obamacare Replacement Legislation

Trump’s Historic Chance to Dismantle the Administrative State

What Will GOPcare Change?

RELATED VIDEOS:

Sen. Rand Paul: “They can’t keep ‘Obamacare Lite’ and expect conservatives to vote for it.” – 3/2/17

Rep. Mike Kelly discusses American Health Care Act with Neil Cavuto.

media madness

The media’s descent into partisan madness

The media failed in its constitutional mission by not covering Obama’s administration critically, and continues to fail as it behaves like an opposition party against Trump.

The press has been having a field day with Donald Trump since before his inauguration, magnifying every misstep, exploiting every controversy, and packaging its indignation as straight news in the apparent belief that its job is to delegitimize his presidency.  Granted, Mr. Trump’s unfiltered use of twitter, penchant for audacious statements, and tendency to discredit rather than dialogue have provided his critics with plenty of ammunition; but the one constant seems to be the media’s refusal to forgive any miscues or consider reasonable interpretations for any of his statements or policies.  Its relentless treatment of Trump contrasts with the fawning sycophancy it displayed during the administration of his predecessor, who was spared from any probing scrutiny or objective criticism.

Even before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, mainstream reporters strained to brand his incoming administration as bigoted and racist.  They attempted, for example, to characterize his Chief White House Strategist, Steve Bannon, as an anti-Semite – despite Bannon’s public record of support for Israel and opposition to anti-Jewish boycotts.  Though some progressive Jewish organizations initially echoed these sentiments, they retracted their comments after prominent liberals like Alan Dershowitz stated there was nothing in Bannon’s background to suggest he bore any animosity towards Jews or Israel

If mainstream journalists and commentators were honestly troubled by the scourge of anti-Semitism after Trump’s election, one must wonder why they expressed no concern during Mr. Obama’s eight years in office.  Why did they ignore Obama’s longstanding relationships with Israel bashers and progressive anti-Semites?  Where was their outrage over the Jew-hatred on display in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (“BDS”) and Israel Apartheid Week movements?  Or the left’s use of repugnant stereotypes to demonize Israel and her supporters?  Or the anti-Jewish rhetoric and intimidation that have become commonplace on North American college campuses?

The media’s faux indignation over allegations of anti-Semitism was matched only by its fatuous efforts to characterize Trump as a fascist by rewriting history.  More than a few liberal pundits have likened Trump and his supporters to Nazis, claiming that just like Hitler, Trump was elected by a radical and extreme electorate.  Such comparisons show profound ignorance, however, in that (a) Hitler was never elected to office (he was appointed chancellor after losing the only election he ever ran), and (b) many of Trump’s views are not so different from the mainstream, as indicated by a number public opinion polls.

Ironically, it was American progressives who viewed fascism favorably in the 1930s because of their shared affinity for secular statism and social engineering.

The press represents itself as the innocent victim of a Trump vendetta and counts on his outrageousness to validate the narrative of its victimhood.  Though he might be combative, it does not mean his distrust of the media is unwarranted – particularly given its role in fomenting hysteria against him and blurring the line between editorial and fact.  The coverage regarding his first executive order imposing a temporary travel ban was indicative of reporters who engage in political activism instead of objective reportage.

On January 27, 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13769, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (since blocked in court), which would have imposed a ninety-day ban on travel from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, seven high-terror nations as identified by the Obama administration.  Hysterical media critics dubbed it a “Muslim ban” and proclaimed it unlawful, though the President has both constitutional and statutory authority to promulgate such orders, and extraterritorial foreign nationals have no rights under the U.S. Constitution.

The executive order could not have effectuated a Muslim ban as media reports claimed, however, because it applied to only seven out of fifty-seven Muslim nations.  The litmus test for its application was not religion or ethnicity, but origination from any of the seven nations identified.  Nevertheless, opponents claimed the ban’s intent was to target Islam, with some scaremongers characterizing it as the first step toward confining Muslims to internment camps.  Such claims were outrageous, particularly considering the Obama administration imposed a six-month travel ban with the approval of Congressional Democrats in 2011.  Where were the protests then?

Though the rollout of Executive Order 13769 was flawed and its scope too broad (it would have included resident aliens with green cards), its purpose was to prevent terrorism and protect the homeland – priorities that are clearly within the president’s purview.  However, Trump’s naysayers engaged in disinformation when they said he had no authority to sign the order or that no other president had ever done so.

Taking a page from Obama’s playbook, some opponents of the travel ban attempted to obfuscate the connection between terrorism and radical Islam and minimized the impact of terrorist attacks on American soil.  Although Press Secretary Sean Spicer was excoriated for claiming that terrorism in the U.S. has been underreported, he had a valid point considering the media’s history of calling it workplace violence, domestic assault, or generic extremism.

Over the past few years, journalists have described the Orlando massacre as an anti-gay hate crime and the San Bernardino and Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence.  They labeled beheadings and murders of Coptic Christians, apostate Muslims, and Jews in Oklahoma, New Jersey, Texas and Massachusetts as criminal assaults, workplace violence, or violent extremism; and they continue to describe honor killings of Muslim women as domestic crimes.  Though Obama’s policy of apologetics is fading in the rearview, the media continues to call terrorism anything but what it is.

Establishment reporters are upset over Mr. Trump’s treatment of the White House media corps and his refusal to follow traditional press conference protocol, and they claim he threatens free speech with his confrontational demeanor and preoccupation with fake news.  However, Trump is not the first president to have a contentious relationship with the media; Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln were as combative with the press in their time as Trump is today.

And a president’s challenge to media credibility is not the same as government restraint of speech.  Regardless of how Trump questions the media’s excesses or impugns its veracity, he is not restricting reporters from writing what they want.  Consequently, he is trampling nobody’s First Amendment rights.

Those who claim otherwise sounded no alarm when Obama marginalized conservative outlets, especially Fox News, or when his Justice Department threatened reporters with prosecution.  The use of government offices during his administration to monitor and intimidate the press really did implicate the First Amendment.

None of this should be surprising given the evolution of journalism since the 1960s, when reporters began to inject personal sensibilities into the news and infuse their reporting with a political point of view.  The truth is that journalism was never completely objective because writers have always had opinions.  Still, reporters traditionally strove to suspend their own subjectivity.  With the advent of the “New Journalism,” however, it became acceptable to displace objectivity with literary artifice.  Though this trend was soon jettisoned as an acceptable journalistic standard, it left behind a legacy of editorial tolerance for writers whose reporting reflected their political views – particularly when they promoted liberal politicians, advocated progressive policies, or disparaged Israel.

Through the First Amendment, America’s founding fathers envisioned a free citizen press that would be independent of government.  They did not anticipate a factional media that would actively promote some administrations and undermine others.  The media’s embarrassingly soft coverage of the Obama White House and adversarial treatment of Trump’s administration show the polar extremes of its partisan dysfunction.

