02/28/17

Fake News Still Lyin’ About The Tea Party

By: Lloyd Marcus

Harriet Baldwin posted on Face Book. “Pisses me off when the alt-left media likens these paid Obama/Soros/Alinsky violent protesters to the Tea Party.”

To Harriet, I say, “Amen sister!”

Folks, I am a black singer/songwriter who has been in the Tea Party from the beginning. In 2008, Our Country Deserves Better PAC invited me on their “Stop Obama” national bus tour. In 2009, I wrote the “American Tea Party Anthem” http://bit.ly/2lr3JZX which I performed at Tea Party rallies on 14 national bus tours with Tea Party Express and others.

It has infuriated me the way the despicable fake news media intentionally branded the salt-of-the-earth good Americans at the rallies a bunch of redneck racists vehemently opposed to America electing its first black president. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Many of those folks at the rallies excitedly voted for Obama assuming it would heal America’s racial divides. They became aware that Obama was the Left’s bait and switch president; running as a moderate – governing like an out-of-control lawless far-left radical.

Folks, Tea Party people are not racist. They love their country. They desire equal justice for all Americans. They do not want government dictating how to raise their kids and micromanaging their lives to achieve the Left’s absurd goal of equal outcomes.

Trump calling out fake news outlets is exhilarating.

Along with media from around the world, CNN was embedded on one of the Tea Party Express tours. The CNN reporter attended 35 rallies for a CNN documentary. I was a headliner, opening every rally, rocking the house with my “American Tea Party Anthem.” I closed every rally with a powerful rendition of “God Bless the USA” in which I invited every veteran in the audience to join me on stage. Audiences spontaneously jumped to their feet, cheering and applauding as vets made their way to the stage. The crowds expressed extra enthusiastic love when a WWII vet made his way or was helped to the stage.

The people loved me and I loved them back because we were united in our love for America and our desire not to see her transformed into a socialist/progressive Godless nation. Rally attendees treated me like a rock star; purchasing my CDs, asking for autographs, asking me to take pictures with their kids.

When the CNN documentary was aired, not one time was my black face shown, nor was black Christian publishers, William and Selena Owens, Kevin Jackson, Herman Cain or other black speakers at the rallies.

Consequently, my 80 year old black dad believed the Tea Party was a bunch of hate-filled scary racist white people because he heard it on CNN. I said, “But dad, I’m on the tour bus and they allow me to ride up front!”

As I said, the complete opposite of the fake news narrative regrading the Tea Party is true.

In Texas at a Tea Party rally, a white cowboy approached me pushing a stroller with two black babies. The proud father of adopted babies from Africa said he and his white wife asked God to give them kids who needed their love. He was excited about his babies soon becoming American citizens.

In Michigan at a rally, a white woman in a wheelchair, spotted me. “Oh my gosh, it’s Lloyd Marcus! Can I please have a picture with you?” The woman’s adult daughter told someone on our staff. “My mom is dying. She said all she wanted to do was meet Lloyd Marcus.”

Tea Party attendees endlessly apologized to me for opposing the first black president. Folks, I could go on and on with fond memories of heartwarming incidents, acts of kindness, love, respect and tearful moments of patriotism.

So, when fake news media goes messin’ with my tea party family, they’re on the fightin’ side of me. The decent, hardworking, orderly and responsible patriots in the Tea Party have been purposely slandered by the fake news media. It is beyond disgusting.

Meanwhile, scum-of-the-earth Black Lives Matter which encourages blacks to kill white people and cops is celebrated in the fake news media. Though unreported, black attacks on whites http://bit.ly/2lIa7vB , ambushes and assassinations of police have skyrocketed. http://usat.ly/2fhaVRR

Since election night when We the People stunned the fake news media by defeating Hillary, Leftists have literally lost their minds with vitriolic hate for us. Obama http://bit.ly/2lAQrL4 and Soros http://bit.ly/2kNYmkt launched violent hate groups and protesters to wreck havoc in our streets to create the illusion that a majority of Americans hate Trump.

