Thursday, August 24, 2017

Bordering on criminal, the media repeatedly perpetuated myth that a Boston rally devoted to free speech on Aug. 19 was a cover for a KKK lovefest. No major media outlet bothered to investigate the facts. As Nazi Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, famously said, repeat a lie often enough it becomes accepted as fact. That's what the media did, refuses to report that there were no white supremacists or neo-Nazis at the rally. Not one-Jeff Kuhner, WRKO Radio, Boston

8/23/17, "Kuhner's Corner: The media lies about the Boston rally," WRKO Radio, Boston, Mass.

Sat. 8/19/17, Boston, WRKO

"There were no white supremacists or neo-Nazis."

"The Boston rally was a watershed event. But not in the way the mainstream media has been portraying it, as a bold stand against white supremacy in the wake of Charlottesville. Rather, it demonstrates the power of propaganda to foment mass hysteria and mob rule. Reality no longer matters. 

For the media refuses to report this seminal truth: There were no white supremacists or neo-Nazis. None. Not even one. Instead, they engaged in a massive disinformation campaign that spurred over 40,000 “antifascists” to descend upon Boston Common. The alt-left’s goal: to counter-demonstrate against an alleged “white nationalist” rally.

Yet, what they were protesting was the very opposite. The Free Speech rally had nothing to do with white supremacy or the Ku Klux Klan—never mind the violence in Charlottesville. In fact, the rally was planned well before Charlottesville (one even took place earlier this year in May). More importantly, the rally was about defending the First Amendment, stressing the importance of free speech and freedom of expression in an age of growing intolerance. 

Remarkably and irresponsibly, bordering on the criminal, the media repeatedly perpetuated the myth that a rally devoted to free speech was a cover for a KKK lovefest. Not one single major media outlet bothered to investigate or search for the facts; like sheep, they ran with the false narrative that Nazis were invading Boston. The reason: They got their marching orders from Mayor Marty Walsh and the liberal establishment.

It was (Mayor) Walsh, who peddled the fiction about white supremacists descending on Boston, trying to replicate the chaos and bloodshed in Charlottesville. He held a press conference earlier in the week, denouncing the so-called “bigots” and “racists” supposedly attending the Free Speech rally. It was like ringing the dinner bell for the alt-left activists to pour onto the streets in rage and protest.

Walsh even went so far as to claim he would “march” with the counter-demonstrators against “hate” and “white supremacists.” The genie was now out of the bottle: Black Lives Matter, Antifa and radical left-wing activists (including the Communist Party and Workers of the World) vowed that tens of thousands of protestors and street thugs would show up. 

No one, however, asked a basic question: Who were the scheduled speakers and supposed rally goers? Were any of them Nazis or white nationalists? Instead, the media mindlessly repeated the Big Lie. And as Nazi Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, famously said, repeat a lie often enough it becomes accepted as fact. This is what happened in Boston.

The listed speakers at the Free Speech rally were a diverse group; none of them comes close to being a KKK-style supremacist or Nazi. One of them was Rinaldo Del Gallo, a First Amendment lawyer and supporter of Bernie Sanders. He is a progressive, who believes in free speech. So is Bernie a neo-Nazi now? Another one was Donnie Palmer, a veteran and professional boxer. He is also an African-American. He is from Dorchester, and his big issue is the need to discuss openly about the scourge of crime and drugs infesting our inner cities. So is a black man, who is pro-law and order, a white supremacist now? Another one was Shiva Ayyadurai, an Indian-American businessman. He is a constitutionalist running for the GOP nomination to challenge Sen. Elizabeth Warren. To put it crudely: Is a brown-skinned man, who supports the Bill of Rights, now a white supremacist? Or take Samson Racioppi, a Libertarian candidate for Congress. His issue is the need for limited government and maximizing personal freedoms. Are libertarians now Nazis? Another was Garret Kirkland, an anti-war and pro-civil liberties activist. His main issue is opposition to military intervention in Syria, and how free speech is critical for the anti-war movement to get its message out. Are anti-war activists now members of the KKK? 

In the eyes of the media, the leftist counter-demonstrators and Walsh, the answer is clear—and chilling: yes. The massive protests achieved its goal. Free speech was shut down. A hate-filled mob took over the streets. And the radical Left won a decisive battle in its war against the Constitution, the First Amendment and freedom itself. That this occurred in Boston of all places—the cradle of liberty and the American Revolution—makes the Left’s triumph even more striking.

Moreover, the media could not single out one—just one—neo-Nazi or white supremacist among the Free Speech rally attendees. In Charlottesville, they were everywhere; in Boston, they were nowhere. The reason is obvious: Because they never planned to attend. The entire “antifascist” protest was a counter-demonstration against a phantom menace—one that was conjured out of thin air

The only real fascists were the Antifa and BLM thugs among the counter-demonstrators. Dressed in black and wearing masks (like Mussolini’s Black Shirts or Hitler’s Brown Shirts), roving paramilitary gangs threw urine bottles, rocks and sticks at the police. They blocked and spit upon rally attendees. And they assaulted Trump supporters. Contrary to media spin, there was nothing “peaceful” or “non-violent” about the protests. 

