Title :
link :
Hacks...Investigations...Try This…
‘Nut Job’: New York Times Collaborates with Deep State to Smear Trump Again
by JOEL B. POLLAK
Getty
The New York Times waited until President Donald Trump was safely aloft in Air Force One before publishing its latest “scoop”: that the president told Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in their private meeting on May 10 that former FBI James Comey was a “nut job.”
The Times reports that Trump’s remarks were contained in “a document summarizing the meeting,” which it had not obtained but “which was read to The New York Times by an American official.”
The headline on the Times story claims: “Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation.” However, that is not what Trump actually said, according to the remarks as reported by the Times.
The Times quotes Trump as follows:
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”
Trump appears to be referring to “pressure” in foreign policy. At no point does he say he felt any legal pressure.
The Times includes a comment from White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, who does not dispute that Trump made the comment, but attempts to explain the context: “By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia.”
The Times does not report what else may have been in the document, which would appear to have been classified.
The Times used the same dubious methods in reporting Tuesday that President Trump had “asked” Comey to end the investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
In that story, the Times relied on a Comey “associate” who read from a purported memorandum by Comey, which the newspaper never obtained or verified itself. And it spun Trump’s words as a “request,” when Trump had, in fact, merely said: “I hope you can let this go.”
CNN, predictably, convened a panel of experts immediately after the story was published, all of whom agreed that the Times story provided “bombshell” evidence of obstruction of justice.
Spicer also told the Times: “The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations.”
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Surrender or fight - our country is at stake
President Donald Trump holds his hand over his heart for the U.S. National Anthem as he attends the Coast Guard Academy commencement ceremonies to address the graduating class in New London, Connecticut, U.S. May 17, 2017. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)Republicans, in particular the Trump administration, are approaching a historic decision that will shape America for generations to come.
The endless hostility of the Left, exemplified by violent fascists on college campuses, thugs in the streets, determined disrupters at town hall meetings, and the dishonest elite media are all part of their efforts to defeat the reforms and changes that President Trump was elected to implement.
The constant, anonymous leaks from disgruntled federal bureaucrats aim to provide ammunition for the propaganda news media to press the attack.
The Left’s dance of destruction is stunningly choreographed.
I have been overseas for the last three days, and it has been sickening to see so many foreigners terrified because they unknowingly believe the news media’s false reports and vicious attacks. The only version of President Trump they know is the one portrayed in the 24-hour cesspool of CNN and the daily acrimony of the New York Times. Sadly, our own nation’s news media is doing more to undermine America's image than Al Jazeera or Pravda combined.
As the media continues to serve as a megaphone for the nameless federal employees who have axes to grind, remember that 95 percent of 2016 campaign donations from federal employees went to Hillary Clinton. At the State Department, 99 percent of employees who have supported Clinton, and that figure is 97 percent at the Department of Justice.
Congressional Republicans are rapidly approaching a crossroads. Some have already surrendered by giving up on town hall meetings. Others have accepted the news media's false narrative as the truth. Republicans must decide if they are going to fight for what they believe in or retreat to the tenuous safety of the beltway bubble.
The Trump White House faces an even greater challenge. Trying to reason with, placate, or even respond to the Washington news media is a losing game. Each day, the opposition media is fiercely committed to either magnifying a supposed problem or inventing a new one.
We are today in a one-sided cultural civil war. The Left has picked the battlefield and defined the terms of engagement. If conservatives respond to this aggressive, sometimes violent hostility from the Left with confusion, uncertainty, and appeasement, we are guaranteed to lose the struggle to drain the swamp and reform Washington.
Further, surrendering will destroy America as we know it. Far from making America great again, we will have yielded our country to left-wing thugs, liars, and intimidators.
Those of us who truly want to make America great again have one choice: Fight. Our situation is similar to President Lincoln’s in 1861. He had to make the choice between fighting until he won or giving up on the idea of the United States. Once again, our country is at stake.
