04/19/17

Liberal Christians Join Anti-Trump Resistance

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

As my colleague Roger Aronoff reports, the media are livid that President Donald Trump is dismantling former President Barack Obama’s “climate change” legacy of deindustrialization and federal government control of energy resources. Meanwhile, factions of the U.S. Catholic Church and some Protestants are brainwashing church members into accepting the non-Christian idea that religious faith involves a belief in an Earth Spirit.

A so-called “Little White Book” was handed out in a number of American Catholic churches on April 16, supposedly to offer reflections based on the Resurrection narrative of the Gospel of Mark. Instead, the book included a number of Marxist sermonettes, such as that the “seven social sins” include “polluting the environment; contributing to widening the divide between rich and poor; excessive wealth; and creating poverty.”

Inside the booklet, Catholics were also told to celebrate “Earth Day” on April 22, practice the “Small is Beautiful” philosophy, and take their cues from Native Americans who “believe in the Great Spirit.”

The “Little White Book,” a publication of the Catholic Diocese of Saginaw, Michigan, is one in a series of booklets, with three million currently in circulation.

The Catholic Diocese of Saginaw created the original “Little Black Book” on the Lenten season, followed by the “Little White Book.” The series is the brainchild of notorious liberal and “gay-friendly” Bishop Kenneth E. Untener.

Exact figures were not available on how many “Little White Books” were distributed in Catholic churches on April 16. But it appears that the church is moving toward the idea of an “Environmental Sabbath,” long popularized by the United Nations. A brochure about the project encouraged children to hold hands around a tree and meditate.

The “Little White Book” highlights the importance of the environmental encyclical “Laudato Si: On Care for our Common Home,” released by the Vatican under the name of Pope Francis and demanding that “technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels—especially coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas—needs to be progressively replaced without delay.”

The “Little White Book” also promotes the work of Fr. Thomas Berry, a New Age figure described as “a major figure in the environmental movement.”

Berry called himself a “geologian,” rather than theologian, and was president of the American Teilhard Association, named after the mystical Jesuit philosopher Teilhard de Chardin. Berry’s books included Evening Thoughts: Reflecting on Earth as Sacred Community, and he is buried at Green Mountain Monastery in Greensboro, Vermont.

Another group, the Catholic Climate Covenant, has denounced President Trump’s “Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” It claims 16 national Catholic partners:

  • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development
  • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: Migration and Refugee Services
  • Catholic Charities USA
  • Catholic Relief Services
  • Catholic Health Association of the United States
  • Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach
  • Conference of Major Superiors of Men
  • Carmelite NGO
  • Catholic Rural Life
  • Franciscan Action Network
  • Global Catholic Climate Movement
  • Holy Name Province, OFM
  • National Council of Catholic Women
  • Leadership Conference of Women Religious
  • Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities
  • Sisters of Mercy of the Americas

But Catholics are not alone in being targeted for action in favor of “climate justice.”

A group called Young Evangelicals for Climate Action has accused President Trump of issuing an executive order that reflects concern for the interests of “energy elites over vulnerable people.” The group even advocates a “climate prayer” for those “being impacted by climate disruption,” whatever that means.

At a background briefing on Trump’s executive order, a senior official explained that “This policy is in keeping with President Trump’s desire to make the United States energy independent.  He believes that we can serve the twin goals of protecting the environment and providing clean air and clean water, getting the EPA back to its core mission, while at the same time, again, moving forward on energy production in the United States. The United States is the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world. We have plenty deposits of coal. We want to look at nuclear, renewables, all of it.  And again, we can do both to serve the environment and increase energy at the same time.”

The Heartland Institute cautions that environmentalists and global warming alarmists will use the upcoming Earth Day to further their agenda by promoting “unsubstantiated claims about looming climate disasters—which the mainstream media promotes as absolute truth without researching and examining the mounds of data that prove otherwise.”

In honor of Earth Day, the group is offering some of its environment and energy publications in a special “Earth Day Bundle” at 22 percent off list price.


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.

04/19/17

So it’s Karen Handel (R) vs. Jon Ossoff (D-poser) in #GA06 June 20

By: Arlen Williams | Gulag Bound

Karen handling the phone

(Georgia, Congressional District 6)  The Marxstream media and other Democratic Party operatives are nervously playing up this special congressional election, the open primary of which closed this April 18. Why? Because it’s there, the election that’s going on. And they’re going to lose in June 20’s 1:1 runoff match. That is, unless some great set of blunders occur.

The fact that Donald Trump won this district by only about one-percent is not a liability; it is of benefit. First, Trump’s result lowered expectations. Second, this district is, relatively speaking, conservative-sensible. This is basically Newt Gingrich’s old constituency. Many here will be interested in electing a Republican, not necessarily to endorse Trump, but to try to temper him and keep him in check!  For instance, classic Georgia-6 voters, like so many conservatives, are happy that a new and improved Obamacare replacement is being negotiated, instead of Trump-Ryan-and-ironically-Price-care. (The reason for the special election is that their Rep. Tom Price, a licensed physician, is now Director of Health and Human Services.)

Democrat Jon Ossoff has just delivered a cardboard cut-out, white boy impression of Barack Obama in his primary night speech. Work on the inflections and hesitations, Jon. He’s being billed as a young outsider by the deceits of the Dems. Actually, he’s a calculating, seasoned, political animal and nothing very special to present for the attempt to depose a hard-R seat in the House.