There’s nothing wrong with criticizing the president and reporting his gaffes, or with publishing opinion and commentary on the editorial page.  Straight news, however, should be reported without venom or spleen.  The media failed in its constitutional mission by not covering Obama’s administration critically, and continues to fail as it behaves like an opposition party against Trump.

Reporters should never seek to placate their subjects, but neither should they present tendentious advocacy as hard news or neutral analysis.  When public opinion surveys show that many people find Mr. Trump’s tweets more credible sources of information than traditional news outlets, the media should realize it has a problem and correct its behavior accordingly – for the proper functioning of society if not for the sake of its own integrity.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Israel National News.

president meets black educators

The Fakestream Media is at it again: Ignore Blacks focus on a Couch

On Monday, February 27th, President Trump met with leaders of black colleges at the White House. The Washington Post published the below YouTube video of the meeting.

The President having black leaders of black colleges is the big story, right? Wrong!

In a column titled “The ‘Kellyanne Conway on the couch’ controversy is so incredibly dumbWaPo’s Chris Cillizza reports:

The photo [below] , taken Monday, shows White House counselor Kellyanne Conway perched on a couch in the Oval Office as President Trump stands behind his desk and representatives of a number of historically black colleges and universities gather around him.

Conway is kneeling on the couch. Other pictures of the same moment show she has her shoes on.

This has, of course, inflamed the (mostly liberal end of the) Internet.

THE HORROR.

SHE IS DISRESPECTING THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.

HOW COULD SHE.

And so on and so forth.

This tempest in a teapot is, in a word, dumb. In two words: incredibly dumb.

Here are the photos of Kellyanne Conway and a montage of Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the Oval Office:

barack obama oval office

kellyanne conway couch

CNN LOGO

VIDEO: CNNgate — Project Veritas Exposes the Fakestream Media

The founder of Project Veritas James O’Keefe released hundreds of hours of recordings of the bias in the main stream media out CNN. In an email O’Keefe stated:

Before you watch the video below, it is EXTREMELY important that you read this message. That’s because I’m handing the baton over to you.

A few weeks ago, over 200 hours of undercover footage from inside of CNN’s news offices were handed over to me. This is part of our new strategy to infiltrate every corporate media outlet in America. By turning the tables on them, we’re exposing their bias in reporting and exactly how they manipulate the public.

From what I’ve heard so far on these tapes, CNN will have a lot of explaining to do. But here’s my problem, my staff and I have only been able to get through a small percentage of the footage – it’s too much for us to handle. So rather than take months to listen to all of these audiotapes, I’m releasing all of them to you (and the public) so that you can help go through everything.

I realize that is a lot to ask – maybe too much. Time is incredibly valuable to all of us and I understand if you can’t spend hours and hours listening to raw footage.

Instead, if you can support this project with a donation, I would be extremely grateful.

The tapes show CNN’s misrepresentation of polling data:

Miss X: “I read a CNN poll that was taken on June 26 and 28th, and I know that the hearing for the case, the fire fighters case was on the 29th, so the poll was done right before it, and those are still the poll results we’re reporting, so I asked someone in DC who does the poll results about why we hadn’t updated it, and said there were a few newer polls from last week and the week before and there’s CBS news polls and a Rasmussen poll, and he said we don’t use Rasmussen, and I said does CNN plan to do another poll if we’re only using that. He said we’re not going to be doing another poll, those are the results we’ll be using. So I don’t see how that’s reporting all sides because that poll said hold for release until Friday the 10th.”

Arthur Brice: “Who did you talk with?”

Miss X: “Paul [CNN’s Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser].”

Arthur Brice: “Yeah, he’s your director. Yeah, he’s pretty high up in the food chain. I agree. I think it’s dishonest to use outdated information if new information shows something that is in variance with what you’re reporting. It’s just, it’s dishonest.”

The same apathy towards reporting accurate poll numbers was seen in the way CNN released inaccurate poll numbers about Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor.

Miss X: “This wasn’t released until two weeks after. So can we say a newly released poll?”

Joe Sterling: “No, you can’t say that. You can’t say that at all. This isn’t a newly released.”

Miss X: “But it says newly released on Friday.”

Joe Sterling: “I know, how did we write about this? Did we write a wire about this? “I don’t think we stand to change how people think of her [Sotomayor]. Geez, I mean if someone picked this up it’s not going to change – it’s not going to change anybody’s opinion.”

Richard Griffiths, who is now CNN’s Vice President and Senior Editorial Director, was caught explaining that the role of a journalist is to “aid the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

“If we are journalists, what is our role as a journalist? What is the fundamental role as a journalist, for us to do? “Tell a story. Tell what’s going on. There’s a secondary corollary to that, right? Aid the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. To a degree, right? Is that not part of the traditional role of a journalist. It’s actually one of the things I can be most proud of as a journalist. You know we try to show the ugly side of humanity so we can do something about it. It’s hard, very hard.”

In the secretly recorded tapes, CNN’s liberal, anti-Republican, and anti-Fox News bias is clear. “Fox News, I think Fox News is unbearable. It’s horrible,” said Nicky Robertson, who was at that time the CNN Assignment Desk Editor. Joe Sterling, who was then the News desk editor for CNN’s online venue ‘The Wire’ was also recorded speaking profound liberal bias.

“That issue, climate change, I mean science is pretty much on board and there are a few dissenters. There’s no debate. It’s like you know, born-agains saying there’s a debate over, you know creationism, and all that stuff. There is no debate.”

Here is the video in which O’Keefe announces that he is releasing over 100 hours of CNN news room audio:

James O’Keefe is offering a $10,000 award for content which exposes media malfeasance.*

AUDIO PLAYLIST:

Project Veritas is serving these audio files on the Amazon S3. Currently the audio player which plays these audio files is experiencing a very heavy load, so it may time out or not load. Please bear with us and the audio files will load more easily over the next few hours as traffic slows down.

*Rules to receive the up-to-$10,000 award from Project Veritas – Project Veritas only offers awards for valuable video or other media types which was legally obtained. It is important for the submitter to follow all local, state and federal laws while obtaining video or other media for submission. – This Project Veritas award is for submitted pieces that expose media corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct deemed valuable after review by the Project Veritas editorial staff. – Project Veritas will protect the identifies of individuals submitting material to the fullest extent allowable by law.

RELATED ARTICLES:

MSNBC Slips: It’s “Our Job” to “Control Exactly What People Think”

Fake News Drawn from a Flimsy Study

BBC_logo_at_Broadcasting_House_in_London

BBC: The Gold Standard of Fake News

The devil is in the details. And this, but one example, shows how the enemedia deceives and disarms an increasingly skeptical public.

There is no one thing the media does where you can say, aha! It’s in everything they write, say, and frame. They underhandedly and insidiously destroy people with whom they disagree.

JAMES O’BRIEN SPREADING ‘FAKE NEWS’ VIA THE BBC IS A MUST-WATCH

Douglas Murray, The Spectator, February 20, 2017:

The row about ‘fake news’ and the ‘crooked media’ appears to be ongoing.  And every time the BBC and other mainstream media mention it they present themselves solely as the victims of such phenomena.  So let us turn to just one edition of the BBC’s Newsnight.

