Oct 192017
 

As President Trump sent the press out of the Oval Office, he stopped and dropped a bomb about the ‘Real’ Russia story

Trump Tells Reporters About The 'Real' Russia Story

Trump had finished the press conference and sent away the reporters. The pool cameras were exiting the Oval Office when Trump began to respond vigorously to another question. The cameras spun around and caught Trump eviscerating a question on a Russia Uranium deal approved by the Obama administration.

President Trump told exiting reporters, “I think that’s your Russia story. That’s your real Russia story.” Trump continued and dropped an unexpected bomb on the dumbfounded gaggle of reporters:

“Not a story where they talk about collusion, and there was none, it was a hoax. Your real Russia story is uranium, and how they got all of that uranium. Vast percentage of what we have. That is, to me, one of the big stories of the decade, not just now, of the decade. The problem is that the mainstream media does not want to cover that story because that affects people that they protect. So they don’t like covering that story. But the big story is uranium and how Russia got 20 percent of our uranium, and frankly, it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace. And it’s a disgrace that the fake news won’t cover it. It’s so sad.

Thank you very much, everybody.”

The room was stunned. Watch the moment here:

 

Source…

 

 

 

How RUSSIA BRIBED The US Government Into Selling Uranium

 Political  Comments Off on How RUSSIA BRIBED The US Government Into Selling Uranium
Oct 192017
 

How RUSSIA BRIBED the US Government into selling Uranium. RUSSIA COLLUSION!

How RUSSIA BRIBED the US Government into selling Uranium. RUSSIA COLLUSION!
Click to enlarge

Hilary got millions of $$ via her “Charity” for a bad deal on Uranium while the FBI turned a blind eye on bribery.

From Newsweek:

FBI KEPT RUSSIAN BRIBERY PLOT UNDER WRAPS BEFORE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION APPROVED NUCLEAR DEAL WITH MOSCOW
he Obama administration signed a controversial nuclear deal with Moscow despite prior FBI findings that Russian officials were bribing their way into the U.S. atomic energy industry, according to government documents just published by The Hill.

A confidential U.S. witness deployed by the FBI infiltrated Russia’s nuclear industry and made secret recordings, collected financial records and intercepted emails dating back to 2009 that showed that Moscow engaged in bribery and kickbacks with an American uranium trucking company, documents show.

But the Obama administration insisted no evidence existed of Russian interference and that there were no national security concerns for committee members to go against the deal in 2010.

The deal that boosted Vladimir Putin’s nuclear footprint in the U.S. took place in October 2010 when the State Department and the Committee on Foreign Investment unanimously agreed to a partial sale of Uranium One, a Canadian mining company, to the major Russian nuclear company Rosatom, effectively sending more than 20 percent of the U.S.’s uranium to Moscow.

In 2011, the Obama administration gave the green light for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell uranium to American nuclear power plants. Before the deal, Tenex could only sell reprocessed uranium from dismantled Soviet nuclear firearms to power plants in the U.S.

Russian exortion threats and kickbacks brought legitimate national security concerns, “And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a souce who insisted on anonymity out of fear of retribution told The Hill.

Then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein — who was appointed by President George W. Bush and reappointed by President Barack Obama, and is now President Donald Trump’s deputy attorney general — and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who serves as deputy FBI director under Trump, supervised the investigation, documents show.

FBI agents also gathered documents and a witness account that Russian officials routed millions of dollars to ex-President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sat on a committee that gave a nod to the dealings with Moscow.

Like the Obama administration, the Clintons said there was no evidence to prompt them to go the other way on the Uranium One deal.

The Department of Justice investigated the Russian plot for close to four years, keeping the information under wraps while the Obama administration approved the deal instead of bringing immediate charges.

Previously:

Hillary Clinton Gave The Russians 20 Percent Of The U.S.’ Uranium Supply
Hillary Clinton Requested FBI Director Mueller Deliver Highly Enriched Uranium To Russians In 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New York Times Goes Full Hitler: “Repeal The Second Amendment”

 Political  Comments Off on The New York Times Goes Full Hitler: “Repeal The Second Amendment”
Oct 062017
 

New York Times’ ‘Faux Conservative’ Columnist: “I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.”