Senate Republicans are well-positioned because there are 10 Democratic senators up for reelection in states President Trump won last November. These Democrats should be made to carry the burden of the collapsing ObamaCare system and the pain it is causing in their states. They should be made to own every strand of expensive red tape they vote to keep and every Homeland Security measure they oppose. They should be held accountable for every crime in their states committed by criminal aliens protected by sanctuary city laws.
If Senate Republicans implement an all-out campaign, they could pick up all 10 seats and have the largest GOP majority since the election of 1868.
House Republicans have a more difficult challenge. Political polarization, compounded by a number of incumbents retiring, make it harder for them to expand their majority. But here are some numbers for perspective:
* 12 congressional districts carried by President Trump are currently represented by Democrats.
* These Democrats won by an average of six percent, or just 19,000 votes.
* Four won by less than two points.
On the other hand:
*23 Republicans are in districts won by Secretary Clinton.· They won their races by an average of 12 percent, or 37,000 votes.
* Only one Republican in a Clinton-won district won by less than 2 points.
Defeating the Left's attacks will require House Republicans to engage in significantly more training and planning than they are used to. Most House Republicans have spent their congressional careers in a safe majority. Very few lived through the disaster of 2006, and only a handful of current members were in the so-called permanent minority before 1994.
This House GOP has never faced an all-out political war like this. House Republicans must dramatically reorganize their thinking and restructure their activities – or resign themselves to accepting Speaker Pelosi and the impeachment effort of 2019 (which will be the Democrats’ first priority, should they gain control of the House).
House Republicans must change now. Fighting to retain a majority is far easier than fighting to reclaim it. Remember, before the Contract with America, House Republicans had been in the minority for 40 years.
The Trump White House, however, faces the biggest decisions. Members of the Trump team have used harsh words but timid tactics when dealing with the unending, dishonest, and vicious assaults by the left-wing media.
The President seems to understand how serious and how bad the situation is. He has said:
“As you know I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on earth." Jan. 21, 2017
“But there are some terrible, dishonest people, and they do a tremendous disservice to our country and to our people. A tremendous disservice. They are very dishonest people, and they shouldn’t use sources. They should put the name of the person. You will see stories dry up like you’ve never seen before.” Feb. 24, 2017
“The Washington media is part of the problem. Their priorities are not my priorities, and they're not your priorities," April 29, 2017
When your opponents are "among the most dishonest human beings on earth,” “do a tremendous disservice service to the country,” and are “part of the problem," then you need a strategy and system that is built around that analysis.
The next few months will see one of the greatest decisions in American history. Do we fight to make America great again, or do we surrender to those who claim the elitist power to dictate to the rest of us?
There is no middle ground.
The endless hostility of the Left, exemplified by violent fascists on college campuses, thugs in the streets, determined disrupters at town hall meetings, and the dishonest elite media are all part of their efforts to defeat the reforms and changes that President Trump was elected to implement.
The constant, anonymous leaks from disgruntled federal bureaucrats aim to provide ammunition for the propaganda news media to press the attack.
The Left’s dance of destruction is stunningly choreographed.
I have been overseas for the last three days, and it has been sickening to see so many foreigners terrified because they unknowingly believe the news media’s false reports and vicious attacks. The only version of President Trump they know is the one portrayed in the 24-hour cesspool of CNN and the daily acrimony of the New York Times. Sadly, our own nation’s news media is doing more to undermine America's image than Al Jazeera or Pravda combined.
As the media continues to serve as a megaphone for the nameless federal employees who have axes to grind, remember that 95 percent of 2016 campaign donations from federal employees went to Hillary Clinton. At the State Department, 99 percent of employees who have supported Clinton, and that figure is 97 percent at the Department of Justice.
Congressional Republicans are rapidly approaching a crossroads. Some have already surrendered by giving up on town hall meetings. Others have accepted the news media's false narrative as the truth. Republicans must decide if they are going to fight for what they believe in or retreat to the tenuous safety of the beltway bubble.