On Wednesday of this week the programme was presented by James O’Brien.  Now in the first place Mr O’Brien is a strange choice to present this programme.  Not just because his awkward, cut-out, Lego man gait makes it obvious why he has made his career in radio, but because he is the sort of hyper-partisan figure who, if they came from the opposite political side, would never be hired by the BBC.

But back to Wednesday’s Newsnight. Just after a ‘Viewsnight’ slot given to Tariq Ramadan – dauphin of the Muslim Brotherhood – it was back to the studio for a discussion about President Trump with two guests down the line from Washington.

Here is how O’Brien introduced them: ‘Anne Gearan from the Washington Post and Asra Nomani who has written for outlets such as Breitbart and The Hill.’  To say that the way in which O’Brien introduced the latter was acidic is to understate matters.  Even on the Cathy Newman scale of ‘ostentatiously introducing someone as though they are a bad smell’ O’Brien excelled.  ‘Here’ – he was clearly saying – ‘is a really reputable woman.  And here, by comparison is a lowly, nuts-oid blogger lady who we can all interrupt and laugh at.’

Unfortunately for O’Brien the technology failed and we lost Anne Gearan.  Then, even more unfortunately for O’Brien, Nomani used her opening moments to politely correct the BBC’s introduction of her.  An introduction that had indeed been fake and crooked.  For as Nomani informed O’Brien, she is not just some broad who has ‘written for outlets such as

Breitbart [lemony face] and The Hill [expectorate]’.  On the contrary, as she had to waste her opening moments explaining, not only has she never ‘written for Breitbart’, the more pertinent fact about her life is that she spent fifteen years at the Wall Street Journal.

So why did Newsnight’s James O’Brien – in a discussion about ‘fake news’ – spread false information about Nomani before he had even begun his first question?  Why did it not concern him that any fair-minded viewer might easily come away with the impression that O’Brien knew nothing about his guest and that he or someone else from the Newsnight team had simply spent the period before transmission lazily searching Google for the most hostile intro they could put together?  Might precisely this type of media ‘bias’ be one of the things that fuels the perception that the mainstream media are intent on bringing down everyone and everything associated not just with Trump but with any of the arguments he makes?

For her part, Nomani went on to calmly explain her concerns about ‘The vilification of both the Trump administration and anybody who might say that there’s any rational discourse to be had about the administration and its policies.  That’s what really concerns me as a journalist.’

As it happens, I am fairly sure that the reason why Nomani came across the BBC and James O’Brien’s radar would have been for a piece she wrote in the Washington Post after the election titled ‘I’m a Muslim, a woman and an immigrant.  I voted for Trump.’  The piece got a justifiable amount of attention and a disgusting amount of vitriol.  But there is something I would like to add about her.

Nearly two years ago Nomani and I shared a platform in Brooklyn in a debate against a number of Islamists including the vile (apparently now leading feminist icon) Linda Sarsour.  I already admired Nomani and her work, but nothing prepared me for the woman herself.  I trust readers know I’m not given to overpraise.  But as I related in a column at the time, Nomani and I appeared that evening under somewhat strained circumstances.  Our event took place just days after two jihadists had attacked an event in Garland, Texas, and as a result the third member of our team – Ayaan Hirsi Ali – had been advised that it wasn’t safe to join us.  With considerably heightened amounts of security

Nomani and I appeared as normal.  But one detail sang out.

In the days before the event Nomani had received a highly specific threat to her life.  And the person who had promised to punish her for her alleged ‘heresy’ turned out to have RSVP-ed as an attendee at our event.  Despite being warned off, Nomani insisted that she would still be there.  Near the start of the event, in the face of mocking opponents and a deeply hostile crowd (and with her young son in the audience) Nomani called out this would-be assassin.  She insisted that she would continue to say what she did, whatever they tried to do to her.  She did all this calmly, and without any ostentation.  It was one of the bravest things I have ever seen.

As I say – James O’Brien doesn’t know any of this, or doesn’t care about any of this.  He saw a woman he felt he could belittle and diminish as though she were calling in to one of his daytime phone-in shows.  O’Brien and Newsnight don’t need to ask why people are losing trust in mainstream media.  Programmes like theirs on Wednesday night – and their treatment of one guest in particular – are the reason.

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

fake news people

VIDEO: Why Fake News is the ‘Enemy of the American People’

Breitbart’s Ian Hanchett reported:

On Monday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” co-host former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough stated that President Trump’s criticism of the media as enemies of the people is “straight out of a Mussolini playbook.”

Scarborough said, “[W]e’re talking about his lying about false attacks in Sweden, and lying about all these other things, and then talking about his outrageous statement on Friday, which I really wanted to get your opinion on, saying enemies of the people, it’s straight out of a Mussolini playbook.”

The day after President Trump made his statement about Sweden riots broke out in the Muslim enclave in Malmo. There are many areas throughout Europe controlled by Muslims which are considered dangerous no-go zones for the police. Radical Islam is spreading and the media turns a blind eye to the violence and destruction it brings because to report the truth would expose Islamists for what they are the enemies of the free world.

Publishing false information is damaging to the all of the American people. When a media source fails to report reality it falls into the trap of reporting perceptions. That is dangerous and leads to hate and the ultimate destruction of trust between the media and the people. As a prime example just look at how the media treats Israel. They treat Israel as they treat patriotic Americans, as enemies to be denigrated and despised. This fake news reporting has real world consequences, dangerous ones both for Israel and America.

So when the media fails to do its research and publishes a politically correct, biased narrative what do you call them? Answer: Enemies of the American people.

Don Irvine from Accuracy in Media (AIM) in an article titled “Flashback: Democratic Pollster Pat Caddell Called the Media the ‘Enemy of the American People’ in 2012 [Video]” writes:

President Trump escalated his battle with the liberal media on Friday when he tweeted that they were “the enemy of the American people,” but he wasn’t the first person to place that label on them.

trump media enemy tweet

At Accuracy in Media’s “ObamaNation—A Day of Truth” conference in September 2012, Democratic pollster Patrick Caddell ripped into the media for their bias:

“The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power. When they desert those ramparts and they go to serve—to decide that they will now become active participants—when they decide that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people. And it is a threat to the very future of this country if…we allow this stuff to go on, and…we’ve crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about.”

President Trump is correct. Fake news is in fact “the enemy of the American People!”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Poll: Majority Want Fewer Refugees, Support Donald Trump’s Migration Cuts

“It Looks Like A War Zone”: Trump Vindicated After Violent Riot Erupts In Swedish Suburb

Terror in Sweden: Train passengers in PANIC, CAN’T BREATHE, after masked man throws poisonous liquid on them

enemedia

VIDEO: ‘Enemedia’ Lies yet again about the Threat of Radical Islam

It is important to expose the establishment media, both large outlets and small, until it is universally known that these are not news outlets, but lying propagandists with an agenda. I was sent this article several weeks ago and was struck by this: “Norm Dyck attended an information session in Grande Prairie last year by controversial author Robert Spencer, who is a self-proclaimed expert on Islam. Spencer introduced his speech, according to Dyck, by showing footage of New York’s World Trade Center crumbling to the ground.”

The implication was that I was relying on some emotional appeal, a rabble-rouser stirring up trouble: “The connection was immediately made for us that Islam and the Muslim people where [sic] to be feared” said Norm Dyck.

I am a twentieth-century speaker. Anyone who peruses YouTube videos of my various talks around the U.S. (and in Europe, Israel and Australia, for that matter) will see that I never use PowerPoint, or film, or any audio-visual aids; I just speak. Usually I read a few things from the Qur’an. That’s it. So I was puzzled by this claim that when I spoke in Grand Prairie, Alberta, that I opened with video of the World Trade Center collapsing. I emailed the event organizer and asked him if he had shown such video before I arrived. He said he hadn’t, and would write a Letter to the Editor of the Daily Herald-Tribune, asking for a correction.

He did so. His letter is below. Not surprisingly, the Daily Herald-Tribune did not publish it or make any correction. Meanwhile, here is video of my talk in Grand Prairie last year. It begins with the introduction, while I am standing by (with my late great security man, Floyd Resnick, visible in the first few seconds of the video). Then I come up. No sign of any World Trade Center footage in either the introduction or the beginning of my speech.

“The first casualty is the truth,” eh, Mr. Dyck?

Of course, Svjetlana Mlinarevic of the Daily Herald-Tribune made no effort to contact me or the event organizer, or even to search out the YouTube video of the event, to see whether Norm Dyck was telling the truth. Why bother, when he confirmed the establishment propaganda line?

“A meeting of the faiths,” by Svjetlana Mlinarevic, Daily Herald-Tribune, February 2, 2017:

It was a meeting of two religions that wished to share their beliefs and open their minds to each other.

St. Paul’s United Church invited members of the Islamic Association of Grande Prairie and District (IAGPD) into their sanctuary on Wednesday to pray together, to share their experiences and fears, and to sing in unity….

Norm Dyck attended an information session in Grande Prairie last year by controversial author Robert Spencer, who is a self-proclaimed expert on Islam. Spencer introduced his speech, according to Dyck, by showing footage of New York’s World Trade Center crumbling to the ground.

“The connection was immediately made for us that Islam and the Muslim people where to be feared. This gentleman (another parishioner) talked about confronting falsity. That is extremely difficult. With a media predisposed to play on our fears (for) us and the others out there who are our enemy. The first casualty is the truth,” he said.

Dyck called on people searching for the truth to pursue it courageously regardless of where it takes them saying, “Truth denied, closes us from the light.”…

Here is the Grand Prairie event organizer’s letter to the Daily Herald Tribune, which the paper of course ignored. I present it unedited:

I think dialogue is important and as Norm Dyck emphasized that truth should be pursued. To clarify regarding the speaking engagement of Robert Spencer, there was no footage of world trade center’s crumbling, you can view the whole talk on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X36LSw7X5Bs. Robert has written many books on Islam and presents facts. As far as the suggestion that Islam is a religion of peace, that is a myth. It was said that radicalism, racism, terrorism and violence are not virtues of the Islamic faith, that is also a myth. There are peaceful Muslims to be sure, as there are in Grande Prairie, but when you are talking about the Ideology of Islam or it may be better described as Mohammadism, then questions should and must be asked. To understand the Ideology of Islam, the Quran and the Hadith’s and Sira of Mohammad are the norm. The leader of Islam was Mohammad. The Quran speaks of Mohammad as the great example 33:21, 68;4 and being that, Muslims must follow him. If Mohammad did it, said it, they are to emulate him. A historical summary of Mohammad shows him as a warlord, who killed, raped, terrorized, subjugated anyone who got in his way. He prescribed to what is called pedophilia. He married a girl Aisha at 6 years old and had sex with her when she was nine. Hadith and Sira 8:3309, 58;234,8:3311. That may have been common in the seventh century but not in the 21st century at least in Canada, US and other free nations. There have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks around the world since 9/11 www.thereligionofpeace.com. 270,000,000 killed in 1400 years of Jihad htpps://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad. Reliance of the Traveller is on Islamic Sacred Law, I would encourage everyone including politicians, judges to read this book.
Truthful and frank dialogue is needed before Canada finds itself like Europe, possibly living under Sharia Law. Unfortunately, we are 40 years behind in our conversation. As Norm said “Truth denied, closes us from the light”.

This letter could have stood a little editing and clarification of the citations, but its points are generally correct. They’re just not issues that the establishment propaganda media wants brought to light.

RELATED ARTICLES:

More faked hate: Ohio Muslim charged with painting anti-Arab graffiti on garage door of Muslim family

Daniel Greenfield once again (humorously) explains how the SPLC lies about ‘groups’

Muslim from UK blows himself up outside Mosul for the Islamic State

Maryland: Mosque hosts celebration to honor jihad murderer of foe of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Old grungy Vintage TV with clipping path over a white background

Sorry for the Bias but the Trump Revolution Will Not Be Televised

Folks, take a deep breath. That unusual faint sweet aroma in the air is called “freedom.” It is coming back folks. For 8 years, even those who are politically clueless subconsciously felt their freedoms slipping away. Americans instinctively knew publicly expressing religious beliefs, principles and traditional norms once considered mainstream could cost them everything today.

My wife Mary’s mentor, the late Mary Kay Ash of MK Cosmetics said, “The speed of the leader is the speed of the gang.” In other words, the leader sets the tone.

Unarguably, President Obama set a you-had-better-keep-your-mouth-shut and go-along-with-political-correctness tone for America. We all knew and felt it. Obama used the IRS, DOJ and EPA to economically and politically beat the crap out of and even jail anyone with the cojones to oppose him leading the Left’s mission to fundamentally transform America.

This is the reason why the Left is losing their minds over Trump winning the presidency. Freedom folks! The Left thought they would have us in mental and emotional chains for at least four more years under President Hillary.

Trump’s election ushered in a new tone for America. Feeling emboldened, people are pushing back against the tyranny of political correctness by just saying, “no”. However, you will not hear this widely reported in the Leftist controlled mainstream media. Panicked, the Left is desperately and frantically working to keep us believing that their extreme ideas are mainstream majority opinions.

This is why for the next 4 years, half a dozen protesters showing up to oppose Trump or his policies will be treated like a major news event by the media. Relentlessly, the Left will sell us their lie that Americans hate Trump and what he is doing. Therefore, the Trump revolution will not be televised.

Meanwhile, Americans have begun restoring our country’s greatness.

Note the glaring disparity in the media coverage of these two January events in Washington DC. The Leftist Women’s March which celebrated vulgarity and depravity received widespread media praise and coverage. The largest March for Life rally in history received very little coverage. Our revolution will not be televised.

I bet few of you know that Americans boycotting Target for irresponsibly allowing burly men in restrooms with our moms, sisters, wives and daughters cost Target $10 billion. Our revolution will not be televised.

I suspect a majority does not know Trump undid Obama’s ban, clearing the way for construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline and the Dakota access pipeline. Can you say more jobs boys and girls?

Oh, I forgot that Leftist schools have decreed that teachers should no longer address students as “boys and girls” on the grounds that gender distinctions are hateful, derogatory, insensitive, intolerant, bigoted and mean. I’m confident that Americans tolerating such nonsense has come to an end. Our revolution will not be televised.

Succinctly, years ago I was invited to a screening of the documentary, “Waiting for Superman” which exposed the corruption of our educational system. Unfortunately, with Leftists controlling the WH, the media and our schools, nothing changed. Our new Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos said, “If a school is troubled, or unsafe, or not a good fit for a child…we should support a parent’s right to enroll their child in a high-quality alternative…” Them’s fightin’ words to Leftists.

Note DeVos said the parent’s child rather than the federal government’s child. For years, Leftists have been allowed to confiscated our kids for indoctrination. This explains the Left’s intense efforts to criminalize home-schooling; arresting parents and seizing their kids. Meanwhile, the fake news media is despicably portraying DeVos as a religious nut. Our revolution will not be televised.

The internet is abuzz over singer Joy Villa courageously wearing a dress to the Grammy Awards that boldly read, “Make America Great Again”. As expected, Leftists have viciously trashed Villa calling her a hater. Leftists calling love for ones country hate testifies to their perverse thinking. Meanwhile, Villa’s record sales have shot through the roof. Clearly, a large number of Americans agree with Villa

President Trump has ushered in a new tone for America; a revolution of patriotism, pride and freedom. Do not expect to see this truth reflected in the media; quite the opposite. Our revolution will not be televised.

Links to biased Yahoo “news” stories:

Editorial Claiming Media Bias in Favor of Clinton Featured at Top of Yahoo! News on Sunday

Melania Trump’s moment in the spotlight marred by plagiarism allegations

Chaos on the floor in Cleveland: How an insurgency erupted and was crushed by the RNC

Unconventional #39: RNC Day Two — The ‘Fear & Loathing in Cleveland’ Edition

Mike Pence just destroyed Trump’s chances of winning over Bernie Sanders voters

trump first solo press conference

President Trump speaks directly to the American people and the people love it!

President Trump held a press conference at the White House as polls show his approval rating has risen to 55%. After the presser the media goes ballistic, the people yawn.

Here are some notable policy comments by President Trump:

  • I’m here today to update the American people on the incredible progress that has been made in the last four weeks since my inauguration.
  • A new Rasmussen poll, in fact, because the people get it, much of the media doesn’t get it, they actually get it but they don’t write it, let’s put it that way, but a new Rasmussen poll came out a short while ago, and it has our approval rating at 55 percent and going up.
  • The stock market has hit record numbers, as you know, and there’s been a tremendous surge of optimism in the business world, which means something different than it used to. Now it means it’s good for jobs.
  • Plants and factories are already starting to move back into the United States, big league, Ford, General Motors.
  • As you know, our administration inherited many problems across government and across the economy. To be honest, I inherited a mess. A mess. At home, and abroad. A mess. Jobs are pouring out of the country. You see what’s going on with all of the companies leaving our country, going to Mexico and other places. Low pay, low wages.
  • Mass instability overseas, no matter where you look. The Middle East, a disaster. North Korea, we’ll take care of it, folks. We’re going to take care of it all. I just want to let you know. I inherited a mess.
  • Beginning on day one, our administration went to work to tackle these challenges. On foreign affairs, we’ve begun enormously productive talks with foreign leaders, much of which you’ve covered, to move forward to security, stability and peace in the most troubled regions of the world, which there are many.
  • We’ve had great conversations with the United Kingdom and meetings, Israel, Mexico, Japan, China and Canada. Really, really productive conversations. I would say far more productive than you would understand. We’ve even developed a new council with Canada to promote women’s business leaders and entrepreneurs.
  • Another mess I inherited. We have imposed new sanctions on the nation of Iran, who has totally taken advantage of our previous administration. And they are the world’s top sponsor of terrorism. And we’re not going to stop until that problem is properly solved, and it’s not now. It’s one of the worst agreements I’ve ever seen drawn by anybody.
  • I’ve ordered plans to begin for the massive rebuilding of the United States military.
  • At home, we have begun the monumental task of returning the government to the people to a scale not seen in many, many years. In each of these actions, I’m keeping my promises to the American people.
  • I’m here following through on what I pledged to do. That’s all I’m doing.
  • This administration is running like a fine-tuned machine.
  • We have withdrawn from the job killing disaster known as Trans-Pacific Partnership. We’re going to have trade deals but we’re going to have one-on-one deals, bilateral. One-on-one deals.
  • We directed the elimination of regulations that undermine manufacturing and called for expedited approval of the permits needed for America and American infrastructure, meaning plants, equipment, roads, bridges, factories.
  • We’ve imposed a hiring freeze on nonessential federal workers.
  • We’ve imposed a temporary moratorium and new federal regulations. We issued a game-changing new rule that says for each one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated.
  • We’ve stood up for the men and women of law enforcement, directing federal agencies to ensure they are protected from crimes of violence.
  • We’ve directed the creation of a task force for reducing violent crime in America, including the horrendous situation — take a look at Chicago and others — taking place right now in our inner cities.
  • We’ve ordered the Department of Homeland Security and Justice to coordinate on a plan to destroy criminal cartels coming into the United States with drugs.
  • We’ve undertaken the most substantial border security measures in a generation to keep our nation and our tax dollars safe and are now in the process of beginning to build a promised wall on the southern border.
  • We’ve begun a nationwide effort to remove criminal aliens, gang members, drug dealers, and others who pose a threat to public safety. We are saving American lives every single day.
  • And we’ve even created a new office in Homeland Security dedicated to the forgotten American victims of illegal immigrant violence, which there are many.
  • We’ve taken decisive action to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of our country.
  • I got elected on defending our country. I keep my campaign promises, and our citizens will be very happy when they see the result, they already are.
  • We’re issuing a new executive action next week that will comprehensively protect our country, so we’ll be going along the one path and hopefully winning that. At the same time we will be issuing a new and very comprehensive order to protect our people and that’ll be done sometime next week in the beginning or middle at the latest part.
  • We’ve also taken steps to begin construction of the Keystone pipeline and Dakota Access pipelines, thousands and thousands of jobs, and put new buy American measures in place to require American steel for American pipelines.
  • To drain the swamp of corruption in Washington D.C., I’ve started by imposing a five-year lobbying ban on White House officials, and a lifetime ban on lobbying for a foreign government.
  • We’ve begun preparing to repeal and replace Obamacare.
  • I have kept my promise to the American people by nominating a justice of the United States Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, from my list of 20, and who will be a true defender of our laws and our constitution.