The New York Times Goes Full Hitler: "Repeal The Second Amendment"

Yes this is an actual New York Times editorial by a supposed conservative: “Repeal the Second Amendment

Calling to repeal the second amendment is to say that the American people are not sovereign and the Revolutionary War should never have been fought. It’s a rejection of the most fundamental principles of our nation.

A reminder from Freedom Outpost:

Today’s politicians are magnifying the crimes they are placed in office to prevent.

They allow crime to be promoted through entertainment and when the crime is committed, they are there in hopes to grab the guns away.

This is exactly how criminals in government operate. They demonize the gun, not the criminal.

This mentality is like blaming spoons and forks for making people fat, as if to say the act is apart from the actor.

Since corrupt politicians refuse to look at history, which can be at the present our greatest teacher, it is very clear that gun banners know exactly what they are attempting to do -– put the Second Amendment in the crosshairs.

Looking back, who has committed murder in the largest degree? Dictators Adolf Hilter, Mao Tze Tung, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc.

Time and time again it has been a corrupt government who is responsible for the mass murder of their own people under the deceptive guise of “gun control,” all of which the said dictators implemented.

Keep in mind these people promised their citizens protection and freedom upon the forfeiture of their guns.

How many times, I ask, does history need to repeat itself?

Paralleling History

Let’s parallel history with the present ideology and methodology that those in the past blueprinted to implement gun control.

Adolf Hitler at a dinner talk on April 11, 1942 said:

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Joseph Stalin, the sole leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953, said:

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Mao Tze Tung, communist dictator of China said:

“War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Idi Amin, president of Uganda from 1971 to 1979, said:

“I do not want to be controlled by any superpower. I myself consider myself the most powerful figure in the world, and that is why I do not let any superpower control me.”

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Pol Pot, who created in Cambodia one of the 20th century’s most brutal and radical regimes, was responsible for killing one million of his own ‘educated,’ yet unarmed citizens.

Conclusion:

Our forefathers did not arm the American people for the purpose of hunting, but rather to protect themselves from those who were doing the hunting, namely the tyrant King George. The second amendment is only to vouchsafe our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to ensure all of the other rights given unto us by our Creator.

The wisdom of the framers of the Constitution once again is found consistent with the lessons of the Bible they used as their bedrock for civil law. The people’s individual protection should always be a primary concern of government “of the people”. In a righteous country, self-government reigns by the constraint of Christian morals. The civil government that desires such a monopoly of force (i.e. they are the only ones with guns) is a threat to the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, for that government ceases to be “of and for the people.”

George Washington, our first president, said:

“From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”

Gun Control
 

 

 

 

New York Democrat Party Asked Robert Mueller To Recuse Himself In 2006

 Political  Comments Off on New York Democrat Party Asked Robert Mueller To Recuse Himself In 2006
Jun 252017
 

Recusal because of being close to a witness? Good precedent to follow.

 

Spread this everywhere!

New York Democrat Party Asked Mueller To Recuse Himself In 2006

From the New York Times:

The F.B.I. director will not play a role in the inquiry into Decker College, the Kentucky school once run by William F. Weld, because the director and Mr. Weld, a Republican candidate for governor, are friends and former colleagues, an F.B.I. spokesman said yesterday. The New York Post reported the decision by Robert Mueller, the director, yesterday. The New York Democratic Party had asked that Mr. Mueller recuse himself, according to a party spokesman. Mr. Weld has not been accused of any wrongdoing involving Decker, which declared bankruptcy last fall amid allegations of fraud.
PATRICK D. HEALY (NYT)

 
 

Jun 152017
 

An excellent collection of Liberal Media Hypocrisy

 

For the last year, Reddit user City-on-a-hill has been saving images that show the left leaning Mainstream Media’s hypocrisy. This is his FAKE NEWS collection.

 

Pass it on!

via

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias

 Political  Comments Off on Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias
May 192017
 

Harvard Study Proves Trump Was Right About Negative Media Coverage

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias

The Mainstream Media isn’t even pretending to be objective anymore. Fox news at 52% negative and 48% positive… sounds almost balanced in their reporting. They still lean negative though.