And now, fake news media has the nerve to place the Left’s paid deranged, violent and chaos producing thugs on a higher moral level than the Tea Party. Heaven forbid.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Author: “Confessions of a Black Conservative: How the Left has shattered the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Black America.”
Singer/Songwriter and Conservative Activist
[email protected]
http://www.lloydmarcus.com/

02/28/17

THE PRESIDENT PROPOSED SOMETHNG RADICAL YESTERDAY…WHAT ABOUT TODAY

By: Kent Engelke | Capitol Securities

Will the President disappoint? Equities advanced on the premise of tax reform, the details that may be released today. As noted many times, the averages have been buoyed by great expectations of a Trump presidency that lowers regulations, simplifies the tax code, increases infrastructure spending and reduces the size of government.

Commenting on the above, increased infrastructure spending has bipartisan support. What about reducing the size of government?

Yesterday, the President announced his dictum that government agencies reduce their budget, but not in the Washington sense. For most organizations a 10% reduction in spending is a 10% reduction in spending. In Washington a 10% spending cut is historically a 10% reduction in the rate of growth. In other words, it is largely ceremonial.

The President’s spending cut is radical for Washington. He has proposed an actual reduction in spending, not a reduction in the the rate of a spending increase.

How will the bureaucracy respond? Probably disdainfully.

As stated above, many are expecting Trump today to announce his tax reform plans.

I have commented many times that globalism is on death’s bed. Yesterday it received another direct hit as Scotland stated it will vote to leave the United Kingdom. A similar referendum failed in September 2014. I will argue if this plebiscite is passed and if Le Penn is victorious in France, both of which is a distinct possibility, globalism has died a traumatic and swift death. Wow! Talk about the unexpected occurring.

If this does occur, the investing landscape has radically changed where yesterday’s rules no longer apply. Economic nationalism will dictate sovereign’s policies.

This implosion of an economic order coupled with perhaps the ending of a 30-year bull market for sovereign debt has and will continue to create uncertainty. How will such uncertainty be manifested in the markets?

Historically negatively, but again expect the unexpected where growth may exceed forecasts.

There is little to write about on yesterday’s market activity. Equities were flat, treasuries fell, the dollar erased losses as the odds of an interest rate next month rose past 50% and oil advanced to the highest level since July 2015.

Last night the foreign markets were mixed. London was up 0.03%, Paris down 0.05% and Frankfurt down 0.19%. China was up 0.40%, Japan was up 0.06% and Hang Sang was down 0.77%.

The Dow should open quietly lower. The 10-year is unchanged at a 2.36% yield.

02/28/17

Andrew Breitbart, Controversial as Ever Five Years After his Death

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

Wednesday, March 1 marks the fifth anniversary of the death of conservative icon Andrew Breitbart. We think it is important to remember his legacy, as his name is heard often these days, and his influence looms large. For those not familiar with him, Andrew was a larger than life character who figured in the establishment of several prominent media institutions that play significant roles in today’s journalistic landscape. He was first associated with the Drudge Report, famous for scooping Newsweek on its Monica Lewinsky story; The Huffington Post, the very popular leftwing blog; and Breitbart News, from which came the left’s chief bogeyman, and Donald Trump’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon.

Five years after his untimely death, we at Accuracy in Media want to remind people who Breitbart was, and why he is so influential in an age of so much fake news by the mainstream media. AIM presented Andrew with the Reed Irvine Award for Excellence in Journalism in 2010, and he gave an historic speech before a packed room that called out the media for its dishonesty.

“I want to convert these people, not to conservatism,” Breitbart said of the media during his acceptance speech. “[Reporters will] eventually get there if they get to see the facts. I want to hold these people accountable to the standards that they offer at the J school, that is objective journalism.”

Breitbart was greatly concerned about bias in the media. During a 2011 interview on Accuracy in Media’s Take AIM, he spoke extensively about the “Democrat Media Complex.” The extent of cooperation between the media and Democrats was more recently revealed through leaked emails during the 2016 presidential election.