But, what about Karen Handel? Is she the real thing, or a RINO? She’s as conventionally solid as nearly any  Republican can be and with a nice Southern “populist” twist. Just the kind of Republican to complement The Donald. Here’s some quick and dirty evidence for the clicking.

So my suggestion

Let the Democrats continue to play this election up. Play it up, right back! We’re living and breathing heartily in the time of The Popcorn Presidency, so grab a bowl, sit back and tweet up some Georgia-6 fun, along with @realDonaldTrump, the #MAGA legions, the Tea Party, pro-lifers, a few Kekistanis, whatever they are, on and on. As the man says, this is about… WINNING… for our personal and national sovereignty, and our natural rights (whether Manhattan Man knows what that’s about or not)!

04/18/17

How the Media Try to Lay Waste to the Trump Administration

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

The progressive media, and their left-wing allies, have been on an endless binge of Trump-bashing that began even before Donald Trump took office as president. This Trump derangement syndrome results from the fact that during the campaign, and later when he was elected, Trump took firm hold of the national debate and reshaped it in his image. But progressives have their own dueling national narrative, one which they are trying to reassert through the use of allegations of Russian collusion and through a war on “fake news.”

Nicholas Kristof, in an opinion piece for The New York Times, argues that progressives need to show a greater respect for the citizens who elected Trump. “The blunt truth is that if we care about a progressive agenda, we simply can’t write off 46 percent of the electorate,” he writes. “So by all means stand up to Trump, point out that he’s a charlatan and resist his initiatives. But remember that social progress means winning over voters in flyover country, and that it’s difficult to recruit voters whom you’re simultaneously castigating as despicable, bigoted imbeciles.”

The endless vitriol is not just aimed at Trump voters, but at the President himself. In “Public-School Students Take On Fake News,” The New Yorker magazine describes how an after-school program launched by non-profit Mighty Writers “teaches media literacy to kids.” Media literacy, in this case, means being taught to hate and disparage our President. Annette John-Hall, “a former Philadelphia Inquirer columnist who now reports for public radio,” asked these kids, “When you think about our new President, give me a one-word descriptor.” Some of their responses: “‘Evil.’ ‘Dumb.’ ‘Racist.’ ‘Sexist.’ ‘Disrespectful.’”

The endless news coverage disparaging Trump is clearly working.

According to The New Yorker, John-Hall responded, “There are facts to back up every single word you just used.”

This is nothing but pure indoctrination of future generations under the guise of public service. Our children are being taught not to differentiate between facts and lies, but to blindly repeat radical left-wing dogma.

The war on “fake news” could extend into the censorship of social media. Former Federal Election Commission chair Ann Ravel told a UC Berkeley audience that “We know that there’s a lot of campaigning that’s moved to the Internet, whether it’s through fake news or just outright advertising and there is almost no regulation of this, very little.” In the past, Ravel has called for the regulation of political websites such as The Drudge Report.

“Ravel claimed that the use of Facebook and other social media platforms by political campaigns is a problem,” reports Breitbart News. She also claimed that “by 2020 most of the advertising is going to move from television to the Internet”—i.e., to unregulated space.

But much as Trump, as a candidate, gained free advertising through his appearances on television news networks, the comedy show circuit has become a way to mobilize against his presidency. This is where much fake news exists today, where thinly-disguised vitriol masquerading as comedy or satire is aimed at Trump and his supporters in the name of humor. These comedy hosts can, in the name of levity, repeat any falsehood they fancy and feed it to an unsuspecting audience. On “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Maher’s guest, pro-Trump CNN contributor Jeffrey Lord, said that the Russians didn’t actually interfere with the vote tallies on Election Day. “Unless you can manipulate the votes in the machine, you haven’t done it,” said Lord.

Maher responded that “There are other ways you can affect an election, and one of them is to hack the emails of one side and release those as a slow drip, drip, drip, drip, drip.” When Lord said that the country needed to move forward, Maher replied, “Not if the country is being led by someone who was put there by a foreign power.”

According to Barack Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, there is “no evidence” that the Russians colluded with President Trump to swing the election. And there is no evidence that the Russians interfered with election tallies. Yet allegations of Russian connections have become an article of faith for the mainstream media and liberal comedy hosts. But as we’ve pointed out on many occasions, Hillary Clinton’s financial and business relations with the Russians far exceeded anything that could be attributed to Trump.

CBS’s Stephen Colbert, of late show fame, included a sketch on his show which ended with a setup with “Trump/Putin 2016.” On NBC’s Saturday Night Live, besides Alec Baldwin’s ridiculous caricature of Trump that bears virtually no resemblance to reality, the show continues to parade a shirtless Putin acting as if he is the puppeteer of Trump. They all get in on the act: Samantha Bee, Chelsea Handler, the women of The View. Apparently it’s very good for ratings. And sadly, far too many viewers of these shows think they are getting actual, factual news. In fact, the venomous hatred packaged as clever commentary coming from the likes of Colbert, Maher, SNL and others creates a poisonous atmosphere for discussing serious issues. But, in reality, they aren’t that much different than the prime time line-up on MSNBC or CNN in terms of the hatred and negativity toward Trump.