The Trump White House faces an even greater challenge. Trying to reason with, placate, or even respond to the Washington news media is a losing game. Each day, the opposition media is fiercely committed to either magnifying a supposed problem or inventing a new one.
We are today in a one-sided cultural civil war. The Left has picked the battlefield and defined the terms of engagement. If conservatives respond to this aggressive, sometimes violent hostility from the Left with confusion, uncertainty, and appeasement, we are guaranteed to lose the struggle to drain the swamp and reform Washington.
Further, surrendering will destroy America as we know it. Far from making America great again, we will have yielded our country to left-wing thugs, liars, and intimidators.
Those of us who truly want to make America great again have one choice: Fight. Our situation is similar to President Lincoln’s in 1861. He had to make the choice between fighting until he won or giving up on the idea of the United States. Once again, our country is at stake.
Senate Republicans are well-positioned because there are 10 Democratic senators up for reelection in states President Trump won last November. These Democrats should be made to carry the burden of the collapsing ObamaCare system and the pain it is causing in their states. They should be made to own every strand of expensive red tape they vote to keep and every Homeland Security measure they oppose. They should be held accountable for every crime in their states committed by criminal aliens protected by sanctuary city laws.
If Senate Republicans implement an all-out campaign, they could pick up all 10 seats and have the largest GOP majority since the election of 1868.
House Republicans have a more difficult challenge. Political polarization, compounded by a number of incumbents retiring, make it harder for them to expand their majority. But here are some numbers for perspective:
* 12 congressional districts carried by President Trump are currently represented by Democrats.
* These Democrats won by an average of six percent, or just 19,000 votes.
* Four won by less than two points.
On the other hand:
*23 Republicans are in districts won by Secretary Clinton.· They won their races by an average of 12 percent, or 37,000 votes.
* Only one Republican in a Clinton-won district won by less than 2 points.
Defeating the Left's attacks will require House Republicans to engage in significantly more training and planning than they are used to. Most House Republicans have spent their congressional careers in a safe majority. Very few lived through the disaster of 2006, and only a handful of current members were in the so-called permanent minority before 1994.
This House GOP has never faced an all-out political war like this. House Republicans must dramatically reorganize their thinking and restructure their activities – or resign themselves to accepting Speaker Pelosi and the impeachment effort of 2019 (which will be the Democrats’ first priority, should they gain control of the House).
House Republicans must change now. Fighting to retain a majority is far easier than fighting to reclaim it. Remember, before the Contract with America, House Republicans had been in the minority for 40 years.
The Trump White House, however, faces the biggest decisions. Members of the Trump team have used harsh words but timid tactics when dealing with the unending, dishonest, and vicious assaults by the left-wing media.
The President seems to understand how serious and how bad the situation is. He has said:
“As you know I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on earth." Jan. 21, 2017
“But there are some terrible, dishonest people, and they do a tremendous disservice to our country and to our people. A tremendous disservice. They are very dishonest people, and they shouldn’t use sources. They should put the name of the person. You will see stories dry up like you’ve never seen before.” Feb. 24, 2017
“The Washington media is part of the problem. Their priorities are not my priorities, and they're not your priorities," April 29, 2017
When your opponents are "among the most dishonest human beings on earth,” “do a tremendous disservice service to the country,” and are “part of the problem," then you need a strategy and system that is built around that analysis.
The next few months will see one of the greatest decisions in American history. Do we fight to make America great again, or do we surrender to those who claim the elitist power to dictate to the rest of us?
There is no middle ground.
Look Who Just Got Caught With Russian Investments
By Kimberly Morin
All the left-wing manufactured outrage over any involvement Trump’s team or himself may have had with Russia gets more hysterical by the day.
It’s interesting that these same leftists who incessantly babble about Russia didn’t mutter a word about Hillary Clinton’s involvement with a uranium deal and Russia with The Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State, isn’t it?