Just ask Sue, an elderly woman and Trump voter. She wanted to attend the Free Speech rally. She was prevented by an angry leftist crowd. So, she decided to stand on the grass and peacefully hold up an American flag. For her alleged crime of patriotism, Antifa thugs punched and beat her. She was then dragged on the ground as they ripped away her flag. The incident was captured on video. Sue was then spit in the face by a rabid BLM woman, who called her a “Nazi” and said the flag represents “slavery and oppression.” 

Walsh refuses to condemn the attack; the media will not even speak to her. 

“I could not believe the sheer hatred that those protestors had,” Sue said in an interview on my radio show. “They were like rabid animals.” 

She’s right. What took place in Boston was Orwellian. In the name of “anti-fascism,” left-wing fanatics used fascist tactics to muzzle opposition and silence speech. The media establishment celebrated an assault on the First Amendment. Their aim is obvious: to broaden the definition of “fascism” or “white supremacy” to include anyone—conservatives, libertarians, patriots, Trump populists or progressives—who refuses to bow at the altar of Political Correctness
The radical Left is waging war upon America’s history, culture, identity and institutions. They despise the Constitution, especially the First Amendment, which is the bedrock of our freedoms. The mainstream media has become the enemy. Boston has become ground zero.

Only one question remains: Which side are you on?"


Among comments to this article at Free Republic


"And not one member of our government defended this group’s right to speak! How does a people know for certain that they have lost their right to freedom of speech? When they are forbidden to talk about losing their right to freedom of speech. That’s exactly where we are. 

8 posted on 8/23/2017, 8:34:59 PM by KyCats"

Comment: A criminal media exists for the same reason that criminal behavior exists elsewhere. The US government has effectively been overthrown and the political class is happy. With only one functioning political party in the US, everyone in power is on the same side against the people. This has been the case for at least a decade, probably several decades. The Democrat and Republican parties are one, completely united. Without fanfare, they've both acted to nullify the 2016 presidential election and the votes of 63 million Americans. Trump's election of course was a repudiation of both the Republican and Democrat establishments. This couldn't be allowed to stand. The parties remind us in August 2017 why they were rejected in 2016 by asserting without evidence that Russia stole the 2016 election. Based only on this claim, both the House and Senate voted almost unanimously recently to deny Trump the ability to enact the foreign policy v Russia for which he was elected, ie friendlier relations with Russia, and which his voters still favor. Congress voted to place severe sanctions on Russia for allegedly meddling in the US election, including stealing DNC emails, though to date no proof exists for any Russian meddling. Worth mention in addition is that the people running the US now (ie, the Endless War Industry) desperately want war with Russia. With help from NY Times and Washington Post, the war industry has been ginning up US taxpayers, trying to get them excited about removing Putin from office. The war profiteers believe Hillary would quickly have agreed to bomb Russia. The only solution I see is for Trump to declare formation of a new, second political party with himself as head. Half the electorate currently has no political party behind them.


Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Another CNN flop: They assemble a panel of 6 Trump supporters, ask them how many are 'troubled' by Trump response to Charlottesville. Not one raised their hand-8/23/17, Daily Caller

8/23/17, CNN
8/23/17, "Charlottesville Panel Pushes Back On CNN, Defends President Trump," Daily Caller, Nick Givas 

"CNN featured a panel of six Trump supporters (three men, three women) Wednesday morning and despite host Alisyn Camerota’s surprise, they all defended the president and expressed their distrust of the media.

Camerota asked how many panelists were troubled by President Donald Trump's response to Charlottesville, and not a single panelist raised their hand.

“I didn’t see anything wrong with it. I mean he addressed the problem. Let’s face reality, there are problems on both sides,” panelist Bob Viera said.

“I think it’s ridiculous to have me choose between Hitler and Stalin which is what I consider what both groups are,” he added. If you’re willing to set fires and burn places to the ground, that doesn’t seem like a very peaceful group to me.

One panelist, Daphne Goggins, said she is going to reserve judgement until the matter is fully investigated. Goggins said she is also convinced that not everyone at the rally was a neo-Nazi based on videos she saw on Facebook. When she tried to share those videos, she claims she was censored by the social media site. 

8/23/17, CNN
After Camerota played a clip of angry white supremacists protesters chanting racial slurs against Jewish people, Goggins defended their right to free speech.

“Those crazy, I don’t know what else to call them. I probably can’t say it on TV. But they still have the right to say those crazy things,” she said.

Panelist Robert McCarthy blamed media bias and said, “The media is not covering it. They’re only focused on making neo-Nazis and white supremacists out to be Trump supporters.

Trump supporter Amanda Delekta said it was unfair to insinuate that Trump voters are supporting neo-Nazis and said the coverage was negative and uncalled for.