“I’m filling in a void where the mainstream media, the Democrat Media Complex, will not report stories that hurt the Democrat Media Complex,” said Breitbart on Take AIM. “So these are boom times for my site, and the people who are writing for me are passionate citizen-journalists who now realize if Katie Couric’s not going to tell the truth, then we as average citizens—lawyers, doctors and actors, housewives, retired people—can report. They can expose, they can videotape—and it’s the most exciting time in the history of media.”

Matt Gertz of Media Matters, a fringe, left-wing “watchdog” that is really just an attack dog for the Clintons, recently penned a hit job reprinted by Salon about what he sees as the dangers of Breitbart’s legacy.

“Breitbart.com spent years shilling for Trump’s candidacy,” writes Gertz. In particular, in the two years since 2015, “the Republican establishment has been routed by the Breitbart-led forces who pushed Trump to the front of the Republican presidential primary field and supported him at every step of the way,” writes Gertz. “Bannon moved seamlessly from head of Breitbart, to head of Trump’s campaign, to Trump’s top White House aide.”

It is to Breitbart’s credit that left-wing columnists still write reactionary pieces about his movement five years after his death. Media Matters and its founder, David Brock, have come to be viewed as quite an albatross for the Democrats, many of whom would like to see him go away. According to an article last month in The Daily Beast, “Many in the party—Clinton loyalists, Obama veterans, and Bernie supporters alike—talk about the man [David Brock] not as a sought-after ally in the fight against Trumpism, but as a nuisance and a hanger-on, overseeing a colossal waste of cash. And former employees say that he has hurt the cause.”

Breitbart’s enduring legacy is not only the influence that his successors have had on President Trump, but also the influence he has had on the conservative movement as a whole. Breitbart News follows in its founder’s footsteps by offering an incisive alternative to the biased media. Breitbart’s views of the so-called mainstream media certainly belong in today’s discussion about fake news, journalistic bias, and the integrity of reporters. Contrary to Gertz’s negative insinuations, the media’s attempts to delegitimize Trump and his presidency through the use of trivial fact checks, or fake news, must be combatted by new media reporters from organizations such as Breitbart. These conservative writers have the power to push back against the media’s lies and fearmongering.

Andrew was a friend of Accuracy in Media. I conducted what may be the most comprehensive interview covering his background and views of the media. For example, Breitbart contended that “the reason why there are so many default cultural liberals out there is because so few conservatives are willing to go into the liberal world to espouse their point of view.”

“And if you go out there and you fight the fight, you tell the truth, oftentimes you can expose the interviewer—who’s never really been challenged—that he’s a fraud,” Breitbart continued.

“I’m appalled by the Democratic Party as relates to race,” he said during the interview. “For these people, with their track record of enslaving black people, telling them they only have one point of view in this country, while, at the same time, destroying their communities, it’s a crime against humanity—and I’m willing to fight. And if being called a racist for wanting to create a better society where black people have the freedom to think freely, if they want to call me a racist on national TV, I’m going to go there, and I’m going to fight back.”

Ironically, five years later Media Matters is accusing Breitbart reporters of becoming a platform for the alt-right, a code word used by the left to mean racism. Bannon has made clear that he has an entirely different definition for the term. He told The Wall Street Journal, “Our definition of the alt-right is younger people who are anti-globalists, very nationalist, terribly anti-establishment.”

Gertz also criticized Breitbart for his favorable view of Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy, calling Gaffney a “paranoid conspiracy theorist.” Accuracy in Media, and the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi members, are quite aware of liberal columnists’ predilection for labeling conservative messages as conspiracy theories. As for Gaffney, Breitbart had it right, as we have demonstrated, and Media Matters is once again peddling fake news.

“An ascendant Breitbart.com and President Trump are truly Andrew Breitbart’s greatest legacy,” writes Gertz. Actually, Breitbart’s legacy is a burgeoning conservative movement ready to take on a mainstream media which has long since abandoned its objectivity and journalistic standards. And we are proud to stand with him, and to remember this great American.


Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

02/27/17

WILL THE PRESIDENT PUT FORWARD HIS TAX PLAN IN TOMORROW’S ADDRESS?

By: Kent Engelke | Capitol Securities

President Trump addresses a joint session of Congress tomorrow. It has been about 3 weeks since the President stated that there will be “massive tax reform,” the precursor for the recent advance. Will Trump put forward his tax proposals?

As stated many times, the averages have advanced believing the President will be able to pass his legislative agenda, a tall order given the utter rancor in Washington. Business and consumer confidence has also surged because of Trump’s pledge to roll back taxes and regulations.

To write the obvious, the current advance may be the epitome of “buy on rumor and sell on fact” or “averages priced to perfection” for as stated last week, the rally since Trump was elected is the greatest since LBJ’s election. Wow! This is in the face of an Administration that is in total chaos according to The Establishment.

Speaking of confidence, the University of Michigan Confidence Survey dropped from January’s level which was the highest since 2004. February’s level still exceeded the consensus view and is regarded as “very optimistic,” an environment I think is incredible given the utter rancor in the media, politics and in society overall. As inferred, confidence levels are still higher than they were before the election.

There is little I can write about Friday. Markets are vastly overbought, perhaps searching for a catalyst for some much needed profit taking.

What will happen this week?

Last night, the foreign markets were mixed. London was up 0.12%, Paris down 0.06% and Frankfurt up 0.16%t. China was down 0.54%, Japan down 0.91% and Hang Sang down 0.17%.

The Dow should open flat ahead of tomorrow’s speech by the President. The 10-year is off 4/32 to yield 2.32%.

02/27/17

Trump Should “Drain the Swamp” at the FBI Before Terror Strikes Again

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

Bill Gates was recently quoted as saying that bioterrorism could kill more people than nuclear war, but that Western governments are not ready to deal with it. The situation may be worse than he thinks. What stories about his remarks at the Munich Security Conference did not explain is that the FBI has still failed to resolve the question of who carried out the post-9/11 anthrax attacks on America.

Some of the evidence points to al Qaeda, and there are reports that other Islamic terrorist groups, such as ISIS, are now developing biological weapons.

For his part, President Donald Trump is currently engaged in a feud with the FBI over “illegal leaks” that he wants investigated and stopped.

Trump has a right to be concerned, even alarmed. And he certainly has a right to know the full extent of the corruption that ran rampant in the Bureau during its investigation of the post-9/11 anthrax attacks, known as Amerithrax. The gross mishandling of the case serves as an example of how not to conduct a national security investigation involving weapons of mass destruction. It is also a warning that something similar—or perhaps more catastrophic—could happen again unless changes are made at the FBI involving monitoring the activities of jihadist groups on American soil.

We noted at the time that the anthrax letters, which were mailed to American media organizations and two senators, featured the phrases “Death to America,” “Death to Israel,” and “Allah is God.” These were indications that an Islamic extremist had written them. But the FBI dismissed these obvious leads as a diversion intended to falsely blame radical Islam and focus attention away from the real perpetrator, supposedly a right-winger with a military background.

In the end, the FBI says “The Amerithrax Task Force—which consisted of roughly 25 to 30 full-time investigators from the FBI, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and other law enforcement agencies, as well as federal prosecutors from the District of Columbia and the Justice Department’s Counterterrorism Section—expended hundreds of thousands of investigator work hours on this case. Their efforts involved more than 10,000 witness interviews on six different continents, the execution of 80 searches, and the recovery of more than 6,000 items of potential evidence during the course of the investigation. The case involved the issuance of more than 5,750 grand jury subpoenas and the collection of 5,730 environmental samples from 60 site locations. In addition, new scientific methods were developed that ultimately led to the break in the case—methods that could have a far-reaching impact on future investigations.”

Still, independent experts believe the FBI did not solve the case.

While experts believe that al Qaeda was behind the attacks, a story about Bill Gates’ sensational warning about bioterrorism in the British Guardian reported that, “US and UK intelligence agencies have said that Islamic State has been trying to develop biological weapons at its bases in Syria and Iraq.” The publication said, however, that these intelligence agencies “have played down the threat, saying that the terrorists would need people with the necessary skills, good laboratories and a relatively calm environment free from the confusion and chaos of conflict zones.”