Peter Weber, writing for The Week, asks, “Will Stephen Colbert lose his mojo when we inevitably get bored with Trump?” Josef Adalian of Vulture tells Weber that Colbert owes his rise in popularity to Trump. “But ‘Trump-related programming with a strong partisan edge is doing spectacularly well right now,’ and it seems clear Trump’s presidency has been ‘a significant factor in pushing Colbert over the top in recent weeks,’” observes Adalian, according to Weber.

And this mindset isn’t confined to just so-called late night and comedy shows. The Hollywood Reporter recently cited many scripted shows—such as Quantico, Madam Secretary, Scandal, and Designated Survivor—that include story lines or characters that are meant to be disparaging to Trump. After eight years of silence while scandal after scandal plagued the Obama administration, though it was rarely reported that way, these Hollywood honchos are feeling all anti-establishment again, and morally superior to boot.

Colbert isn’t just acting like a partisan—he, and other hosts, just make stuff up, sometimes using real headlines. They’re free to do it. Former FEC officials like Ravel shouldn’t look to solve the problem of fake news by censorship and regulating the Internet. There is plenty of fake news still being broadcast and published by mainstream news entities such as CNN, NBC, The New York Times and all the usual suspects. But this fake news, as well as news reporting on the alleged lack of Obama scandals, sells a narrative to the nation that undercuts Trump’s presidency and indoctrinates American citizens.


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.

04/18/17

British Role Confirmed in Trump Spying Scandal

Accuracy in Media

A Special Report from the Accuracy in Media Center for Investigative Journalism; Cliff Kincaid, Director.

The British Guardian posted a report on April 13 claiming that its sources now admit that the British spy agency GCHQ was digitally wiretapping Trump associates, going back to late 2015. This was presumably when the December 2015 Moscow meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Lt. General Michael Flynn took place.

This runs contrary to the blanket nature of the denial insinuated in GCHQ’s carefully-crafted statement of March 17 claiming it was all “nonsense” and “utterly ridiculous” that they conducted surveillance of “thenpresident-elect” Donald Trump (emphasis added). The surveillance went back a year before he became “president-elect.”

President Trump’s claim of being “wire tapped” has been vindicated. Indeed, the surveillance is far more extensive than even he suspected at the time.

Based on the new disclosures, we can safely conclude that the world’s most advanced and extensive system of computerized espionage was indeed used against him and people he worked with, for political purposes, with the knowledge and approval of top Obama officials such as CIA Director John Brennan (one major name implicated by the Guardian).

Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, who said GCHQ was involved in wiretapping Trump, has also vindicated. Fox News owes Napolitano an apology for yanking him off the air for a week for making that “controversial” and now-verified assertion.

Trump Was Right

President Trump stressed the pervasive “extent” of this Obama political “wiretapping” to Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business in an Oval Office interview on April 11 (aired April 12).  “Me and so many other people” surveilled, Trump said. He explained again that he had picked up the “wire tapped” terminology straight from the headline of The New York Times (of January 20) as he has explained before (on March 15; see AIM report).

Now we’re learning that GCHQ did wiretap Trump for a year before the election. “Trump” is, of course, shorthand for Trump associates and possibly Trump himself directly, depending on context. But GCHQ is trying to put a positive spin on what it admits would be illegal spying on U.S. citizens if done by U.S. agencies.

The Guardian’s sources claim a heroic role for the British GCHQ as a courageous “whistleblower” in warning U.S. agencies to “Watch out” about Trump and Russia—but carefully avoiding mention of the U.S.’s NSA, which must be protected at all costs as part of the NSA-GCHQ spy-on-each-other’s-citizens “wiretap shell game.” (See AIM Special Report of March 18).

These sources virtually admit the mutual “wiretap shell game” by inadvertently mentioning the Trump-Russia data was originally passed on to the U.S. by GCHQ as part of a “routine exchange” of intelligence. The use of this term, “exchange,” suggests what we had previously reported—the shell-game “exchange” between the NSA and GCHQ where they can spy on each other’s citizens and deny it all.

British Wiretapping

Past British Prime Ministers have been implicated in various scandals involving wiretaps.  Some have involved the “Echelon” global surveillance system set up by the NSA with its counterparts in the other “Five Eyes” nations—UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  Any one of these countries is able to circumvent domestic laws against spying on their own citizens by asking another Echelon member country to do it for them. This is precisely the “wiretap shell game” used by the Obama administration to have British GCHQ spy on Trump, as outlined by Judge Napolitano and his sources.

To avoid unraveling the longstanding Five Eyes spying “wiretap shell game,” the GCHQ had to pretend they “routinely” came across this Trump-Russia wiretap data “by chance,” unprompted by requests from U.S. agencies (such as the NSA or CIA) or by Obama officials, working outside normal NSA chain of command on Signals Intelligence or SIGINT (as Judge Napolitano reported on March 14).

So the heroic British GCHQ comes to the rescue with conveniently “accidental” (our word) captures of wiretap communications between Trump people and sinister-sounding “Russian intelligence agents,” with the wiretaps sent here to help out the U.S. agencies. We are supposed to believe the U.S. agencies and the Obama White House just passively received this bombshell wiretap data from GCHQ, no questions asked, for over a year from late 2015 to early 2017. (The Guardian has no end date for the surveillance, such as the November 8 election, and indicates continued surveillance into the Trump transition, with the FBI “throwing more resources” into the investigation then.)