Facts. It appears that U.S. Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) has her own link to the Kremlin she keeps vilifying. She has over $200,000 invested in a fund that has millions invested in Russia. Waters is actually earning money off of investments in the evil empire she keeps tweeting about. From GotNews:
Waters’ 2015 disclosure statement details her family’s investments in BlackRock’s Russia-connected Global Allocation and Balanced funds.
According to GotNews, SEC filings for both of these funds maintain they may invest some of the money into Russian companies. And indeed, they do:
A Sept. 2015 BlackRock Balanced SEC filing reveals her fund’s $2.8 million in obligations to the Russian Federation.
Waters is obsessed with the ‘Kremlin’:
Maxine Waters: Once Trump's links to Russia revealed, GOP won't be able to stand with Trump
The #TrumpRussia story doesn't end w/ Flynn. As I've maintained, we need to keep focus on Page, Manafort, & the rest of the #KremlinKlan
REP. @MAXINEWATERS on #Trump, #Russia, #Flynn and the growing possibility of presidential impeachment #AMJoy
Apparently lining her pockets with money from the ‘Kremlin’ is just fine and dandy though. These loons are still trying to blame Hillary Clinton’s loss on some hysterical fantasy that Trump colluded with Russia to help Clinton lose.
Batshit crazy.
All the left-wing manufactured outrage over any involvement Trump’s team or himself may have had with Russia gets more hysterical by the day.
It’s interesting that these same leftists who incessantly babble about Russia didn’t mutter a word about Hillary Clinton’s involvement with a uranium deal and Russia with The Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State, isn’t it?
It’s interesting that these same leftists who incessantly babble about Russia didn’t mutter a word about Hillary Clinton’s involvement with a uranium deal and Russia with The Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State, isn’t it?
Facts. It appears that U.S. Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) has her own link to the Kremlin she keeps vilifying. She has over $200,000 invested in a fund that has millions invested in Russia. Waters is actually earning money off of investments in the evil empire she keeps tweeting about. From GotNews:
Waters’ 2015 disclosure statement details her family’s investments in BlackRock’s Russia-connected Global Allocation and Balanced funds.tsh*t crazy.
Hoekstra blasts Rosenstein and weak-kneed Republicans for caving to 'fake news' firestorm
Former Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) on Thursday knocked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for buckling to pressure this week and appointing a special counsel to take over control of the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Rosenstein on Wednesday appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller, giving him a broad mandate to investigate any matter he deems relevant.
Hoekstra, who represented Michigan for nine terms and chaired the House Intelligence Committee, said on “The Laura Ingraham Show” that the development is part of a larger problem facing the White House.
“Right now, the swamp in some respects — what’s happened this week — is winning,” he said.
Hoekstra said Attorney General Jeff Sessions set off the chain of events by recusing himself from investigations rising out of the campaigns. He said there was no reason for Sessions to do so since he had nothing to do with Russia.
“It was a cataclysmic mistake. [House Intelligence Committee Chairman] Devin Nunes did the same thing on the House Intel Committee,” he said. “Why did he step out?”
Hoekstra said Republicans tend to think they mollify Democrats by agreeing to some of their demands. But it has the opposite effect, he said.
“You give a little bit, and they’re gonna come back for more and more, because you keep showing weakness … They got what they wanted, and now they’re asking for more,” he said. “Republicans gotta — they need to stand up and fight.”
Hoekstra said Trump’s campaign pledge to “drain the swamp” has left him devoid of skilled operators who understand the ways of Washington.
“He needs some people who have actually been in the swamp and fought in the swamp, who know how to fight in the swamp,” he said. “There are some good people in the swamp who have done it, and they’ve backed them, and they’ve supported him.”
Hoekstra said holdovers from the Obama administration need to go. He said the president has been ill-served by his advisers. He reacted to a New York Times report that White House officials were aware that incoming National Security Adviser Flynn was under investigation and hired him, anyway. That is a failure of staff, Hoekstra said.
“The job of these folks is to protect the president and protect the administration and don’t make these kind of mistakes,” he said.