From Heat Street:

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

It found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

Fox was ranked 52% negative and 48% positive.

The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.

On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:

The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.

Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.

The picture was very different for other recent administrations. The study found that President Obama’s first 100 got positive good overall – with 59% of reports positive.

Bill Cinton and George W Bush got overall negative coverage, it found, but to a much lesser extent than Trump. Clinton’s first 100 days got 40% positivity, while Bush’s got 43%:

Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility. This study suggests that, at least in recent history, he’s right.

 
 

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Today’s New York Times Front Page

 Political  Comments Off on Media Propaganda Of The Day: Today’s New York Times Front Page
May 022017
 

Today’s New York Times front page shows the horrific picture of the French police officer engulfed in flames from a Molotov Cocktail, but the caption is so strangely generic that you have to wonder if the editors tacitly support the rioters (Spoiler: THEY DO)

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Today's New York Times Front Page

Full PDF scan:
scannat

 

NEW Huma Emails Reveal Clinton MAFIA TACTICS To Bring NYT Reporter David Brooks To Heel

 Political  Comments Off on NEW Huma Emails Reveal Clinton MAFIA TACTICS To Bring NYT Reporter David Brooks To Heel
Apr 032017
 
NEW Huma Emails Reveal Clinton MAFIA TACTICS To Discipline NYT Reporter David Brooks

There is no difference between Democrats, the Obama Administration, the DNC and the vast majority of the Mainstream Media. They all work hand in glove in order to serve themselves.

The swamp must be drained, and this includes the corrupt Mainstream Media.

From iBankCoin:

Recently released Huma Abedin State Department emails – acquired by Judicial Watch via FOIA request, reveal Clinton State Department staff planning to summon New York Times reporter David Brooks for an “OTR” (off the record) conversation over a “shot” he took at Hillary in a Feburary 2010 article. This isn’t the first time we’ve learned of the Democrat apparatus wrapping their tentacles around the MSM, and it’s the second time in weeks Judicial Watch has delivered a bombshell. They’re doing good work.

In summary; Hillary Clinton – code named “Evergreen,” fired off an email on February 9th, 2010 to advisors Philippe Reines and Jake Sullivan regarding an article written by NYT’s David Brooks (links added):

From: Evergreen

To: PIR (Philippe Reines), Jake Sullivan

Subject: David Brooks

“Took a shot at me in his column today. Any ideas what prompted it?”

To which senior advisor Philippe Reines responds:

“Not sure – but this is a good excuse to bring him in for an OTR [off the record] with you. Lona mentioned you wanted to see [NYT Journalist] Tom Friedman – with your ok, we could schedule both (separately) over the next month or so.

I’d very much like to get back in the habit of bringing someone or a small group in every few weeks”

Followed by Jake Sullivan’s response:

Phillippe and I had an offline conversation about this and I agree entirely. I think it makes sense for you to meet with influencers on a regular — though not intrusive — basis. An OTR conversation with you is the best way to help guys like Brooks “figure out” how things work.

So a top Clinton advisor wanted to get ‘back in the habit’ of bringing people or groups in every few weeks? This clearly suggests the Clinton State Dept. was at some point regularly meeting with members of the MSM to discuss content. And how exactly did Hillary, assuming the ‘OTR’ meeting with David Brooks took place, help him to ‘figure out’ how things work?

NEW FOIA Huma Emails Reveal Clinton MAFIA TACTICS To Bring NYT Reporter David Brooks To Heel

 

 

The Mainstream Media Pattern On Trump

 Political  Comments Off on The Mainstream Media Pattern On Trump
Apr 022017
 
The Mainstream Media Pattern On Trump

THE PATTERN:

1) Trump makes a claim.

2) The Mainstream Media declare him crazy.

3) Things happen that prove Trump was right

4) The Mainstream Media yells RUSSIA!

 

 

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Comey Confirms Inquiry On Russia

 Political  Comments Off on Media Propaganda Of The Day: Comey Confirms Inquiry On Russia
Mar 212017
 
New York Times front page: “Comey Confirms Inquiry on Russia and Trump Allies” but “Dismisses a Wiretapping Claim”

 
In the world of “Fake News” wording is everything.

NYTimes front page

 

NSA Director Admiral Rogers says there is no intelligence that votes were changed by Russian involvement in the 2016 elections.

 

The Words Of The New York Times Will Come Back To Haunt Them!

New York Times Wire Tapping
Source… 

Obama’s Treatment Of The Mainstream Media

 Political  Comments Off on Obama’s Treatment Of The Mainstream Media
Feb 252017
 

Remember when Obama framed the Mainstream Media as the opposition party?

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, in a telephone interview on Sunday. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Obama's Treatment Of The Mainstream Media

Attacking the news media is a time-honored White House tactic but to an unusual degree, the Obama administration has narrowed its sights to one specific organization, the Fox News Channel, calling it, in essence, part of the political opposition.

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, in a telephone interview on Sunday. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Her comments are only the latest in the volatile exchange between the administration and the top-rated network, which is owned by the News Corporation, controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Last month, Roger Ailes, the chairman of Fox News, and David Axelrod, a senior adviser to President Obama, met for coffee in New York, in what Politico, which last week broke that news, labeled a “Fox summit.”

While neither party has said what was discussed, some have speculated that a truce, or at least an adjustment in tone, was at issue. (Mr. Ailes and Mr. Obama reportedly reached a temporary accord after a meeting in mid-2008.) But shots are still being fired, which animates the idea that both sides see benefits in the feud.

Fox seems to relish the controversy.

“Instead of governing, the White House continues to be in campaign mode, and Fox News is the target of their attack mentality,” Michael Clemente, the channel’s senior vice president for news, said in a statement on Sunday. “Perhaps the energy would be better spent on the critical issues that voters are worried about.”

Source…

Or how about the time, back in 2008, when OBAMA Kicked reporters off his plane because their papers had endorsed John McCain?

OBAMA Kicked reporters off his plane
 

New York Times Op-Ed Headline: “How Can We Get Rid of Trump?”

 Political  Comments Off on New York Times Op-Ed Headline: “How Can We Get Rid of Trump?”
Feb 202017
 
More Proof That The Mainstream Media Works For The Democrats and Is The Enemy Of The People.

New York Times Op-Ed Headline: "How Can We Get Rid of Trump?"

The real question is: How can we get rid of the New York Times?

We’re just a month into the Trump presidency, and already so many are wondering: How can we end it?

One poll from Public Policy Polling found that as many Americans — 46 percent — favor impeachment of President Trump as oppose it. Ladbrokes, the betting website, offers even odds that Trump will resign or leave office through impeachment before his term ends.

Sky Bet, another site, is taking wagers on whether Trump will be out of office by July.

There have been more than 1,000 references to “Watergate” in the news media in the last week, according to the Nexis archival site, with even some conservatives calling for Trump’s resignation or warning that he could be pushed out. Dan Rather, the former CBS News anchor who covered Watergate, says that Trump’s Russia scandal isn’t now at the level of Watergate but could become at least as big.

Maybe things will settle down. But what is striking about Trump is not just the dysfunction of his administration but also the — vigorously denied — allegations that Trump’s team may have cooperated with Vladimir Putin to steal the election. What’s also different is the broad concern that Trump is both: 1) unfit for office, and 2) dangerously unstable. One pro-American leader in a foreign country called me up the other day and skipped the preliminaries, starting with: “What the [expletive] is wrong with your country?”

So let’s investigate: Is there any way out?

Read more of this bias crap…

Lets just keep calling the The Mainstream Media what it is “Very Fake News”. Expose their lies and screw ups so the rest of the world can see them too. When you smash their credibility it doesn’t matter what they say; no one will care.

 

Syrians in Aleppo Chanting: “Clinton, you cow, leave us alone”

 Political  Comments Off on Syrians in Aleppo Chanting: “Clinton, you cow, leave us alone”
Dec 212016
 

Your government is lying to you.

Streamable mirror.

Previously:
What’s Really Going On In Syria? Are We Being Lied To?