Did Obama officials ever say, “Wait! Stop sending us this material, it may be illegal!” It does not appear so. Hence, the questions that have to be asked by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are:

  • Were there requests for more wiretap data on Trump and his team?
  • Were there requests for more complete transcripts, or even voice recordings?

This “alerting” of the U.S. on Trump-Russia communications was needed, according to the Guardian and its U.S. and U.K. intelligence sources, because the U.S. agencies were “asleep” or “untrained,” or were legally prohibited from “examining the private communications of American citizens without warrants.” But to the GCHQ, America is a “foreign” nation and evidently they think they are free to spy on Americans “without warrants.”

Obama’s CIA and the Anti-Trump Task Force

Previous reporting has said that an interagency task force of six U.S. intelligence agencies was set up to investigate the alleged Trump-connected names supposedly discovered in “incidental collection” of digital wiretap surveillance of Russian communications. The six agencies are said to consist of the CIA, NSA, FBI, the Justice Department’s National Security Division, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Treasury Department financial crimes unit.

Until now, no one has known who in the Obama administration set up the task force, who directs it, what its operating directives state, what its activities have entailed, and who it is really accountable to.

But the Guardian is now reporting that it was CIA Director John Brennan who initiated, in about August 2016, what clearly seems to be an illegal domestic investigation of the Trump political campaign, which would be prohibited by the CIA charter.

Reportedly “Brennan used [British] GCHQ information and intelligence from other partners to launch a major interagency investigation.” The infamous fake “Trump dossier” is apparently dragged in too.

Brennan then proceeded to give highly classified “urgent” briefings to individual members of the Congressional “Gang of Eight.” Beginning on about August 25, with then-Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) on that date, CIA chief Brennan claimed that the Russian email hackings of the Democratic National Committee were designed to help Trump win the election, according to The New York Times. These partisan briefings represent the politicization of the CIA under Obama, and are of dubious legality.

In September 2016, this anti-Trump intelligence task force changed the previous “incidental” collection to outright direct targeting of Trump people so that their communications with Russia were “actively monitored,” not merely retrieved retroactively in digital archives with names having to be laboriously “unmasked.” (See also New York Times January 19/20, February 14.)

Unmasking is unnecessary if one starts with the specific names of Trump personnel first, and then flags them for future surveillance, going forward in time. In that case, the “actively monitored” and flagged Trump names automatically trigger alerts in the NSA-GCHQ computers whenever the names turn up. These wiretap reports would then have been submitted to Obama officials at the level of national security adviser Susan Rice and CIA director Brennan, and perhaps to Obama himself.

Interestingly, the Guardian’s sources carefully try to avoid implicating or involving the NSA in GCHQ’s allegedly unprompted reporting on intercepted wiretap data on Trump associates. It’s the “shell game” again with the NSA and GCHQ covering for each other.

British GCHQ Director Implicated

Instead, the Guardian’s anonymous intelligence sources say that then-director of GCHQ Robert Hannigan passed on a top secret “director level” report on Trump-Russia in “summer 2016” to CIA Director John Brennan, rather than to the NSA. However, if GCHQ was using NSA’s digital wiretap facilities to “routinely” spy on Trump people, then the NSA would be implicated by the very arrangement used.

As we predicted at AIM, the unexpected sudden resignation of GCHQ director Hannigan, announced on January 23, makes him the potential villain and scapegoat. Hannigan stayed on his job until his replacement took office on April 7.

In an unprecedented BBC interview on April 5, Hannigan fired a parting shot at the Judge Napolitano and White House reports of his GCHQ’s spying on Trump. Hannigan snidely dismissed the reports, saying, “We get crazy conspiracy theories thrown at us every day. We ignore most of them. On this occasion it was so crazy that we felt we should say so and we have said it’s a ridiculous suggestion.”

The Guardian’s report refutes Hannigan, barely a week after he left office, possibly with official connivance or approval. But why is Hannigan getting being thrown under the bus so soon? Is it fear of the impending findings of U.S. Congressional and official investigations exposing GCHQ?

Such reports in the British press on highly sensitive intelligence matters surely must have been quietly cleared by the British government as a first fallback position on GCHQ spying on Trump. Otherwise the Guardian would be in deep trouble under the UK’s Official Secrets Act and its D-Notice procedure to suppress or censor news stories on secret intelligence matters.

Finally, the British also seem to be trying to spread the blame around to a laundry list of other countries allegedly passing on intelligence about Trump-Russia contacts—Germany, Estonia, Poland, Australia, the Dutch and the French DGSE.

Still, no “smoking gun” has ever been found in any of this wiretap material, for it would already have been leaked like Lt. Gen. Flynn’s fairly benign conversations with the Russian ambassador that got him fired.

Despite the sensational news from The Washington Post that the FBI obtained a FISA warrant to wiretap ex-Trump adviser Carter Page, which may even still be in effect, his “Russian contacts” also seem to be completely ordinary and routine. Page is so confident of his innocence that he has been going on various television news programs to talk openly about his work on Russia, supplying Russian contacts with some of his New York University classroom materials.

To be sure, a certain large percentage of these kinds of business meetings with Russians will turn out to be with undercover Russian intelligence officers—unbeknownst to the Western business and academic people meeting them. The media portray them as suspicious. But this kind of Russian spy game has always been going on since the Cold War and is nothing new.

The FISA warrant, rather than proving any malfeasance by Carter Page—again no “smoking gun”—only adds to the evidence that what President Trump said from the start was true: that Trump and his associates were under electronic surveillance.

Unasked Questions

What do the wiretaps on Trump actually say? The media don’t want to know if the NSA-GCHQ wiretaps actually exonerate President Trump.

One of the advantages of the adversarial system in the courts is that advocates on the opposing side ideally get a fair chance—unlike the one-sided media with journalists who, at the rate of more than 90 percent, contributed to the Hillary Clinton campaign (see this Columbia Journalism Review study of election records).

Questions not asked of Rice or other sources by the media include whether she or other Obama officials “flagged” the unmasked Trump team names for future NSA (or British GCHQ) automatic unmasking and delivery of transcripts and summary reports.

Did the Obama people regularize the “unmasking” so that routinely a new retroactive search was automatically ordered with automatic unmaskings? That would be another way to turn “incidental collection” into an effectively ongoing wiretap order. Did President Obama or Rice or others request actual sound recordings of Trump and others to review?

Did the Obama team “unmask” other presidential candidates and associates besides Trump, such as Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who visited Moscow in December 2015 and dined with Putin? Fox is reporting that Congressional investigators are now looking into whether other presidential candidates and Members of Congress were surveilled too. In 2014, CIA director Brennan was caught red-handed lying to the Senate about the CIA’s criminal hacking of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s computer system.

We are told that many, if not most, of these wiretaps and unmaskings of Trump people were not even wiretaps about Russia or “incidental collection” on legitimate foreign intelligence subjects, though they may have begun that way.

The evidence now indicates that the information was procured for partisan political purposes—to spy on the Trump opposition to Hillary Clinton using the full weight of the U.S. government’s NSA spying apparatus (or NSA facilities used by British GCHQ).

Pompeo Must Clean Out the CIA

Trump’s CIA Director Mike Pompeo is in a position to get to the bottom of this scandal. Yet, on April 13, 2017, in his first public speech as director, he seemed to indicate that the evidence being developed in connection with the CIA’s role in the illegal surveillance of President Trump was going to be ignored or brushed aside. It was a forceful, even strident, defense of the Agency.

“I inherited an Agency that has a real appreciation for the law and for the Constitution,” he claimed. “Despite fictional depictions meant to sell books or box-office tickets, we are not an untethered or rogue agency. So yes, while we have some truly awesome capabilities at our disposal, our officers do not operate in areas or against targets that are rightfully and legally off-limits to us.”

The evidence suggests the opposite. The CIA under Obama’s CIA Director Brennan was involved in illegal surveillance, using those “truly awesome capabilities,” against political targets that should have been off-limits.

One of those targets was the President who appointed Pompeo as CIA director.

Related AIM Special Reports:

Just Who Was the Russian Agent After All?

on April 11, 2017

Watergate-style Wiretapping Confirmed

on April 4, 2017

A Watergate-style Threat to the Democratic Process

on March 18, 2017

How CNN Recycled Last Year’s Fake News

on February 20, 2017

04/18/17

Trevor Loudon condemns #Berkeley thugs: Both sides

By: Trevor Loudon | New Zeal

The “so-called Trump supporters” involved in recent violence in Berkeley are a complete disgrace.

This is an example of a photo being used to discredit President Trump and his supporters via businessinsider.com

There is no doubt that the Antifa people are violent, anti-American cowards. But to march into their “turf” knowing the results would be televised worldwide and inevitably be used to discredit the President’s multitude of decent and responsible supporters, was completely reprehensible.

Full disclosure. I opposed candidate Donald Trump until the last possible minute. After his inauguration, I backed him at several public speeches up until the election, as the only viable alternative to Hillary Clinton.

Since the election, I have also enthusiastically supported President Trump in several public speeches and issued a video America Under Siege:Civil War 2017, exposing the communist and foreign connections of the Anti-Trump protest movement. I supported the recent round of pro-Trump rallies around the country, and was asked to address one of them. I sadly had to decline because I was out of the country at the time.

That said, I am completely disgusted by the behavior of the violent “protesters” who are self proclaimed “Trump supporters” at the now infamous rally in Berkeley.

Was this a rally of peaceful Trump supporters? Or, was it a bunch of thugs looking for a fight? It was in my opinion a deliberate provocation by people who put their own egos above the cause of liberty.

Here are some predictable examples of how leftists are using video from Berkeley to vilify President Trump and his supporters:

These Trump “supporters” have damaged the Trump presidency and have presented every combative journalist around the planet with a perfect weapon to discredit the cause.

The pen is mightier than the sword. Liberty and the Constitution will be restored peacefully in this country…or they will not be restored at all.

04/18/17

Georgia 6th: Amy Kremer Shades of Trump

By: Lloyd Marcus

Among the horde of Republicans running in the Georgia 6th special election, Amy Kremer is by far the true conservative We the People candidate. Through grassroots and the Tea Party, Amy worked her way to national relevance and influence. Amy played a powerful role in electing Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Allen West and other faithful conservatives.

Despite her impressive resume, Amy lacks a political establishment pedigree. Like Trump, Amy is considered an outsider; not willing to play “sell-out-the-voters” ball with the big guys. Consequently, Amy’s campaign has been undermined.

Folks, I have been an activist in the Tea Party movement from its beginning. After Rick Santelli’s 2009 rant leading to the Tea Party insurrection, Amy Kremer was a mom who helped to plan hundreds of April 15th Tea Party rallies.

It was an exciting time; an amazing grassroots spontaneous phenomenon. Huge crowds showed up at Tea Party rallies, attracting worldwide media attention. Some people jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon because they saw an opportunity for fame and riches. Over the years, I have seen patriot pretenders come and go; crash and burn.

Fake news media did everything in its power to destroy the movement by branding us a bunch of redneck racists against the black president. I thought it unwise to aid Leftists’ negative branding by writing about insincere Tea Party opportunists. I kept my pen targeted at defeating our real nemesis, liberal Democrats and their media operatives.

Amy Kremer has remained faithful to the principles and values we shared since day one of the Tea Party movement. She has grown even more passionate about urging the GOP to have the courage to deliver for We the People.

One would assume Republicans would rally behind and celebrate Amy’s passionate commitment to honoring the Constitution, conservatism and making America great again. Such is not the case.

Like Trump, all our patriot sister Amy Kremer has in her corner cheering her on is you and me; We the People. http://amykremerforcongress.com/

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

04/18/17

A Light Volume Rally In A Very Quiet But Nervous Market

By: Kent Engelke | Capitol Securities

Did the markets breathe a general sigh of relief that a major geopolitical event did not occur over the weekend? That was the accepted narrative for yesterday’s light volume advance. I found it disturbing that North Korea is still making bellicose statements, statements that most are taking as bluster.

I ask however, does the Trump administration share the same view? It was reported, albeit unconfirmed, the US is sending two more aircraft carriers to the waters off Korea. Is this the ultimate example of “Battleship Diplomacy?”

I vividly recall examples as to how the markets can be held hostage to every geopolitical event, both real and perceived. The complacency at this juncture is perhaps disturbing especially if Kim Jong Un is indeed this deranged paranoid lunatic as projected, since predicting the true intent of one’s actions in this state is close to impossible.

Markets were also relieved by Chinese data that was slightly better than expected.

Speaking of China, it was reported in the late afternoon that the US has received encouraging signs that China will pressure the Korean regime to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, a catalyst for a further advance.

Earnings season accelerates today. This week, several mega sized firms are posting results including Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, NetFlix and IBM. How will these results be interpreted?

Last night the foreign markets were down. London was down 1.62%, Paris was down 1.18% and Frankfurt was down 0.56%. China was down 0.79%, Japan was closed for a holiday and Hang Sang was down 1.39%.

The Dow should open nominally lower ahead of several earnings that exceeded expectations. The French election on Sunday is beginning to make headline news. Will the populists win another victory or will the establishment prevail? The answer I think is pivotal. The 10-year is up 6/32 to yield 2.23%.

04/17/17

Earnings, Consumer Confidence, Housing Prices and MOAB

By: Kent Engelke | Capitol Securities

Thursday, stronger than expected earnings from two mega sized financials helped boost shares of financial companies. The dollar was little changed and Treasury bonds lower in the wake of the President’s comments on currencies, interest rates and support for FRB Chair Yellen.

Consumer sentiment also rose to a three month high in April and optimism about their current financial situation and the economy reached the strongest point since November 2000, according to the University of Michigan sentiment survey.

What I think is significant in the Michigan data is the “favorable home buying attitude” index is now held by 82% of respondents, the most since 2005 and just below the record of 84% in 1999.

I think this is significant for a number of reasons. First, the 2008-09 crisis started in residential real estate and is perhaps now at its official end. Second, most people judge their net worth not by the value of their stock portfolio, but by the value of their homes, hence a strong rationalization for the highest level of “current financial situation” index since 2000. Finally, the odds now favor an increase in Owners’ Equivalent Rent (OER) or what someone thinks they can rent their homes for if it was indeed a rental.

OER is a major component of all inflationary indices and such has been essentially flat since 2009 after plunging in 2008. This flat lining is a major reason why inflationary expectations have remained “well anchored.” If OER rises, so does inflationary expectations.

Speaking of potential inflationary expectations, weekly jobless claims are the lowest since they reached a 44-year low in the week ended February 25. Wow!

However, during March there was a tempering of wholesale prices as such declined for the first time since August 2016. Seventy-five percent of the decrease in the March PPI however was due to a drop in final demand service (goods manufactured destined to the consumer — includes commodities as oil fell by 2.9% from the previous month).

Trading Friday was initially quiet, so was the conversation until MOAB. Like most, I believe this was dropped to garner the attention of North Korea. However it also lifted the spirits of many of whom I speak with daily, making all us feel like the country is doing something about the deteriorating geopolitical environment.

The US citizenry is not immune to historical precedence. We don’t like being pushed around and taken advantage of, feeling a sense of pride when our country attempts to right a wrong. Yes, some can find fault with this statement, but PC 101 was not offered when I went to college.

Brinkmanship was the cornerstone of American foreign policy for 70 years, a span where global conflagration did not occur (Note: WWII commenced 20 years after WWI… in the Great War, 18 million died… in WWII over 100 million died or about 3.2% of the world’s population was killed).