“No one here is supporting the neo-Nazis or the white supremacists. And that narrative is really negative. but what we are talking about is President Trump’s response and he stood in front of America and he condemned the violence that occurred that day,” she said.

Panelist Jimmy Dozier pointed out that only a few hundred people were involved in the Charlottesville incident, but over 60 million people voted for Trump.

“You’re talking about three or four hundred people in Charlottesville. They’re sixty million people that voted for President Trump,” he said. “Why don’t we get a say? Those people aren’t nothing. Democrats have idiots, Republicans have idiots. But we’re talking about us, the sixty million that’s for Trump. We don’t do stuff like that.”

A female Trump supporter named L.A. Key suggested the violence may have been triggered on purpose and there may be ulterior motives behind the division. She too said her information came from Facebook, prompting Camerota to ask if the panel trusted Facebook more than traditional news media outlets.

Each panelist agreed that their trust in the mainstream media was slipping, and they trusted alternative internet sources more than cable news." CNN images from video


'Phoenix protester kicks tear gas back at cops who then shoot him in the dick with a riot weapon'-Tim Pool, 8/22/17...Trump rally attendance: An hour before he was sked to speak 8000 were inside Phoenix Convention Center


:35 video, Tim Pool, Timcast twitter


Added: Re: Trump rally attendance at Phoenix Convention Center. I found no exact number reported, looked for over an hour. Daily Mail said 8000 were inside an hour before Trump was scheduled to speak. Az. Republic said "a near-capacity crowd," at Phoenix Convention Center but didn't say what the arena's "capacity" was. Some reports said "thousands" attended, but that could be 2000 or 10,000. I saw no fire marshal estimate reported.

8/22/17, Trump Phoenix rally attendance: "Speaking to a near-capacity crowd at the downtown convention center."...

8/22/17, "'Vintage Trump': President unloads on enemies at Phoenix rally," Arizona Republic, Dan Nowicki, Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, and Eliza Collins

8/22/17, "An hour before Trump was scheduled to speak, there were an estimated 8,000 inside the convention center." 

8/22/17, "News hosts shocked into near-silence as Trump protester is shot in GROIN with rubber bullet as police open up with tear gas canisters on crowds after Phoenix rally," Daily Mail, David Martosko

"Facebook protest groups collected 7,400 RSVPs but only a few hundred anti-Trump demonstrators showed up"



US Immigration Act of 1921 sought to protect US standard of living. Immigration was restricted from 1921-1965 in part because American labor couldn't compete against cheap labor of Europe and maintain higher US standard of living (May 2, 1921, US Senate)

The US Immigration Act of 1921 established a "quota system that would last, virtually unchanged, until 1965."
April 20, 1921, May 2, 1921, "Congressional Debate on Immigration Restriction (1921)," Excerpts from US House and Senate debates on immigration, (Hanover College, Indiana)

"Congress imposed a literacy test and other restrictions on immigration during World War I. By 1921 many were arguing for even more stringent restrictions as a way of maintaining the purity of American culture as they understood it. The result of the debate excerpted below was to limit new immigrants to 3 percent of the nationalities represented in the census of 1910. In 1924 immigration was limited even further. -smv"

"April 20, 1921, House of Representatives

{1} MR. [LUCIAN WALTON] PARRISH [D-Tex.]. We should stop immigration entirely until such a time as we can amend our immigration laws and so write them that hereafter no one shall be admitted except he be in full sympathy with our Constitution and laws, willing to declare himself obedient to our flag, and willing to release himself form any obligations he may owe to the flag of the country from which he came.

{2} It is time that we act now, because within a few short years the damage will have been done. The endless tide of immigration will have filled our country with a foreign and unsympathetic element. Those who are out of sympathy with our Constitution and the spirit of our Government will be here in large numbers, and the true spirit of Americanism left us by our fathers will gradually become poisoned by this uncertain element.

{3} The time once was when we welcomed to our shores the oppressed and downtrodden people from all the world, but they came to us because of oppression at home and with the sincere purpose of making true and loyal American citizens, and in truth and in fact they did adapt themselves to our ways of thinking and contributed in a substantial sense to the progress and development that our civilization has made. But that time has passed now; new and strange conditions have arisen in the countries over there; new and strange doctrines are being taught. The Governments of the orient are being overturned and destroyed, and anarchy and bolshevism are threatening the very foundation of many of them and no one can foretell what the future will bring to many of those countries of the Old World now struggling with these problems."...

"May 2, 1921
US Senate

{10} MR. HEFLIN I do not intend to vote for any such proposition. I would like to shut for a time the immigration door. Thousands come here who never take the oath to support our Constitution and to become citizens of the United States. They pay allegiance to some other country while they live upon the substance of our own. They fill places that belong to the loyal wage-earning citizens of America. They preach a doctrine that is dangerous and deadly to our institutions. They are no of service whatever to our people. They constitute a menace and danger to us every day, and I can not understand the seeming indifference that some national lawmakers exhibit upon this serious subject. This very question of immigration is the most vital question that affects us to-day.