Playing down the threat of jihadist bioterrorism is something that U.S. intelligence agencies, led by the FBI, did in the case of the anthrax attacks. In 2010, the FBI officially blamed those attacks, which killed five Americans, on a dead man, U.S. Army scientist Bruce Ivins.

The independent investigators, including historian Kenneth J. Dillon, a former Foreign Service officer and intelligence analyst, and attorney Ross Getman, an expert on al Qaeda’s biowarfare program, are asking President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence to reopen the anthrax mailings investigation. This could lead, Dillon argues, to exonerating an innocent man, identifying the real al-Qaeda perpetrator, and getting to the bottom of what went wrong in America’s premier federal law enforcement agency.

In 2002, then-Rep. Pence wrote a letter asking why international links weren’t being probed in the anthrax mailings.

From the start of the FBI’s inquiry, the Bureau seemed determined to eliminate al Qaeda as a source of the attacks. Former government scientist Dr. Stephen Hatfill’s career was destroyed by the FBI as they sought to frame him. Eventually, the Department of Justice paid Hatfill a multi-million dollar settlement in recognition of the fact that they had persecuted an innocent man.

At the time, Hatfill spoke to an Accuracy in Media conference, focusing on how American reporters were assisting the FBI campaign against him. For example, Pulitzer Prize-winning liberal columnist Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times wrote five columns and thousands of words urging FBI scrutiny of the scientist.

After paying Hatfill a financial settlement, the FBI picked on another alleged villain, Dr. Bruce Ivins, and hounded him until he committed suicide. Ivins had worked at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland.

Federal authorities conceded that al Qaeda planned that its next wave of terrorism after the 9/11 attacks was to be chemical or biological attacks. Medical reports suggested that two of the 9/11 hijackers may have come into contact with anthrax. Yet the FBI consistently diverted attention away from al Qaeda.

There was a chance to review the case in 2010, when bipartisan congressional support was growing for an examination of the FBI’s gross mishandling of the post-9/11 anthrax attacks. But President Barack Obama’s representatives told Congress that the FBI’s conduct shouldn’t be scrutinized.

Historian Dillon notes that Richard Lambert, who headed the FBI’s anthrax investigation from 2002 to 2006, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Tennessee against Attorney General Eric Holder et al. for retaliating against him for his whistleblowing about the FBI’s handling of the case. In his lawsuit, he criticizes the FBI’s efforts to railroad the prosecution of Ivins in the face of daunting exculpatory evidence.

When we asked him for an interview, Lambert declined, saying “All of the information the Justice Department is withholding from the American people is either restricted from disclosure by the Privacy Act, governed by non-disclosure, non-disparagement clauses in other settlement agreements, or classified as national security information. The only avenue for remedying the government’s wealth of material omissions in this case would be through a congressional inquiry.  Although bills have been introduced in the past to establish such an inquiry committee, they never became law.”

The independent investigators believe that Freedom of Information Act requests that are now being stonewalled by the FBI could lead to major breakthroughs and the clearing of Ivins if the FBI is ordered by the Trump administration to cooperate.

In his remarks on possible bioterrorism, Bill Gates said, “Imagine if I told you that somewhere in this world, there’s a weapon that exists—or that could emerge—capable of killing tens of thousands, or millions, of people, bringing economies to a standstill, and throwing nations into chaos. You would say that we need to do everything possible to gather intelligence and develop effective countermeasures to reduce the threat.”

Such a weapon could be in the hands of radical Islamic extremists. But if the FBI still hasn’t solved the matter of the post-9/11 anthrax attacks, what assurance do we have that the Bureau could prevent or solve the next devastating wave of biological attacks?

President Trump and Vice President Pence have every reason in the world to be concerned about what is happening at the FBI. They could, and should, reopen the anthrax investigation. It would be an opportunity to expose and remove the corruption that may remain in the Bureau and makes us vulnerable to another biological terrorist attack.


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected] View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

02/26/17

Watch As Liberal Astroturf at a Town Hall Come Unglued in Louisiana Over Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance [VIDEO]

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

You simply have to see this insanity to believe it. If you did not think the people showing up at Republican town halls across the nation were plants by the Democrats and communists, this should convince you otherwise. Louisiana is a deeply Christian state. Yet, when the leaders of this town hall try to say a prayer at the beginning of the event, they start screaming like demons straight out of hell. It’s very telling. Why security did not put an end to this disrespect and the obviously choreographed disruption, I have no idea.

These people hate Christians and they hate this country. The second video shows the fit they threw when the pledge of allegiance was attempted. You have a woman in a hijab waving a tiny American flag. You have elderly women pitching a fit and demanding they get on with it. You have women and men throughout the audience screaming for people to do their jobs. It’s a total setup from start to finish. This is how communist organizers and agitators attack conservatives.

From The Right Scoop:

Wow, you won’t believe this video. Apparently the far left liberal protesters hate Christianity so much they scream out in horror like demons stuck in a pig when Jesus’ name is mentioned.

Watch below:

This is at a townhall in Louisiana, which is one of the more religious states in the union. How is it that these degenerates freak out at the mere mention of prayer? Pretty disgusting.

El Scoopo sent this to me as evidence that they’re astroturf protesters, which at first I rejected, since you don’t have to be bought off to hate Christianity. BUT, given that it’s in Louisiana where most people aren’t as hostile to the faith, it really makes me wonder.

In any case, not only do these losers recoil at the sound of Christ’s name, but they hate the pledge of allegiance too:

Frankly, I don’t know why the conservatives at this meeting stood for this. If security won’t remove these Marxists, someone should stand up to them even if it gets them arrested. It’s the principle of the thing. You don’t passively sit there and let this crap go on. Either confront them or end the meeting. Better yet, scrub having the town halls. All they are turning into is a platform for radicals.

Anything good or decent is like throwing holy water on these vampiric dissenters. Conservatives and Republicans are going to have to figure out a way to fight the left here strategically and this isn’t it.

Here is some of the vitriol from this group of cretins:

“Pray on your own time!”

“Separation of church and state!”

Video of the event records one woman shouting the name “Lucifer” when the chaplain said God’s name. As a local veteran took the microphone to say the Pledge of Allegiance, the disruptive group booed him as well. Not only did they refuse to stand for the pledge, they yelled “Do your job” and “Get on with it.” One man shouted “Your words run hollow. Your words run hollow.” Sound familiar? These are communists doing this and it needs to stop. It’s straight out of their playbook.

02/24/17

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Receives Some Unwelcome Answers

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

It is becoming increasingly clear that the often oppositional mainstream media will only promote stories which contain an angle designed to make President Donald Trump look bad. That this is the opposite of how President Barack Obama was treated by the media only exposes reporters’ ongoing double standard.

One press narrative is that Trump intends to weaken NATO and will, therefore, place American security and interests—as well as those of our allies—in jeopardy by undermining our international alliances. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, in his February 20 show “Wolf,” repeatedly attempted to bait the secretary general of NATO into criticizing Trump for his promise to insist that NATO allies must pay their fair share of the “common defense.”

“You were with the vice president when he said that the U.S. commitment to NATO is firm,” said Blitzer, referring to Vice President Mike Pence’s speech in Munich last weekend. “Were you reassured by those words?” Refusing to follow Blitzer’s narrative, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that he was reassured.

“Absolutely, because it is a very consistent message,” Stoltenberg said.

In other words, the secretary general was saying that there is no contradiction between Trump’s campaign promises and his actions now. The Trump administration seeks to strengthen NATO, not undermine it.

Stoltenberg continued, “I have heard from President Trump in two phone calls, from the vice president today in Brussels, but also in Munich on Saturday and in meetings with Secretary Mattis, Secretary Kelly, and phone calls with Secretary Tillerson. And the message from all of them is that the United States is strongly committed to the trans-Atlantic alliance, to NATO, and will continue to support us not only in words but also in deeds. Because we see that the United States is now increasing their military presence in Europe in new forces and more equipment.”

Wedded to his media narrative, Blitzer then aired a segment featuring Trump saying, “The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense. And if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.”

“As a candidate for office, President Trump actually called attention repeatedly to the fact that for too long, many of our NATO allies have not been sharing the financial burden,” said White House press secretary Sean Spicer at a February 21 press briefing. “The President looks forward to working closely with NATO to advance our shared objectives. A strong NATO means a safer world.”

In other words, the Trump administration understands the value of NATO, but wants the countries involved to pay their fair share.

But journalists like Blitzer prefer to fearmonger about this administration, and air segments that emphasize the risks of Trump’s actions, rather than the potential rewards of holding other countries accountable. In a related story, The New York Times wrote that “It is a time of great anxiety in Europe, in no small part because of the rise of Mr. Trump, who has brushed aside long-held tenets of American foreign policy.”

It is ironic that the media continually air Trump’s past statements in order to pressure him to either break those promises or recommit to them. Yet Obama was allowed to break his Obamacare promises, most notably his lie that Americans could keep their doctor if they wanted to, and that their costs would decrease for an average family by $2,500 per year.

“But what happens—what happens if they don’t [increase expenditures]?” Blitzer asked Stoltenberg. “You heard the vice president, Mike Pence, say the patience of the American people will not endure forever. What happens, for example, if rich countries, like France, Germany, Italy, Canada, if those countries don’t step up and meet that two percent threshold?”

Stoltenberg replied that his focus “is on ‘what can we do to make sure that we succeed,’” not prepare for the worst. “And we are—it is quite encouraging to see that defense spending has started to increase,” he said. “The picture is still mixed but it’s much better than it was just a year ago.”

After Stoltenberg’s strong performance, Blitzer admitted that NATO countries committing less than two percent of their gross domestic product is “a problem.”

Blitzer appeared stunned and forlorn at these answers. They were clearly not the answers he was expecting to hear. What Blitzer didn’t mention—but Stoltenberg did—is that the 28 member states of NATO committed to spend two percent of their GDP on this alliance back in 2014. So Trump’s policy is to merely hold these countries to the promises that they have already made.

Stoltenberg told CNBC that there had been a four percent increase in European and Canadian spending in 2016. “Meeting the target will take longer for some countries than others, he admitted,” reports CNBC, “and said he was confident all allies will meet the benchmark within a decade, as promised.”

The Cato Institute’s Christopher Preble argues that Trump’s campaign statements may have rattled the NATO members and caused them to “hedge their bets.” In other words, Trump’s tough stance may actually motivate allies to allocate more of their defense budgets to funding NATO—an improvement that would ultimately enhance world security.

Blitzer’s interview with Secretary General Stoltenberg was just another attempt to elicit a soundbite which could be used to embarrass the administration. Members of the media, as they attempt to tarnish Trump’s reputation, fail to consider the ramifications of their bias, and how it might—just as much as Trump’s own potential missteps—harm America’s standing in the world.


Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

02/23/17

THERE IS NO GROUP THINK AT THE FED

By: Kent Engelke | Capitol Securities

In my view, the Minutes from the February 1 FOMC meeting were largely a nonevent. The Committee “expressed confidence” that they can raise interest rates gradually while a hike “fairly soon” might be appropriate to avoid the risk of an overheated economy.

The Minutes revealed a tension between participants who are worried about foot dragging at a time when economic reports report solid versus those who want more clarity and still have some concerns about downside risks.

Perhaps the only certainty is today is different than yesterday, the result of the election, an uncertainty that is weighing upon monetary policy. If rising confidence and reduced regulations/tax reform increases monetary velocity, I reiterate the odds of greater than expected growth increases exponentially.

The corollary is if Trump’s proposals do not become policy, further economic atrophy may occur.

Markets were little changed on the release.

What will happen today?

Last night the foreign markets were down. London was down 0.03%, Paris up 0.19% and Frankfurt down 0.19%. China was down 0.30%, Japan down 0.04% and Hang Sang down 0.36%.

The Dow should open flat. The 10-year is up 5/32 to yield 2.40%.