In my view, MAOB instilled a combination of fear and pride, an event that may boost sentiment further in the immediacy.

This week’s economic and earnings calendar is crowded. Economic releases include retail sales, CPI, manufacturing data, various housing statistics and the Beige Book.

Last night the foreign markets were down. London was down 0.29%, Paris was down 0.59% and Frankfurt was down 0.38%. China was down 0.74%, closed Japan was up 0.11% and Hang Sang closed for a holiday.

The Dow should open nervously lower amid heightened geopolitical unrest. The 10-year is up 6/32 to yield 2.21%.

04/17/17

Patriots vs. Commies: Berkeley Turns Into a War Zone [VIDEO]

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton | Right Wing News

Things got frisky in Berkeley, California Saturday when Antifa leftists and Trump supporters faced off. I believe this is only going to get worse over time and spread. The police basically stood back and did nothing. Both sides got their violence on and it was not pretty. One Trump supporter punched a female leftist in the face. He didn’t hold back either… wonder if he realizes he could have killed her. The Antifa thugs wore coverings over their faces and many were in fact bought and paid for by the radical left. Most are college students who have been taught over and over that Marxists are above others and are morally superior to those on the right.

At least 20 were arrested in the violent standoffs, but not until they had their fun. Berkeley was a war zone this weekend. 11 people were injured, including one officer who inhaled some variant of tear gas. There were hundreds of protesters in the streets and many were armed with one form of weapon or another. The Trump supporters wore helmets and came prepared this time. Police are saying there will be more arrests once they review video and social media of the event. There’s a lot of it out there too. Most officers donned gas masks because of tear gas. Fireworks were thrown into the mass of people and police said that pepper spray was used in the crowd.

From KRON 4:

BERKELEY (KRON) — Twenty people are in custody and 11 people were injured after an enormous group of pro and anti-Trump demonstrators clashed in Berkeley.

Hundreds of President Trump supporters and anti-Trump protesters held dual demonstrations Saturday near the downtown area at 2151 Martin Luther King Jr. Way.

Police expect to make more arrests once they review video and social media evidence.

KRON4 had a team of reporters at Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park, where fights broke out and gas was released on the crowd earlier in the morning.

Those arrested were booked into Santa Rita Jail, according to police.

Due to the release of gas, officers were forced to wear gas masks.

“A large portion of the crowd has now moved into the street and some fights have broken out,” according to Berkeley police. “Currently, Allston Way between Milvia St. and Martin Luther King Jr. Way is blocked.”

Part of the demonstration crowd moved to Shattuck Avenue and Center Street, and these roads were blocked off.

Officers also said they came across several prohibited items including flagpoles, a knife, a stun gun, helmets and signs, and flags attached to poles. Those items were strictly prohibited and officers had confiscated many of them earlier in the day. The Downtown Berkeley BART station was shut down due to a “civil disturbance,” according to BART officials. When officers were asked about the fights, they said they were not at liberty to discuss their tactics. “Our No. 1 goal is to make sure that our community has an opportunity to practice its First Amendment rights,” police Sgt. Andrew Frankel said. But widely circulated video from the scene Saturday showed many Berkeley police officers standing around doing nothing as people literally beat each other into the ground. Several officers said they were ordered to stand down by the Chief of Police.

Within just a few hours of the protests starting it turned violent as Antifa activists threw rocks, used pepper spray and released tear gas at the Trump supporters. Many of the right-wingers wore head and face gear to protect themselves from the expected onslaught and began chanting “Trust fund commies, off our street!” The Trump supporters did not hold back this time and were yelling for the commies to get out of California. Refreshing.

Trump supporters had organized a Patriot Day rally, starring Lauren Southern, a former reporter for conservative Canadian outlet The Rebel Media and Kyle Chapman, a man who achieved Internet stardom as “Based Stickman” after assaulting a member of Antifa with a stick at the March 4th scuffle in Berkeley, among others. This was not a rally or a protest really… it was an all-out brawl. It was total chaos in the streets. Antifa showed up and started the violence, so this can squarely be laid at their feet. But the right decided to dance for a change and boy did they.

Antifa claims to want to stop fascists, but they are the fascists in reality. Every time they appear en masse in black masks, they’re just encouraging millions of Americans to hate them with a burning passion. And Americans are not going to stand passively by while communists run wild in the streets… not anymore.

https://twitter.com/TrumpSuperPAC/status/853357205332131840

04/14/17

Trump Takes on the Obama “Climate Change” Agenda

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

The leftist mainstream media are outraged that President Donald Trump appears to be sticking to his campaign promise to “cancel” U.S. participation in the Paris climate accord. The headline in The Washington Post is “Trump’s energy review blocks Group of Seven from consensus.” Politico’s headline is “Trump’s climate demands roil U.S. allies.” This follows Trump’s recent actions to rescind the foundation of Barack Obama’s climate change obsession.

Once again President Trump is being called a radical, when he is, in fact, restoring common sense to government policy. As Forbes reports, Trump’s recent seven-page executive order “lays the groundwork for rescinding” Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which is currently “suspended by the Supreme Court while a Washington appeals court considers its fate.” While Obama was known for his executive overreach (he lost in the Supreme Court more than any other president, including a record number of unanimous defeats), Trump is scaling back government interference in the marketplace that had been justified in the name of battling climate change.