Hoekstra said administration officials need to push back stronger on stories like a Washington Post report that Trump shared classified information with Russian diplomats in the Oval Office or a New York Times narrative that the president tried to get then-FBI Director James Comey to shut down the Flynn investigation. Both likely were factors in Rosenstein’s decision.
"The bottom line is, the guy responded, really, to fake news from The Washington Post on Monday and The New York Times on Tuesday," he said. "These stories were headline news. Within 24 to 36 hours, they had major holes in these stories. But the narrative had been set that the president had leaked classified information and that there was this secret Comey memo out there."
If Mueller is going to cast a wide net in his probe, Hoekstra said, he ought to investigate Russian ties to the Clinton family. He noted that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed off on the transfer of 20 percent of America's uranium reserves to a Russian-owned company.
"But Republicans aren't even talking about that narrative," he said, adding, "[Democrats have] got all kinds of ties to the Russians."
Mormon Church Pulls Teenagers from Boy Scouts of America
by Kerry Lear
The Boy Scout are just not what they used to be. Perhaps they no longer match Mormon valuesThe Mormon Church, which is the largest sponsor of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA,) announced that the organization will no longer be sponsoring older teenagers to participate in the program.
An estimated 130,000 to 180,000 teenagers in the U.S. and Canada will no longer be enrolled in boy scout programs starting January 2018.
"Instead, Young Men activities will focus on spiritual, social, physical and intellectual outlined by the Church," said officials last week. "These activities are designed to be fun and meaningful and provide opportunities for personal growth and development."
“In most congregations in the United States and Canada, young men ages 14–18 are not being served well by the Varsity or Venturing programs, which have historically been difficult to implement within the Church,” said the church in another statement. “This change will allow youth and leaders to implement a simplified program that meets local needs while providing activities that balance spiritual, social, physical and intellectual development goals for young men.”
This decision comes after the Boy Scouts of America said it would begin accepting members based on their gender identity. Back in 2015, the organization also made a policy change allowing gay troop leaders.
Then the Boy Scouts of America appeased the church by allowing them to appoint leaders based on its own religious and moral values. The Mormon Church opposes same-sex marriages and sees homosexual relationships as a sin.
"While the Boy Scouts of America and society in general move forward to support and include LGBTQ people, sadly the Mormon Church continues to send a damaging message to their own youth that being LGBTQ -- or being an ally to LGBTQ people -- is not of value," said Ellen Kahn, an official at the Human Rights Campaign, linking the decision to the transgender issue. "It is a disservice to their own members, many of whom are moving in the direction of accepting and affirming their LGBTQ children."
But the faith claims the recent decision to pull funding from the older boy scout groups wasn't trigger by that.
“That was not the issue at all,” said Eric Hawkins, a church spokesman in response to a question about if some of the organization's recent policies influenced the church's recent move. “There were decisions made that caused concern, but it allows the church to select leaders consistent with its values.”
Instead, the church is developing an overarching global program for its teenaged members.
"No, this is not the global program, but an important step that addresses an immediate need," writes the church on its website. "Varsity and Venturing programs have been difficult to run effectively on a local level. The Church continues to work toward developing a program for young men and young women globally."
The Mormon church also applauded the Boy Scouts of America in its announcement.
"In every discussion with the Boy Scouts of America, they have expressed a shared desire to do what is best for young men," said Mormon officials. "We are grateful for their continued support with this new change and look forward to continuing our strong relationship in the Cub Scout and Boy Scout programs."
Like most organizations would be if a large amount of funding was to be pulled, the BSA was disappointed.
"Although thousands of youth and leaders who participate in Venturing crews nationwide embrace and support the program, we recognize that not all programs are a perfect fit for all partners," said the BSA in a statement. "The BSA values our ongoing partnership with the LDS Church in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts programming and look forward to our continued efforts to extend the benefits of Scouting to as many youth and families as possible."
Author’s note: The Mormon church has a right to make sure its members are educated according to their own principles. Evidently, the Boy Scouts of America became the victim of political correctness.