 

Dec 182016
 

What's Really Going On In Syria?

What’s really happening in Syria? Hint: Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and the Mainstream Media have been lying to us.

Eva Bartlett is an independent journalist from Canada. She has traveled to Syria many times to investigate human rights violations and terrorism against Syrians. What she has found out is a truth completely opposite of what the Mainstream Media and governments claim, i.e. “Fake News”.

During a United Nations press conference, Bartlett sharply criticized Western governments, particularly the United States, for their efforts to effect regime change in Syria. Contrary to the Western narrative, she said, the people of Syria do not want a regime change. During her travels to and around the country, she had talked to Syrians, who widely expressed support for President Bashar al-Assad, whose army is battling a number of Western-backed terrorist groups.

Watch the video below to hear the true about what is really going on in Syria.

(NSFW Language)

This is what a real journalist looks like. You forget that living here in the US!

Western mainstream media’s coverage of the Syrian war is “compromised” as their local sources are “not credible” and, in the case of Aleppo, not even there, a Canadian journalist said in an emotional speech at the UN.

“I’ve been many times to Homs, to Maaloula, to Latakia and Tartus [in Syria] and again, Aleppo, four times. And people’s support of their government is absolutely true. Whatever you hear in the corporate media is completely opposite,” Eva Bartlett, a Canadian journalist and rights activist, told a press conference arranged by the Syrian mission to the UN.

“And, on that note, what you hear in the corporate media, and I will name them – BBC, Guardian, the New York Times etc. – on Aleppo is also the opposite of reality,” she added. The mainstream media narrative, she argued, is meant to mislead the public about what is really happening in Syria by demonizing President Bashar Assad’s government and altering the facts on Russia’s support for Damascus.

Bartlett’s statements did not seemingly play well with everyone in the room. A reporter from Aftenposten, Norway’s largest print newspaper, challenged her and demanded Bartlett explain what she thought was the “agenda” of Western mainstream media. “Why should we lie, why the international organizations on the ground should lie? How can you justify calling all of us liars?” he said.

Bartlett, who has been covering Syrian events for several years since the outbreak of the civil war, noted that while there are “certainly honest journalists among the very compromised establishment media,” many respected media agencies simply seem to avoid doing a fact-check.

She then asked her Norwegian colleague to name humanitarian organizations operating in eastern Aleppo. As the Aftenposten reporter stayed silent, Bartlett added that “there are none.”

“These organizations are relying on the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights [SOHR], which is based in Coventry, UK, which is one man. They’re relying on compromised groups like the White Helmets. Let’s talk about the White Helmets,” she went on.

Members of the controversial group “purport to be rescuing civilians in eastern Aleppo and Idlib … no one in eastern Aleppo has heard of them.” Meanwhile, she noted, “their video footage actually contains children that have been ‘recycled’ in different reports; so you can find a girl named Aya who turns up in a report in say August, and she turns up in the next month in two different locations.”

“So they [the White Helmets] are not credible. The SOHR are not credible. ‘Unnamed activists’ are not credible. Once or twice maybe, but every time? Not credible. So your sources on the ground – you don’t have them,” Bartlett concluded.

A journalist from Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera took a more measured tone and asked Bartlett to explain the difference between the Western and Russian media coverage, saying that Russian television channels report on humanitarian efforts and reconciliation instead of overt naming and blaming.

“You ask why we aren’t seeing this,” Bartlett said. “This relates to the other gentleman’s question about why most of the corporate media are telling lies about Syria. It’s because this is the agenda; if they had told the truth about Syria from the beginning, we wouldn’t be here now. We wouldn’t have seen so many people killed.”

Source…

Unedited video:

Not only has Trump’s victory turned America around (it’s certain, even though he’s not in office yet), but Syrians can finally have their home, neighborhood, city, and country back.

Here are some updates from the Aleppo liberation from the Obama/Hillary/Kerry-backed ISIS terrorists. Residents are overjoyed.

If this is true, it’s is CHILLING! It means that all the Syrian refugees coming here and migrating throughout Europe are being dispersed for a reason. Can you say Trojan Horse?