“And so what President Trump did was he instructed the EPA to begin the process, through the regulatory process, of undoing something that should have been done through the legislature but wasn’t,” argues Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow Chris Horner in a recent radio appearance. “This is the meta issue for the left,” he added. “It gives them what they have been demanding in the name of so many things, in the name of saving the planet.”

As Horner remarked in a 2010 Accuracy in Media Take AIM interview discussing his book, Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America, climate change is “the latest vehicle to organize society.”

“The left’s objective never changes, that is to ‘organize society’ in that creepy Orwellian rhetoric they’ve mastered,” he said. The threat of climate change, thus, is used to rationalize central planning.

Far-left activist Michael Moore tweeted in response to Trump’s executive order that “Historians in the near future will mark today…as the day the extinction of human life on earth began, thanks 2 Donald Trump.” The reception from The New York Times carries similar vitriol; an editorial describes Trump as “anti-science” and “strip[ping] America of its hard-won role as a global leader on climate issues.” This position as global leader was, of course, earned by former President Obama. The editorial is titled, “President Trump Risks the Planet.”

The media are overwhelmingly convinced of climate change’s veracity—or at least they claim to be—often abandoning objectivity in their reporting in order to defend climate science. The Washington Post defended the Democrats’ choice to testify before the House Science Committee last month, climatologist Michael Mann, as “clear and articulate but outnumbered by foes.” In contrast, the Post reports that at the hearing “political theater upstaged almost all productive discussion of science.”

The media have been complicit with radical climatologists such as Mann, calling anyone who opposes the climate change agenda a “skeptic,” a “denier,”—or worse. And it has become popular to compare energy companies to big tobacco, or hype that each year was warmer than the last. This is shaky science, at best.

“The warming trend is over,” said Horner in 2010. “It could resume, but it’s turned to cooling and is predicted to be cooling for several decades now.”

Horner’s comments hold true today. As Marc Morano points out on his Climate Depot website, satellite data indicates that we are in a temperature pause. “The fact that there has been no warming for the last 18 years is a massive blow to the credibility of climate science,” he writes. Other scientists point out that there is little statistical difference between the allegedly warmest years and other years: Morano quotes Dr. David Whitehouse as calling 2016 temperatures “statistically indistinguishable from 2015.” Claims that we are experiencing the hottest years on record are blatantly bogus, and rely on statistically insignificant temperature changes.

Obama’s own appointed undersecretary for science in the Department of Energy for the first two years of his administration, Steven E. Koonin, said that “The Obama administration relentlessly politicized science and it aggressively pushed a campaign about that politicized science.”

ClimateDepot.com is an indispensable website that keeps track of all relevant global warming news, and provides both sides of the debate. One very useful service it provides is the names and quotes from environmentalists, including former “warmists”—global warming believers—such as physicist Freeman Dyson: “An Obama supporter who describes himself as ‘100 per cent Democrat,’ Dyson says he is disappointed that the President ‘chose the wrong side.’ Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, and humanity doesn’t face an existential crisis. Climate change, he tells us, ‘is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?’”

Then there is Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: “Global warming is a non-problem,” he argues. “I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.” He says that “Global warming really has become a new religion,” and that “We have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming.”

Even if the Trump administration kept Obama’s commitments to climate change policy, such measures would have been unlikely to affect global temperatures. Yet the media lauded Obama as keeping the world safe from climate change.

Addressing climate change has been a core goal for the president and netting the Paris climate deal is considered a critical part of his environmental policy legacy,” reported NBC News and Reuters in 2016, in a piece titled, “Obama: Paris Climate Accord Best Possible Shot to ‘Save’ Planet.” This is nonsense. It was just another phony Obama legacy item to check off his list that in reality is far more about the U.S. and other developed nations transferring $100 billion per year to developing countries that make no binding commitments. In addition, it would transfer significant regulatory powers to the UN and other international bodies, none of which would amount to anything measurable or provable in terms of tweaking the global temperature to reach some desired environmental utopian goal.

According to Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), “The Paris agreement also created a United Nations climate slush fund, largely underwritten by American taxpayers. In his final year in office, President Obama contributed $500 million from the State Department to this fund on two separate occasions. He did it without authorization from Congress.”

Also, adds Barrasso, “According to National Economic Research Associates Economic Consulting, if the United States met all of its commitments as part of the Paris climate accord, it would cost the American economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs by 2040.”

Obama designed his climate agenda in a way that touched each facet of the bureaucracy. “There is no single list of those programs or their cost, because President Barack Obama sought to integrate climate programs into everything the federal government did,” writes Christopher Flavelle for Bloomberg. “The goal was to get all agencies to take climate into account, and also make those programs hard to disentangle, according to former members of the administration.” Obama, Flavelle writes, tried to make “climate programs hard for Republicans in Congress to even find.” To that end, an estimated $77 billion was spent from 2008 through 2013, spread over 18 federal agencies.

With this recent executive order, Trump is dismantling another of Obama’s key legacy items, a policy that the media desire to protect from the new Republican president. As with Obamacare and the unsigned Iran deal, the test will be to see whether Trump continues Obama’s disastrous policies or undercuts them. But you can expect that the media will fight every effort to roll back Obama’s legacy.


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.