{11} Senators, if we permit this thing to go on the day is coming when you can draw a line through the United States and ask the native stock to get on one side and the foreign born on the other and they will outnumber us. They will be in the majority.... 

{12} MR. WILLIAMS. The Senator speaks about the day coming when they will outnumber us. The day has already come, has it not, when they hold the balance of power and can decide a national election?

{13} MR. HEFLIN That is true, absolutely true. They can get us divided on any great issue and get their forces in compact, concrete form and hold the balance of power and decide issues that affect the conduct and the life of the United States Government....

{14} Mr. President, I want to suggest to the Senator from Rhode Island and to others on the other side that I hear a great deal said about protecting American labor against the cheap labor of Europe; that the standard of living is so much higher here,

{15} American labor can not compete with cheap labor of Europe. I could never understand why you would build a tariff wall between the products of the cheap labor of Europe and the United States and then throw the doors to America open to thousands of cheap European laborers to come here and compete with American labor. Yes, come here and compete with the loyal American citizen who has a wife and children to support. If you want to protect these men, protect them by keeping out those who work for starvation wages and spread their dangerous doctrines around the industrial establishments of our country, and take the places of our men, and get money that ought to be going into the pockets of the loyal wage earners of America.

{16}...Senators, the time has come to stop this thing. We are seeking to keep these people out."...


Added: The US Immigration Act of 1921 established a "quota system that would last, virtually unchanged, until 1965:" 

"The Regulated Economy: A Historical Approach to Political Economy,"  Univ. of Chicago Press, Jan. 1994, National Bureau of Economic Research

Chapter 7, "The political economy of immigration in the United States, 1890 to 1921," Claudia Goldin

Introduction, 7.1: "With the passage of the Emergency Quota Act in May 1921 the era of open immigration to the United States came to an abrupt end.' The American policy of virtually unrestricted European immigration was transformed, almost overnight, to a quota system that would last, virtually unchanged, until 1965"...


. . . .

In 1920, US needed immigrant labor to do hard jobs 2nd generation Americans just wouldn't do, per Congressman Rowe: We need men to work on farms, we need competent women to do housework, and in Europe there are men and women willing to do these jobs in America. US immigration quotas remained unchanged from 1921 to 1965

The US Immigration Act of 1921 established a "quota system that would last, virtually unchanged, until 1965"...
Dec. 10, 1920, "Congressional Debate on Immigration Restriction (1921) Excerpts" (Hanover College, Indiana)

"Congress imposed a literacy test and other restrictions on immigration during World War I. By 1921 many were arguing for even more stringent restrictions as a way of maintaining the purity of American culture as they understood it. The result of the debate excerpted below was to limit new immigrants to 3 percent of the nationalities represented in the census of 1910. In 1924 immigration was limited even further. -smv"

{17} MR. [FREDERICK W.] ROWE [R.-N.Y.]. Mr. Chairman...

{18} The fact is that in this country we need laboring men and women of certain-classes. We are paying now in the city of New York for ordinary shovelers to dig trenches in which to lay a sewer or a water pipe from $4.50 to $6 a day. We are paying from $6 to $9 a-day for hod carriers. It is not because we have not plenty of men in this country. The fact is that our people of the second generation in this country will not carry a hod or dig a trench. We need the men on the farms. We have a great need in this country of competent women to do housework, and there are in Europe men who are willing to do this hard work in America and women who are capable and willing to do the housework. I believe in restrictions. I would have a very careful examination. I would not have it made under labor-union organizations. They represent only about one-ninth of the laboring men in this country. They should not have the power of saying who shall come and how the laws of this country shall be administered in respect to who is to be permitted to come into the Nation. I want to have restrictions. I think that for a limited time we might stop immigration in this country long enough so that Ellis Island may be made a proper place in which to receive all of the immigrants who desire to come into the country."...


Added: "The Regulated Economy: A Historical Approach to Political Economy,"  Univ. of Chicago Press, Jan. 1994, National Bureau of Economic Research

Chapter 7, "The political economy of immigration in the United States, 1890 to 1921," Claudia Goldin

Introduction, 7.1: "With the passage of the Emergency Quota Act in May 1921 the era of open immigration to the United States came to an abrupt end.' The American policy of virtually unrestricted European immigration was transformed, almost overnight, to a quota system that would last, virtually unchanged, until 1965"...


Trump supporter 'in heaven' watching speech and rally in Phoenix, Arizona, Tuesday, 8/22/17

8/22/17, "President Trump MAGA Rally, Phoenix Arizona – 9:00pm EDT Livestream," tcth, sundance

Among comments to post
Curry Worsham says:

Above, Fred and Ginger gif

"Tonight President Donald Trump will hold a MAGA rally at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, AZ.  The event is scheduled for 7:00pm Mountain Time/10:00pm Eastern."...




Tuesday, August 22, 2017

Fact check on Politico: It's Donald Trump's party now. The US likes other countries to have 'regime change,' right? So the Republican Party had stunning, historic regime change. Politico's GOP E pals are generals without armies. Trump is the only elected Republican with an army. If GOP E is "walking on eggshells" they should relax. It's over, and they lost

8/22/17, "GOP on eggshells as Trump storms into Phoenix," Politico, Alex Isenstadt

No need for GOP E to be on"eggshells:" It was over last year and they lost to Trump in a landslide, "in testimony to how thoroughly they [voters] reject the Republican politicians who betrayed them."...(NY Times Editorial Board, 5/3/2016)

Above, headline of NY Times Editorial, posted Tuesday evening May 3, 2016 for Wed., May 4, 2016 print edition 

Even the NY Times Editorial Board was honest enough to admit that the 2016 Republican voters' message "is testimony to how thoroughly they reject the Republican politicians who betrayed them."...

May 3, 2016, By The NY Times Editorial Board: 

"Republican leaders have for years failed to think about much of anything beyond winning the next election. Year after year, the party’s candidates promised help for middle-class people who lost their homes, jobs and savings to recession, who lost limbs and well-being to war, and then did next to nothing.

That Mr. Trump was able to enthrall voters by promising simply to “Make America Great Again” — but offering only xenophobic, isolationist or fantastical ideas — is testimony to how thoroughly they reject the politicians who betrayed them."... 



1/3/17, "Trump utterly gutted the GOP in the primaries. That was the real landslide of 2016."...CNBC, Jake Novak


The next governing coalition that calls itself conservative will have to reflect the views of the pro-Trump voters," Laura Ingraham, NY Times, July 16, 2016 

7/16/2016, "Donald Trump Forces G.O.P. to Choose Between Insularity and Outreach," NY Times, Alexander Burns, Jonathan Martin .......    

"Laura Ingraham, a conservative radio host supportive of Mr. Trump, said the party’s future base would have to be made up of “working-class nationalists,” who have been drawn to Mr. Trump and reject the Bush-era policies around immigration and trade. 

The next governing coalition that calls itself conservative will have to reflect the views of the pro-Trump voters,” she said."...(8 parags. from end)


6/27/2016, "The elites of both parties are, as if by rote, extreme globalists." 

"He managed to prevail—to mount the most astonishingly successful insurgent campaign against a party establishment in our lifetimes....He won the GOP’s untapped residue of nationalist voters, in a system where the elites of both parties are, as if by rote, extreme globalists. He won the support of those who favored changing trade and immigration policies, which, it is increasingly obvious, do not favor the tangible interests of the average American.

He won the backing of those alarmed by a new surge of political correctness, an informal national speech code that seeks to render many legitimate political opinions unsayable. He won the support of white working-class voters whose social and economic position had been declining for a generation."...6/27/16, "Why Trump Wins," "He knows border wars have replaced culture wars." The American Conservative, by Scott McConnell

Added: One year before Trump's inauguration: Jan. 20, 2016, Rush Limbaugh:

"The Republican Party, for whatever reason, refuses to be an opposition party."

1/20/16, "Understanding Trump's Appeal," Rush Limbaugh 

"The Republican Party, for whatever reason, refuses to be an opposition party. The Republican Party refuses to stand up and even make the pretense of trying to stop Barack Obama.  Out in the real world, Barack Obama and the Democrat Party are seen as destroying this country. And not just domestically; they're destroying the military; they're destroying foreign policy. They are nuking up Iran. They are behaving in ways that befriending our enemies and alienating our friends and allies -- and people are at their wits' end.

They [Republican voters] have voted, in large numbers, expecting there to be some opposition and push-back to this. That's the standard, normal procedure in politics. Politics is at least two competing organizations, and the winning organization always faces opposition by the losing organization 'cause it wants to get back in power. Well, the people that vote for Republicans are not seeing any opposition.  They're not seeing any push-back.  In fact, it's even worse than that.  They're seeing the Republican Party agree with the Democrats on something as key as open borders.

If there's one thing that people in this country think is responsible for the direct hit on the economy and their future and their kids' future, it's illegal immigration and the willing importation of unskilled, uneducated, totally dependent people who are gonna be automatic voters for the Democrats, which means this never ends. So they're expecting the Republican Party to stand up and say, "No!" They're expecting the Republican Party to stand up and try to stop it. They're not seeing it. They're at their wits' end.

They have voted.
They've donated.
They've given money when they could afford it.

They have campaigned. They've gotten out the vote. They have shown up as the Tea Party. They've gone to town meetings. They have gone neighborhood door-to-door. They've manned the phone banks. They've done all of that. They've got nothing to show for it except maybe they lose their job, maybe they're cut back to 30 hours, maybe their neighborhood Walmart's closing down.  Everything's caving in on them! They're the ones playing by the rules. They're not cultural perverts. They're not people breaking the law.

They're doing everything they can to play by the rules, and they don't think anybody is standing up for 'em or representing them.

They feel powerless.
They feel like they're being targeted.

They think they're being blamed for whatever's gone wrong in this country that Obama and the Democrats don't like. And they're not to blame. They represent what's great about this country, and they're being winnowed out. Well, it only stands to reason that when somebody comes along and lets them know that he agrees with that -- and these days are over and we're gonna make this country great again and you're gonna help me do it -- and we're together gonna make this country great, I guarantee you that is a magnet that no Republican, conservative, expert, think tank, whatever, can stop.

It's not hard to understand this at all. Except the Republican Party I don't think understands what is animating and motivating their base supporters. They're not worried about the Republican Party future. They're not worried about the image of the Republican Party, not worried about the media liking them.  They're not worried about money being donated. They're worried about their country. They oppose, stridently, the modern-day Democrat Party. They oppose the policies of Barack Hussein O. It isn't personal.

They just don't like what's happening. They don't like the out-of-control spending. They don't like $4.5 trillion printed and given to Wall Street, and here's Wall Street squandering it now! They don't like any of this.  Somebody comes along and says, "I don't either. You know what? We're gonna work together, and we're gonna make this country great again. We got stupid people running it." Well, Trump's not criticizing Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives. He's criticizing stupid people."...


Rush Limbaugh "Related links'"

Trump is a wimp in comparison to Obama who in his last year dropped 26,171 bombs-3 every hour, 24 hours a day-John Pilger, Consortium News

8/4/17, "How the World May End," John Pilger, Consortium News

"In his last year, according to a Council on Foreign Relations study, Obama, the “reluctant liberal warrior,” dropped 26,171 bombs – three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day. Having pledged to help “rid the world” of nuclear weapons, the Nobel Peace Laureate built more nuclear warheads than any president since the Cold War. 

Trump is a wimp by comparison. It was Obama – with his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at his side – who destroyed Libya as a modern state and launched the human stampede to Europe. At home, immigration groups knew him as the “deporter-in-chief.” 

One of Obama’s last acts as president was to sign a bill that handed a record $618 billion to the Pentagon, reflecting the soaring ascendancy of fascist militarism in the governance of the United States. Trump has endorsed this. 

Buried in the detail was the establishment of a “Center for Information Analysis and Response.” This is a ministry of truth. It is tasked with providing an “official narrative of facts” that will prepare us for the real possibility of nuclear war if we allow it." (end of article)

"John Pilger is an Australian-British journalist based in London. Pilger’s Web site is: His new film, “The Coming War on China,” is available in the U.S. from"


Sunday, August 20, 2017

During 2016 campaign GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan told fellow Republicans Trump had no chance to win, just give up on him. Ryan also protected IRS commissioner who used government power to silence conservative groups-Town Hall, Rep. Louis Gohmert statements

7/6/17, "GOP Senator [Pat Toomey]Explains Party’s Disarray: Nobody Expected Trump to Win," New York Magazine Daily Intelligencer, Ed Kilgore

8/20/17, "Gohmert: During the Campaign, Paul Ryan Told Us to 'Keep President Hillary Clinton Accountable'," Courtney O'Brien

"Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) has revealed that during the 2016 presidential campaign, House Speaker Paul Ryan told him and his fellow Republicans to give up on Donald Trump's campaign and just focus their energy on keeping "President Hillary Clinton accountable." According to Ryan, the Republicans had no chance at the White House, so at the very least they should try to retain their House majority.

The directive came during a conference call, Gohmert told The Daily Caller in a video interview and then confirmed again during his appearance on "Fox and Friends" Sunday.

The Texas Republican, as you can imagine, was not thrilled with Ryan's suggestion.

“Are you crazy? We haven’t held anyone accountable. You haven’t even let us hold the IRS commissioner accountable [for using government power to harm President Obama’s political adversaries],” 
an astonished Gohmert said to the speaker on a call.Speaker Ryan has not been conservatives' favorite leader as of late. By late May last year, he had still not properly endorsed Trump, though by then it was clear he was going to be the Republican presidential candidate. Ryan was just "not ready" to offer his support, he told CNN's Jake Tapper.

Gohmert has also spoken out against Ryan in regards to the now failed effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. During the House Freedom Caucus's discussions with the White House, the Texan claims that the conservative group was nearly ready to strike a deal with the president, but Ryan and then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus advised Trump not to."


Added: Republicans didn't expect Trump to win:

7/6/17, "GOP Senator Explains Party’s Disarray: Nobody Expected Trump to Win," New York Magazine's Daily Intelligencer, Ed Kilgore

"Sen. Patrick J. Toomey offered a simple, remarkable explanation this week for why Republicans have struggled so mightily to find a way to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Look, I didn’t expect Donald Trump to win, I think most of my colleagues didn’t, so we didn’t expect to be in this situation, the Pennsylvania Republican said Wednesday night during a meeting with voters hosted by four ABC affiliates across his state.

According to the Washington Post’s Paul Kane, this is almost certainly why congressional Republicans agreed upon a “repeal and delay” strategy for dealing with Obamacare soon after the election:

"They had no real clue how to do anything else. But the lack of advance planning has also been evident in the inability of Republicans in the Executive and Legislative branches to reach any kind of agreement on how to proceed with other very basic agenda items — also achievable without Democratic votes — like “tax reform” and the federal budget."... 



Ann Coulter: Trump has chosen to surround himself with Goldman Sachs and the ruling class. This is the exact opposite of what his voters had reason to expect. As far as we know, Goldman Sachs doesn't want to end NAFTA or build a wall

8/19/17, "Ann Coulter Rips into Trump For Bannon Firing, Favoring 'Fake News Media' Over Conservative," Content originally published at, via zero hedge

"Ann Coulter, the conservative firebrand who predicted Trump would win, much to the cackling laughter of the Bill Maher audience and panel, railed against Trump in an interview with Mark Simone.

Sounding despondent and admittedly 'depressed' over the recent firing of Steve Bannon, Coulter lashed out at the President, saying 'it's not a good idea to let the media know to manipulate him as President.' Coulter was referencing Trump's defensive posture and annoyance that Bannon had been credited with Trump's election win. Over the past half year, the media, including comedy outlets, had lampooned Trump and Bannon -- painting Bannon as the true, yet sinister, mastermind behind Trump's success.

Coulter almost pined for the campaign era days of Trump, reflectively saying 'finally, after 30 years, we're gonna get a President not controlled by Goldman Sachs,' making reference to the Goldman alumni stacking Trump's cabinet.

Coulter threw down the gauntlet to Trump, saying,  "if you really want to prove to us that Bannon had nothing to do with winning the nomination and then winning the Presidency, what you really want to do now is pedal to the metal on raising taxes on Wall Street (carried interest loophole), start deporting illegals, end NAFTA, bring the jobs back and build the wall."

Ann furthered, "and if he does all those things, okay, I'll say 'My gosh Mr. President you're right. Steve Bannon had nothing to do with your success.'"

The reason why she's depressed over Bannon's departure likely stems from the fact that all loyalists from inside the campaign, save Conway and Miller, have been purged from the White House.

"People like us should be a little depressed today because there's no one on the President's side in the White House anymore. "
She summed up Trump's isolation succinctly, 'it's just you in the White House surrounded by the people you hired from Goldman Sachs. Don't you want to have one guy in the White House on your side?'

Ann then ripped Trump to shreds for calling out 'fake news media' and then giving them exclusive access to him, saying 'he's calling Maggie Haberman (NY Times) everyday.'

"Why isn't he giving all his interviews to Breitbart, Daily Caller? Why isn't he directing his communications director, or press secretary, to call on the conservative media. No, the conservative media is totally dissed in the press briefing room."
In short...

"He's surrounded himself with the ruling class." -- Ann Coulter"...

Comment: Trump said he wasn't beholden to special interests but that wasn't true. His special interests are Ivanka and Jared Kushner who are in the White House every day. Their deeply held globalist-left views align with those held by George Soros, Jamie Gorelick, the EU, and Goldman Sachs. Rather than ending NAFTA Trump is extending it. He tells us now we don't need much of a Wall after all.


Saturday, August 19, 2017

Washington Post attacks The Nation for being intellectually honest about ongoing Russia 'hacking' conspiracy theory being used to convince US taxpayers to bomb Russia-Disobedient Media...(Washington Post wants so badly for US taxpayers to bomb Russia it's spun a conspiracy theory that to this day lacks a single person stepping forward with evidence proving how Wikileaks got DNC emails)

8/17/17, "The Washington Post Attacks The Nation For Intellectual Honesty," Disobedient Media, Elizabeth Vos 

"Disobedient Media has previously reported on the Guccifer 2.0 persona as analyzed by Adam Carter, and the NGP-VAN metadata analysis performed by The Forensicator. Disobedient Media was the first outlet to report on the findings published by the Forensicator, which found that the NGP-VAN files published by the Guccifer 2.0 persona last summer were most likely locally copied in the East Coast of the U.S., as opposed to hacked. We have been very happy that some legacy media has begun to report on this important story, and that the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) used the information provided by the Forensicator as the basis for their memorandum to President Trump. Outlets such as The Nation, Salon and Bloomberg have given the issue very fair coverage.

Some establishment press, including the Washington Post, New York Magazine and The Hill have provided very biased reports on the matter. Disobedient Media previously reported the attack on the part of New York Magazine against Patrick Lawrence of The Nation.

It has also emerged today that Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks may settle the matter by revealing additional information which would prove the DNC was never hacked by Russia or any other entity. If this takes place, it would not only put an end to increasing U.S. tension with Russia, but would reveal the depth of corruption to which the DNC has sunk, not only as revealed in the content of the DNC emails, but in the prolonged efforts to hide the true origins of this information. To be very clear, the information received by Wikileaks is very likely not the same data that is examined in the Forensicator‘s analysis. 

Adam Carter has also responded to dishonest legacy media coverage of this topic, with an article specifically refuting a number of points made by the New York Magazine. Carter wrote: “Feldman saw fit to omit critical qualifiers that were actually in Lawrence’s article, so, while Feldman’s misrepresentation of the argument was bizarre, the original argument was not.”

The Washington Post also published an article on the Forensicator‘s work, admonishing The Nation’s Patrick Lawrence for his report on the subject. In doing so, the Washington Post makes a number of false and misleading statements regarding The Nation’s report as well as claims made in the Forensicator’s analysis. The Washington Post article even goes so far as to insult The Nation for engaging in ‘an intellectual free-for-all.’ 

That freedom of thought would be hurled as an insult by the outlet which broke the Watergate scandal, towards the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in America, is a severe indictment against the current state of legacy media integrity.

The Washington Post wrote of the Forensicator’s analysis:

“the piece relies to a significant degree on a finding that hackers working remotely couldn’t possibly have downloaded all the information that they allegedly secured and passed along to WikiLeaks.

The Forensicator never made the statement that this was impossible, only very unlikely. Additionally, his analysis has nothing to do with files which were later published by Wikileaks. Discussion of the Guccifer 2.0 persona’s publication of the NGP-VAN files – which are the subject of the Forensicator’s analysis – are completely separate from any information received by Wikileaks in whatever fashion.

This focus purely on dismissing transfer speeds leaves out a whole host of technical details which provide a strong indication that the most likely explanation for the metadata from the NGP-VAN files is that the information was locally copied on the East Coast of the US, in the physical presence of a computer which had access to DNC data. The Forensicator never claimed to have proven that the information was leaked by an insider. Gross misrepresentations of the Forensicator‘s findings are the latest in a string of legacy media debacles which have unfolded during months of repetitious Russian hacking claims, including the infamous, falsified ‘pissgate‘ dossier. 

The discussion at hand is not in regards to Wikileak’s source; it is a discussion about whether the information published by Guccifer 2.0  was the result of a hack, as the Guccifer 2.0 persona claimed responsibility for hacking the DNC.

At this point there is no publicly available evidence which would indicate the DNC was ever hacked, and authorities have still, to date, not examined the DNC servers. Despite this deeply concerning lack of evidence, Guccifer 2.0 is still referenced as having “hacked” the DNC.

The Forensicator, Disobedient Media, The Nation and others who have honestly reported on this issue have stated explicitly that the metadata in question was only relevant to the Guccifer 2.0 persona’s publication of the NGP-VAN files, and should be understood separately from data which made its way to Wikileaks for eventual publication as the DNC emails. When the Washington Post sarcastically portrays the analysis as having claimed that the DNC was never hacked, the Post’s statement is completely incorrect and mischaracterizes the report entirely. However, should Julian Assange reveal more evidence that the DNC was never hacked, then the argument that there is ‘no proof’ would be utterly nullified.

The Washington Post cites an article published by New York Magazine which was extremely biased in its coverage of this topic, going so far as to stoop to character attacks while providing no substantial evidence to counter the Forensicator’s report. Disobedient Media has reported on New York Magazine‘s disgraceful attack on The Nation.

Worse, The Washington Post then attacks The Nation on the grounds that Breitbart had published a positive article regarding the story written by Lawrence. This is a framing device, where the Post implies that The Nation and the substance of its content is tainted by the reaction of separate outlets. In this way, the content of the report itself is disingenuously framed as ‘tainted’ by the opinions of individuals or groups who had nothing to do with writing the article. 

As Lawrence specifically pointed out in his article, Disobedient Media was the first outlet to report on this story. We are an independent entity, which focuses on being factual, and to the best of our ability we do not engage in politically biased reporting.

The Washington Post‘s report sank lower when it accused The Nation pejoratively of participating in an “intellectual free-for-all.” Such an accusation indicates that intellectual freedom is an insult, and explicitly appears to accuse The Nation of having committed a ‘thought crime,’ in publishing a report which questioned the Crowdstrike’s statement that the DNC was hacked last summer by Russian Hackers.

The lack of journalistic integrity which emerges from The Washington Post’s coverage of this issue would not come as a surprise to most. The Washington Post has been dogged by allegations that it has a conflict of interest when reporting on deep state rhetoric. The Nation related that The Washington Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, had received a $600 million contract from the CIA, saying of the large sum: “That’s at least twice what Bezos paid for the Post this year.”

Independent journalists including Caitlin Johnstone, H.A. Goodman and others have also been deeply critical of the Washington Post’s connection to the CIA. Johnstone wrote

WaPo continues to violate universal journalistic protocol by failing to disclose that its sole owner has received a 600 million dollar contract directly from the CIA, despite the fact that the CIA is mentioned by name no less than 19 times in the article itself….”

The fundamental issue at play in the reporting of this story by The Hill, The Washington Post and New York Magazine is that they have continued to disingenuously portray The Forensicator as having made absolute claims that were never stated in their analysis. These outlets also engage repeatedly in character attacks against  those few who report on the subject honestly, such as The Nation‘s Patrick Lawrence.

This is an important ongoing story, and Disobedient Media will continue to provide coverage as it unfolds."