President Trump’s comments about the press and media:

  • I’m making this presentation directly to the American people with the media present, which, it’s an honor to have you this morning because many of our nation’s reporters and folks will not tell you the truth and will not treat the wonderful people of our country with the respect that they deserve.
  • Unfortunately, much of the media in Washington, D.C., along with New York, Los Angeles, in particular, speaks not for the people, but for the special interests and for those profiting off a very, very obviously broken system.
  • The press has become so dishonest that if we don’t talk about it, we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people. Tremendous disservice. We have to talk about it. We have to find out what’s going on because the press, honestly, is out of control. The level of dishonesty is out of control.

Go here to read the full transcript of President Trump’s February 16, 2017 press conference.

The full video of the press conference is courtesy of the White House:

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of NBC News.

trump fish eating democrat fish

Democrats playing ‘dangerous game’ by questioning the legitimacy of President Trump

In a recent column titled “The Elephant in the Living Room,” I surmised that liberals and Democrats are playing a very dangerous game by continuing to question the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s presidency.  What makes that bit of nonsense so dangerous for Democrats is the fact that, by continuing to question Trump’s legitimacy, they could easily invite renewed interest in Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility… an issue that lies festering just beneath the surface.

In Obama’s case, enough is known about his lack of presidential eligibility to invite future researchers to dig deeper into his personal history.  As a result, the American people will one day be shocked to learn that, between January 20, 2009, and January 20, 2017, a period of time during which the forces of Islamic jihad made the greatest gains in the conquest of the Christian world since the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries, the United States was governed by a half-Muslim impostor with no legitimate claim to the presidency.

But man is a curious animal, and if he feels that he’s been lied to or that certain historical facts have purposely been kept from him, he will move mountains to discover the truth.

A great many major historic events and mysteries remain unresolved and unexplored for years… often for decades, centuries, and even millennia.  For example, as World War I raged on in Europe, President Woodrow Wilson (D) reassured the American people of U.S. neutrality.   He said,

“The United States must be neutral in fact, as well as in name, during these days that are to try men’s souls.  We must be impartial in thought, as well as action, must put a curb upon our sentiments, as well as upon every transaction that might be construed as a preference of one party to the struggle before another.”

However, what the American people did not know was that Wilson, himself, was violating U.S. neutrality by supplying war materiel to the British and, with no apparent regard for the safety of the traveling public, shipping it to England aboard passenger ships.  The German spy network in the United States was fully aware of the deceit, causing the German government to publish an April 22, 1915, warning in 50 major newspapers, urging travelers not to sail aboard the RMS Lusitania.  And when travelers expressed concern, the Wilson administration assured them that trans-Atlantic travel was safe and that there was no reason for concern.

The Lusitania sailed on May 1, 1915 with 1,198 passengers and crew aboard, and just one week later, on May 7, 1915, as she sailed off the coast of southern Ireland, the RMS Lusitania was attacked and sunk by a German U-boat.

There is no better example of man’s irrepressible search for truth, or the Democratic penchant for deceit, than the events surrounding America’s entrance into World War II.  Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, many Americans were suspicious of the claim that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 was, in fact, a “surprise” attack.  Like the truth of events such as the Kennedy assassination and the Oklahoma City bombing, the truth of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was held under lock and key for more than a half century.  It was not until 1994 that official documents detailing events leading up to the Japanese attack were declassified and made available to the public.

Among those declassified documents was an October 7, 1940, memorandum prepared by Navy Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence.  The memo was addressed to Navy Captains Walter Anderson and Dudley W. Knox, two of FDR’s most trusted advisors, and contained the complete blueprint for the Roosevelt administration’s effort to precipitate a Japanese attack against the United States.   It was the “smoking gun” that historians had been seeking for half a century.

In sections 1 through 7 of the memorandum, Lieutenant Commander McCollum describes in great detail the status of the war in Europe and the tactical and strategic importance of the tri-lateral alliance between the Axis powers… Germany, Japan, and Italy… laying the groundwork for the recommendations contained in sections 8 and 9 of the memorandum.  Those sections, as transcribed below, outlined in detail what naval intelligence felt was necessary to precipitate a Japanese attack on U.S. territory and/or U.S. military installations in the Pacific, as follows:

  1. A consideration of the foregoing leads to the conclusion that prompt aggressive naval action against Japan by the United States would render Japan incapable of affording any help to Germany and Italy in their attack on England and that Japan itself would be faced with a situation in which her navy could be forced to fight on most unfavorable terms or accept fairly early collapse of the country through the force of blockade. A prompt and early declaration of war after entering into suitable arrangements with England and Holland, would be most effective in bringing about the early collapse of Japan and thus eliminating our enemy in the pacific before Germany and Italy could strike at us effectively.  Furthermore, elimination of Japan must surely strengthen Britain’s position against Germany and Italy and, in addition, such action would increase the confidence and support of all nations who tend to be friendly towards us.
  2. It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the Japanese to modify their attitude.

Therefore, the following course of action is suggested:

A.  Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
B.  Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.
C.  Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek.
D.  Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E.   Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F.   Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
G.  Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
H.  Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.

The memorandum went on to say, “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.  At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war.”

In his response to the memorandum, Captain Knox hinted in a chilling postscript, saying, “Re your #6: – no reason for battleships not visiting west coast in bunches (emphasis added).

Although they were not privy to Japanese timing, it is clear that FDR, his senior civilian aides, and his top military advisors knew in advance that the Japanese would attack the United States.  In fact, it was they who created the circumstances under which Japan felt compelled to go to war against us.  In their defense, and the kindest thing we can say about them, is that they greatly underestimated the magnitude and the ferocity of the Japanese attack.  The attack lasted just ninety minutes, but in that period of time a total of 2,403 Americans lost their lives (military and civilian combined) and 1,178 were wounded.  Eighteen ship were sunk or run aground

As recommended by Captain Knox, the Navy had no fewer than eight battleships “bunched up” at Pearl Harbor.  These included the USS Arizona, USS California, USS Maryland, USS Nevada, USS Oklahoma, USS Pennsylvania, USS Tennessee, and the USS West Virginia.  Of these, the USS Arizona and the USS Oklahoma were sunk and were declared total losses.  The USS California and the USS West Virginia were sunk, but were later raised and repaired; and the USS Maryland, USS Nevada, USS Pennsylvania, and the USS Tennessee were badly damaged but were quickly repaired and returned to service.  The U.S. also lost 350 aircraft in the attack.

Just as the truth of the U.S. entry into World War I and the truth of events leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack has finally been exposed, more than fifty years after the fact, so too will the whole truth of Democratic deceit in the Kennedy assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the illegitimate presidency of Barack Obama.  It’s only a matter of time.

I am aware that my friend and neighbor, author Craig Roberts, the only Tulsa police officer assigned to the Oklahoma City bombing investigation, is beginning work on a book telling the whole behind-the-scenes story of how the Clinton Administration, through Attorney General Janet Reno and the FBI, prevented on-site investigators from following evidence wherever it led.  Their interference misdirected the investigation away from a number of collaborators and focused the investigation only on Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

In recent weeks, as President Trump has fought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy and to appoint the strongest cabinet in memory, Democrats have shown that they are willing to say whatever is necessary to stand in his way.  And just as the truth of Democratic deceit in drawing the United States into World War I and World War II has now been made known, so too will the truth of the Kennedy assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, and yes, the true identity of Barack Obama.

As a relatively young “ex-president” he will likely live long enough to experience his own political dismemberment.  Let the games begin.

fake news

Disinformation Campaign on the Hearing Protection Act Continues [Video]

This month the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 was introduced in the Senate by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) with co-sponsors Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Rand Paul (R-KY) as S.59. Representatives Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and John Carter (R-TX) – together with 42 co-sponsors – introduced a similar bill in the House as H.R. 367.

The bill would remove suppressors from the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA), which requires buyers to pay a $200 tax and undergo an enhanced background check that can take up to nine months to complete. Suppressors would continue to be regulated like non-NFA firearms, which require a background check when sold by a licensed firearms dealer or across state lines.

Not surprisingly, anti-gun advocates and their media allies are furious that the gun community would dare remove an onerous and unnecessary law that limits their ability to protect against hearing loss while target shooting and hunting.

Washington Post reporter Michael S. Rosenwald announced that “violence prevention advocates are outraged that the industry is trying to ease silencer restrictions by linking the issue to the eardrums of gun owners.” Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times piled on, declaring that the naming of the “Hearing Protection Act” was “so absurdly transparent an effort to deceive that voters may be prompted to ask an obvious question: ‘What are they hiding?’”

Joining the anti-gun tirade, Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center contended that “they want the general public to think it’s about hearing aids or something,” arguing that “when the general public finds out what’s really happening, there will be outrage.” Kristin Brown of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence went so far as to argue “there’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire.

Let that sink in.  A representative of the Brady Campaign argues that there is no evidence of hearing loss from gunfire.  One is left to wonder if their zealotry blinds them to the truth or if they really are that ill-informed on firearms and their use.

Other anti-gun advocates argue that “silent” guns make it easier to commit crimes, citing YouTube videos and television shows where silencers reduce a gunshot to a faint cough. Professor Robert J. Spitzer, writing in the Washington Post, even argued that deafening noise “is an important safety feature of any firearm” and that “the lifesaving safety benefits of gun noise should weigh far more in the silencer debate.”

Supporters of so-called “common sense gun safety” are willfully blind to the reality that clear, objective scientific evidence demonstrates that suppressors prevent hearing loss. Noise-Induced Hearing Loss and tinnitus are high-priority health issues – and the only type of hearing loss that is completely preventable.

The benefits of suppressors are scientifically proven. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) have both determined that even a single noise over 140 decibels causes hearing loss. The peak sound pressure of a gunshot ranges from a low of 144 decibels (.22 caliber rifle) to 172 decibels (.357 caliber revolver). A suppressor reduces the sound by approximately 30 decibels. In consequence, even suppressed firearms are loud – about 120-130 decibels – and louder than a car horn three feet away. It is, therefore, both inconsistent and illogical for the government to recommend – and even legally mandate – noise abatement for loud machines like lawn mowers and chainsaws while simultaneously setting large regulatory hurdles that discourage suppressor use with firearms.

Furthermore, suppressed firearms are not the choice of criminals, and the more than 100-year history of suppressors in both the United States and Europe demonstrates that anti-gun fearmongering is unfounded. A study of the criminal use of suppressors between 1995 and 2005 found only 15 used in crimes – and only two instances of being used in a murder. Indeed, as the number of federally-registered suppressors has nearly quadrupled in the last decade (from 150,364 in 2006 to 902,805 in 2016), the Violence Policy Center can identify only a scant handful of crimes committed with them. As Chicago Tribune editorial board member Steve Chapman notes, “any useful technology can be put to villainous ends,” and common sense demonstrates that the existing rule on silencers is “a major hassle for the law-abiding” while being “an irrelevance to criminals.”

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Violence Policy Center are counting on public ignorance and disinformation to derail a legitimate effort to allow gun owners to protect their hearing and the hearing of those around them. Armed with facts and scientific evidence, the National Rifle Association urges its members to contact their lawmakers to support the Hearing Protection Act of 2017.

You can contact your member of Congress via our Write Your Reps tool by clicking HERE or use the Congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

obama gone

PODCAST: Cabinet Hearings, CNN – “You Are Fake News!,” Hungary Targets Soros

Trump’s future cabinet is cruising through Senate confirmation. And with the world in the state that it is, not a moment too soon.

Terrorism once again strikes Israel in the form of a truck attack. Sound familiar? Of course, the widow of the terrorist is already collecting a pension courtesy of the Palestinian Authority. Yet these people allegedly want peace? In Hungary, the Orban government takes the dramatic step of targeting George Soros’s network of NGOs. Good for them – Trump should follow suit. In France, populist Marine Le Pen promises repatriation of the French car industry, taking a cue from Trump’s (pre-office!) recent successes. Finally, China – continuing their provocations – deploys a sixth reconnaissance ship in the South China Sea.

With so much bubbling in the cauldron of world affairs, the new American administration can’t come soon enough!

Topics of Discussion:

  • Trump’s nominees testify before the Senate
  • Biden gets his very own medal
  • First steps in repealing Obamacare
  • Hungary targets George Soros
  • Widow of Jerusalem truck terrorist gets Palestinian Authority pension
  • China deploys sixth reconnaissance ship South China Sea

and more . . .

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may listen to USA Transnational Report live on JJ McCartney’s Nightside Radio Studios and on Red State Talk Radio, subscribe to USA Transnational Report podcast on iTunes here and signup for podcasts with Podbean, here. All previously recorded shows are available here, at the links above, or through Spreaker.

GQ_logoRedBlack

The Face of GQ Magazine: Obama should ‘murder Trump & Pence’ for ‘Humanity’

A writer for GQ Magazine posted the below tweet:

rupert myers tweet obama assassinate trump

NOTE: This screen capture of the Tweet by Rupert Myers has been since taken down.

Rupert Myers, according to his Facebook page, is a “Political correspondent, British GQ. Also writes about society, politics and law for the Telegraph and the Guardian.” He is also a barrister, a British lawyer.

To answer Mr. Myers legal question, yes U.S. Presidents may pardon themselves. Mediateite.com’s Alex Griswold reported:

For those who were wondering, Law Newz’s Chris White argued in October that the president actually can pardon themselves for federal crimes.

So that answers barrister Myers first question. Now let’s look at the second part of his tweet – “Asking for humanity.” Griswold wrote,

“Still, Myers took a rather flippant attitude towards the angry responses. His explanation for the tweet varied, with Myers saying that it was only a joke but elsewhere claiming it was an innocent question about the president’s pardon power.”

Joke? This is more than a joke. Innocent? Myers is a barrister and a political correspondent. His tweet, when put into the context of his background, is anything but innocent.

It is here that Myers reveals his rational to commit two murders, justifying murder in the name of “humanity.” Killing in the name of humanity is evil on its face. In 1759 a classics scholar named Beilby Porteus wrote Death: A Poetical Essay”. The following excerpt discusses tyranny and provocatively contrasted the ramifications of small and large murders:

To sate the lust of power; more horrid still,
The foulest stain and scandal of our nature
Became its boast — One Murder made a Villain,
Millions a Hero. — Princes were privileg’d
To kill, and numbers sanctified the crime.
Ah! why will Kings forget that they are Men?

[Emphasis added]

Myers Tweeted this about the ABC News story of outgoing President Obama awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to outgoing Vice President Joe Biden:

We are going to miss the heck out of these guys

Myers also promotes the fake new story about President-elect Trump on his Facebook page stating:

By me on #Watersportsgate : If you decry fake news but revel in sordid claims about Trump, you’re a hypocrite http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/decry-fake-news-revel-sordid-…/

Myers in his Telegraph article notes,

golden opportunity has presented itself to mock the President elect. Leaks about Trump’s predilections have produced a cascade of stories – a shower if you will – about the incoming President’s alleged fondness for an unusual sex act which does not bear describing.” His tweet is intended to murder Trump and Pence, his article is meant to “mock the President elect.”

Myers, as a correspondent and barrister, understands what he is suggesting will “sate the lust for power” by those who want to impose tyranny globally. Myers exemplifies the “foulest stain and scandal of our nature.” Myers, should something happen to either President-elect Trump or Vice President-elect Mike Pence or their families, will have blood on his hands.

Myers is the poster boy for what is wrong with journalism.

Myers, and others in the media, have gone beyond bias, beyond hate, beyond bizarre. A call to murder in the name of humanity is an oxymoron like cruel kindness. How is it that one human calls for the murder of two innocent men because they disagree with them?

History has seen this hate in other regimes, Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist Cuba, Cambodia and on and on.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Protesters Vow to ‘Shut Down’ Inauguration, Related Celebrations

Trump’s Entrepreneurial Approach Threatens the Washington Establishent

Rosie O’Donnell: Declare MARTIAL LAW to Stop Trump!

EDITORS NOTE: 18 U.S.C. § 879 : US Code – Section 879: Threats against former Presidents and certain other persons:

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon

(1) a former President or a member of the immediate family of a former President;

(2) a member of the immediate family of the President, the President-elect, the Vice President, or the Vice President-elect;

(3) a major candidate for the office of President or Vice President, or a member of the immediate family of such candidate; or

(4) a person protected by the Secret Service under section 3056(a)

(6); shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

factcheck2

Who is Checking the Fact Checkers?

Ever since private emails from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party exposed massive crime and corruption inside those organizations during the 2016 election, so-called “fake news” has become a hot topic with propaganda networks and social media outlets promising to police and censor what they deem to be “fake news” in the future.

To accomplish this, they intend to use “fact checkers” to identify “fake news” and remove it from public view, in a system Goebbels would be very proud to call his own.

But who is checking the so-called “fact checkers?”

SNOPES

Snopes is the brainchild of husband and wife team Barbara and David P. Mikkelson, launched in 1995 at the pinnacle of the “MoveOn” from the Bill Clinton impeachment era. As reported by DailyHeadlines – “Snopes main fact checker is Kim Lacapria, who was formerly with Inquisitr, a site known for publishing fake quotes and hoaxes.  Lacapria was a huge disaster as a writer with many of her stories getting just 10 to 20 shares.  She is a vitriolic far left wing blogger.  While at Inquisitr she described herself as an openly left leaning liberal.”

David P. Mikkelson was accused of embezzlement in a divorce proceeding and arrested on charges of fraud and corruption. Mikkelson’s wife is reportedly a “non-voting Canadian.”

Yet, Snopes has been quoted as a reliable “fact checker” even recently, including by a few ill-advised or downright corrupt Federal Judges. For anyone to rely on such an overtly unreliable operation is either gross ignorance or an intentional misinformation op.

FACTCHECK

FactCheck.org is a creation of Annenberg Project, which of course, begs the question — who and what is Annenberg Project?

For starters, Annenberg Project is Barack Hussein Obama’s first community organizing employer in Chicago, as exposed by Thomas Lifson at American Thinker in 2008. Obama was a star student under the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, working in concert with lifelong cohorts William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn of Weather Underground fame.

On a broader view, Annenberg is a well-funded national community organizing operation highly active on college campuses. FactCheck.org is a subsidiary of Annenberg, designed to help control the public dialogue on behalf of Annenberg community organizing interests by simply labeling any information not favorable to their community organizing efforts as “fake” or “false.” Again, Goebbels would be proud.

A glimpse into the quality of fact checking by Annenberg is seen in their fact checking opinion of Snopes, which is almost comical. Essentially, these orgs are part of a closed-circuit left-leaning community organizing info-op that grant each other credentials based on utter nonsense. That’s the same system they use to check facts.

EXAMPLE: Snopes continues to promote the claim that “Russia hacked the 2016 elections” despite open disclaimers by the same Intel Agencies on that matter. Lead Snopes “fact checker” Brooke Binkowski is a San Diego backpack reporter who has spent most of her ink time on the subject of border security and illegal migration, writing for the Voice of San Diego.

Of course, the cyber-intercept of damning unsecured emails on the Clinton and DNC servers – leaked to the public by Wikileaks ahead of the election, now inappropriately referred to as “hacking the election,” isn’t actually “hacking” in traditional terms. But if you read Snopes and FactCheck data on the matter, you will see the hair-splitting mind-numbing journalistic gymnastics they go through to perpetuate the “fake story” against Russia, as the real story, crime and corruption in the DNC, remains off-topic and irrelevant according to these “fact checkers.”

Someone lies, then someone confirms the lie as “fact-checked” and true, and then someone confirms the credentials of their fellow fact checker. The cycle is complete and the lie stands as fact.

This circus has escalated in the “Russian hacking case” to Chairman of the Senate Arms Services Committee, John McCain, placing the United States on a war footing by accusing Russia of committing an “act of war” for allegedly exposing political corruption to American voters in a fashion that once made Woodward and Bernstein famous. Fortunately, not all Senators are as nuts as McCain and Graham.

So, who is checking the fact checkers? Who can be trusted as the gatekeeper of truth and justice in America? Snopes? FactCheck? Annenberg? The DNC? The RNC? ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNBC, PBS, NPR… anyone?

YOU ARE THE ANSWER!

The only person you can rely on to check your facts is YOU! Of course, even YOU are not reliable if your facts are driven by an agenda, or if you are unwilling to do your homework. In a self-governed nation created of, by and for the people, only the people themselves are qualified to decide what is or isn’t true. To rely on anyone else is to become a willing victim of mass disinformation.