Abortion Advocates Claim “Women and Children Will Die” Because Trump Defunded International Planned Parenthood
MICHAEL NEW PH.D.
Earlier this week, the Trump administration released an executive order expanding the Mexico City policy. This policy, first enacted by President Reagan in 1984, prevents overseas government organizations from providing or endorsing abortion as a method of family planning if they wish to receive federal funding from the U.S. The original Mexico City policy applied to the approximately $600 million the U.S. furnishes in global family planning funding, but under the revision, $8.8 billion global health assistance will be covered.
This is a policy change that pro-lifers should welcome. For years, organizations supporting legal abortion have used U.S. taxpayer funds to weaken pro-life laws in other countries. This expanded policy will significantly reduce taxpayer complicity in global abortion. More importantly, the change will not reduce the overall amount of U.S. funding for global health assistance. Instead this rule change will prioritize maternal care, prenatal care, and other programs that ensure adequate nutrition and medical care for mothers and children, rather than abortion.
Unsurprisingly, mainstream media outlets have been nearly unanimous in their criticism of this policy change. The New York Times quoted only critics of the policy in its May 15 article. Slate denounced the decision, stating that President Trump was holding $8.8 billion in global aid “hostage.” The Independent ran a headline saying “Women and Children Will Die.” Even worse, in a May 16 editorial, the Washington Post claimed that the revised policy would “result in at least tens of thousands more deaths.”
These outlandish claims have little basis in fact. Some analysts argue that cutting funding to organizations that perform abortions will reduce access to contraception, resulting in more unintended pregnancies and higher rates of maternal mortality. However, the Washington Post includes only two citations to back up these claims. Neither are convincing.
Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter.
The first citation is to a fact sheet by the advocacy group Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE). The fact sheet relies heavily on an analysis conducted by Marie Stopes International, which claims that the Mexico City policy will result in 6.5 million unintended pregnancies and over 21,000 maternal deaths. However, Marie Stopes is an international abortion provider that stands to lose millions of dollars as the result of the revised policy, which makes it difficult to view the group’s claims without some skepticism.
The second citation is to a policy analysis conducted by the Center for American Progress, linking to a World Health Organization (WHO) fact sheet about maternal mortality. But this WHO fact sheet actually makes no claims about the Mexico City policy itself and its potential effects on maternal-mortality rates.
The Washington Post editorial also claims there is no evidence that the Mexico City policy lowers the incidence of abortion. Once again, they provide weak evidence, linking to just three studies. Two of those studies are largely useless, as they analyze abortion only in Ethiopia and Ghana respectively. The third study, published by WHO, is more comprehensive and looks at abortion rates for 20 African countries over 14 years, but it provides little evidence that the Mexico City policy has actually increased the incidence of abortion. First, contraception use increased in these countries after the policy took effect, which changes abortion rates separate from the policy. Furthermore, the numbers are unreliable because the reporting of abortion-rate data was very inconsistent, as 42 percent of the data points involving national abortion rates are missing.
It should be noted, too, that there is a body of research showing that contraceptive availability has little impact on fertility rates. A 2012 Policy Review study by Nicholas Eberstadt and Apoorva Shah examined fertility rates in over 40 Muslim countries and found a strong correlation between fertility rates and the number of children that women desired. The availability of contraceptives had only a marginal impact on fertility rates.
Similarly, Lant Pritchett’s 1994 study in Population and Development Review of more than 60 less-developed countries found that national fertility rates are principally determined by the desire for children rather than by availability of birth control and abortion. Pritchett concluded that “contraceptive access or family planning effort more generally is not . . . a major factor in determining fertility differences.” It is unfortunate, but unsurprising, that the mainstream media chose instead to report the inflated claims of advocacy groups as fact — instead of taking a hard look at the actual research available on these issues.
LifeNews.com Note: Dr. Michael New is a professor at Ave Maria University. He is a former political science professor at the University of Michigan–Dearborn and holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University. He is a fellow at Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey.
G’ G’day…Ciao…….Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/05/httpift_20.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment