Monday, February 24, 2020

CNN: Memes are Russian Ops


The Left Hates Memes: Russian Disinformation Plot



The left has lost it more than usual. Did they forget what happened the last time they tried to spark a meme war with Conservatives? They were humiliated. I was reading through Newsbusters.org and came across this gem.

Nicholas Fondacaro writes:


In praising his New York Times guest, Taylor Lorenz for her work writing about the “Meme Wars,” Avlon made his outlandish claim. “And this, for folks who don’t know, is the new, new thing that's going to be really driving a lot of narratives and conversation and voter suppression efforts to some extent in this upcoming election,” he proclaimed without evidence.

After having to explain what a meme was to the audience, Lorenz moved on the denouncing them a particularly subversive form of evil spawned by Russia. “Well, memes use humor to introduce new ideas and often these ideas can be very insidious and problematic. Memes in 2016 were used throughout Facebook to spread misinformation. So, you know, basically Russian interference,” she declared.




Read the sourced article here

The Counter-Coup Has Begun


 


If God blesses us again and President Trump is reelected this November, it would be nice to have people working for the man chosen by the American voters to lead them and upon whom we don’t have to use lie detectors.

I remember as if it were yesterday, telling President Trump’s National Security Adviser, retired three-star General Mike Flynn: “Get 20 DoJ polygraphers here now and have them do single-scope interviews through the whole bloody building!”

I didn’t work for the good general, as my job as strategist to the president, had me working with Steven Bannon who headed the White House’s Strategic Initiatives Group, but I considered Mike a friend, a true battle buddy from the Trump campaign. More than that, I had been one of just a handful of members of the official presidential Transition Team’s NSC staff in the months before the Inauguration, and as such had come to respect and admire the former Defense Intelligence Agency director as a great patriot and fighter.

Why then did I want him to have all 420 members of the bloated NSC we had inherited from the Obama Administration be put through a lie detector test? Because the new administration systematically was being subverted. We had barely moved into our offices and it was as if there hadn’t even been an election, as if 63 million Americans hadn’t chosen a new Chief Executive and the Left was still in control.

The latest proof that triggered my call to action? The brand new classified NSC phonebook, with the names of all the holdovers, new hires, and political appointees and their contact details had been leaked to the press, before General Flynn had even signed off on it. My concern was that it was time to act before something bigger and more damaging to America’s national security was leaked. Sadly Mike did not take my advice and it would have dire consequences. A few days later he would resign and eventually was charged with a process crime to which he pleaded guilty in order to save his family.

Thanks to the great work of a handful of investigative journalists, including John Solomon, Sara A. Carter, and Lee Smith, we now know that James Comey’s cronies at the FBI targeted General Flynn, caught him misremembering details about a perfectly professional and proper phone-call with the Russian ambassador, and they used that to take him down. Since then, thanks to the incredible work of his recently appointed counsel, Sydney Powell we have the details of just how badly this innocent man was railroaded.

Similar tactics would be used against other innocent men like George Papadopoulos, while others, like Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign manager, would be jailed for mortgage fraud, for crimes that had nothing to do with the putative accusations of having conspired with foreign powers to undermine, or “steal” the 2016 election.

The administrative state, the permanent bureaucracy, the deep state, whatever you wish to call it decided 19 minutes after he was sworn in as president, that Donald Trump must not be allowed to continue in that role. The non-swamp, brusque outsider from Queens had to be sabotaged because he could not be controlled. From Stormy Daniels to Michael Cohen, from subpoenas for his tax returns and bank accounts to fake “whistleblowers,” from subordinate lt. colonels born in Ukraine, to an impeachment trial in the Senate, the Democrats and their co-conspirators, just like poor marksmen, repeatedly tried to “kill the king” and failed.

Now in the last 250-odd days before the election, the Trump Administration seems to be taking my early warning seriously. At least we have two clear signs that things have changed for the better. The first is the return of people to Washington and the White House who the president can trust. In just the last few days the President has rehired Hope Hicks and Johnny McEntee. Both have the closest of trust-based relations with the president and his decision is a clear sign to those around him in the White House and in the agencies of the U.S. government that the president is re-asserting control over the government he was elected to head.

This is especially so for McEntee, who will head the Presidential Personnel Office. Truth be told, PPO was one of the reasons that the Trump administration has been so plagued with personnel problems and leaks. Headed for two years by establishment GOP and former House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) flunky, Johnny DeStefano, it became the center for hiring and promoting Bush-era RINOs and blocking MAGA-agenda loyalists. McEntee’s hire is a sign that the White House will take the question of who serves the president and whether that person agrees with his policies seriously.

Even more important, in the short term, is the recall to D.C. of our ambassador to Germany, Ric Grenell, and his appointment to be the acting Director of National Intelligence, the head over all 17 federal elements of the intelligence community. As soon as the president confirmed the news that Ric would be the new dual-hatted DNI and ambassador to Berlin, the Left unleashed its smear machine and the DNC, with no evidence called him unqualified, even leading to Nancy Pelosi issuing an official statement of protest.

Full disclosure, Ric is a friend, but even if he weren’t, I would support his becoming DNI given his sterling record representing American interests for eight years at the UN, and then achieving more in Berlin in under two years than any other ambassador before him ever did in four. My only regret is that his is only an “acting” nomination and that he likely will move on when the president is forced to nominate a permanent replacement.
In the meantime, Team Obama is clearly very worried about these recent decisions, with the 44th president’s former National Security Adviser, Susan Rice using shockingly uncouth language to attack Ric, the first openly gay cabinet member in U.S. government. Why? It has to do with the signal this sends that the Trump White House is on the warpath, and that the deep state is in its investigative crosshairs.

While many in the MAGA community are still smarting from the Barr Department of Justice’s recent decision not to prosecute corrupt FBI agent Andrew McCabe, they miss the point. The charges in question were related exclusively to his lying to officials over his leaking details to the media about the Clinton email investigation. They have nothing to do with the current, and far, far larger investigation into the origins of the Russia hoax by U.S. Attorney John Durham. No one has been exonerated or had charges dropped against him when it comes to the greatest political conspiracy in modern American history, the use of the FBI, NSA, and CIA to spy on a presidential campaign and White House, Operation Crossfire Hurricane. No one, not McCabe, not Comey, not John Brennan, not Jim Clapper, not Rice, and not Barack Obama.

Lastly and most promising to those who believe in Lady Justice truly being blindfolded, nothing—and I mean nothing—has leaked from the Durham investigation. In fact the only time that Barr’s handpicked team has said anything on record in relation to its work is to correct the sweeping claimsmade by the Justice Department’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz that there was no detectable political bias at the highest levels of Obama’s Department of Justice and that the rules for predication were followed.

Attorney General William Barr may not like the president tweeting about cases that are sub judice, but he is clearly a man on a mission to clean to Augean Stables that are the post-Obama Department of Justice, and in the most under-reported story of the last four years, his man Durham’s mandate was changed from heading an administration review, to heading a criminal investigation, which means he has found evidence of felonious acts and can (is?) impaneling secret grand juries.

All the above is a start. It comes very late. But it’s a start. The deep state beast is writhing in discomfiture. If God blesses us again and President Trump is reelected this November, it would be nice to have people working for the man chosen by the American voters to lead them and upon whom we don’t have to use lie detectors.

CNN Hacks Indignant after Trump’s Personnel Chief Tells Agency Heads to be ‘On the Lookout’ for Disloyal Staffers



CNN reports that President Trump’s new head of personnel, John McEntee, held a meeting on Friday and told agency heads to be “on the lookout” for disloyal staffers. CNN’s Jim Acosta told colleague Brooke Baldwin he doesn’t think this will work out well for McEntee and worries about those who may be ‘unfairly targeted.’

Political analyst Max Boot, who doesn’t understand why Trump is still in office after all the hard work he (Max Boot) has done, told Baldwin:
I think what it means is to get rid of anybody who dares to challenge Trump, especially when the President does something that is unethical or illegal. Clearly, the President does not want to be impeached again. And the way he wants to avoid impeachment is not by avoiding impropriety that might deserve impeachment, but by getting rid of anybody who might blow the whistle on his offenses…And now he’s going through the institutions and making a purge…This is something that normally happens in authoritarian regimes…

Brett Bruen, the Director of Global Engagement during the Obama Administration, noted that this is having a chilling effect. “We’re talking about speaking truth to Trump. Trump doesn’t want to hear it.” He thinks, “we will see a paralysis in the government. No one will want to make a decision. No one will want to pass on reports of threats that could spark the ire of President Trump.”

Baldwin sums it up by saying this President is putting his political and personal needs ahead of this country’s well-being.”

Boot agrees and said “the message the President is sending is that he does not want the intelligence community defending America against Russian attacks on our election.”

Actually, Max, you’re just peeved that we’re onto you. The Russians’ interference in our elections is nothing compared to the interference from the Democratic Party and the media.

None of them will state the obvious which is that this will make it harder for Democrats and the media to carry out their treachery against Trump. The flow of information, the leaks, coming out of the White House will be greatly reduced. A smaller number of “resisters” working to undermine or thwart the President’s agenda from the inside, will make it easier to implement plans of action and to achieve the administration’s goals.

Last week, The Epoch Times’ Jeff Carlson posted a fascinating text message thread about the plan by President Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, to methodically pack the Department of Justice with as many Democrats as possible by the end of the Obama Administration. According to Carlson, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch continued this policy following Holder’s departure. Upon Trump’s inauguration, Democrats represented about 90% of all DOJ personnel. This is corroborated by a Washington Times article which reported that, among DOJ employees, donations to Democratic campaigns outnumbered those to Republicans by a ratio of 20 to 1. I posted about Carlson’s thread here.

Why would Obama limit the implementation of such a brilliant strategy to the DOJ? From what we know of the State Department, an agency first run by Hillary Clinton, and then by John Kerry, it was probably carried out there as well.

We know the National Security Council was full of Obama holdovers. The leaks coming out of the NSC have been prolific. The size of the NSC nearly doubled during the Obama Administration to well over 200 staffers and, until recently, has remained there. National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien has made it his mission to bring that number down to more traditional levels.

I would bet that some form of the Obama/Holder strategy was present in all or most federal agencies during the Obama years.

This would explain how the deep state was able to carry out hoax after hoax against President Trump. They were (mostly) all in on it.

Each agency chief should appoint direct managers to go through their departments to weed out as many Obama holdovers as possible.

CIA official Eric Ciaramella, alleged to be the whistleblower, should be the first one to be shown the door. ‘Heck, we didn’t know he was the whistleblower. Not even Adam Schiff knew.’ And next Michael Atkinson, the Inspector General who received (and promoted) the whistleblower’s complaint.

The party’s over.



In Completely Unexpected Twist, That ‘Russia Wants Trump’ Story Has Gone Up In Flames



I feel like we’ve been here before.

A few days ago, RedState reported on another “bombshell” story in The New York Times. With the former anti-Trump narratives in tatters and impeachment showing itself to be a total failure, it was time to drag the battery charger out to old faithful and give her a jump. That means brewing up some new Russia hoax nonsense, because why not?
Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use it against him.


That report was laughable on its face. Why would Russia prefer Trump to any of the fairly left-wing Democrats currently in play? Heck, the Democratic frontrunner right now is a communist. Last I checked, the Russians are kind of fans of that stuff. Further, it’s beyond argument that Trump has been harder on Russia than Obama ever was and certainly more so than Bernie Sanders will be if elected. Even indirectly, Sanders’ policy platform of banning fracking stands to hand Russia a massive new chunk of the energy market, never mind his foreign policy positions that would cede influence to Putin.

Regardless, as with all “bombshells” from the paper of record, you usually just have to give them a day or so before they start to fall apart. Being a direct conduit for #resistance bureaucrats tends to lead to issues with sourcing. Right on cue, the collapse first starting with a report from Jake Tapper(although the completely unbiased newsman still got his shots in).

Now, the report has basically burned to the ground, as new information shows that Shelby Pierson, the official giving the intel briefing, essentially went rogue. This is from today.


No evidence you say? Who could have foreseen this? I mean, it’s not like our intel agencies have interfered in our elections by making up nefarious Russia conspiracy theories before or something.


Ross makes a good comparison. This feels exactly like the setup briefing that Comey delivered to Trump before his inauguration. That briefing was then leaked directly to CNN, likely by James Clapper, which then provided the hook to start all kinds of crazy reporting about Trump and Russia. While it wasn’t the genesis of all wrongdoing by the FBI and CIA on the issue, it was their way of forcing the matter into the public eye.

No worries though, even as CNN’s own reporting has blown up the Times report, their chyron operator is still on his game.


How biased does a network have to be that they’d punt on their own newer reporting to continue parroting a false story from a rival media outlet four days old? CNN knows the answer I guess.

Meanwhile, Fusion GPS mouthpiece Natasha Bertrand is busy trying to revive the story.


The best part about her tweet is that her sources have absolutely no connection to the story at all. She’s literally asking random former bureaucrats their opinion and reporting it as news. That’s journalism in 2020.

What really happened here is obvious. Shelby Pierson is a partisan with an agenda. She overstepped her bounds here to plant a narrative, knowing that Adam Schiff would run and leak it immediately after the briefing ended. This is the same old playbook we’ve seen over and over since Trump entered the fray. The only difference now is that the American people are wise to the games being played.

Richard Grenell needs to clean house as new acting DNI. Enough is enough.


Beijing Admits Coronavirus Didn’t Start in Wuhan Food Market – Senator Cotton Tweets Vindication


The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) now admits to an internal report showing the Coronavirus did not originate from the Huanan food market as they initially stated.
Senator Tom Cotton has previously questioned the origination claim because there is a level-4 biological weapons lab in Wuhan, China, where the Huanan market is located.  Tonight Senator Cotton tweets vindication toward his original suspicions:
(Via Global Times) A new study by Chinese researchers indicates the novel coronavirus may have begun human-to-human transmission in late November from a place other than the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan.
The study published on ChinaXiv, a Chinese open repository for scientific researchers, reveals the new coronavirus was introduced to the seafood market from another location, and then spread rapidly from market to market. The findings were the result of analyses of genome-wide data, sources of infection and the route of spread of 93 samples of the novel coronavirus collected from 12 countries across four continents.
The study believes that patient zero transmitted the virus to workers or sellers at the Huanan seafood market. The crowded market facilitated the further transmission of the virus to buyers, which caused a wider spread in early December 2019.
According to the researchers, the new coronavirus experienced two sudden population expansions, including one on January 6, 2020, which was related to the Chinese New Year’s Day holiday.
An earlier expansion occurred on December 8, implying human-to-human transmission may have started in early December or late November, and then accelerated when it reached the Huanan seafood market.
On January 6, the National Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a second-level emergency response, which the researchers said served as a warning against mass public activity and travel.
If the warnings had received wider public attention, the number of cases spreading nationally and globally in mid-to-late January would have been lower, said the researchers. (read more)

Stop It People! Democrats Deserve...

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own
and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall

Stop It People! 
Democrats Deserve Bernie Sanders!

Stop It People! Democrats Deserve Bernie Sanders!
Source: AP Photo/Cedar Attanasio
If Bernie Sanders continues his undefeated win streak in 2020 he deserves to be the Democratic nominee for president.

So why all the agita?

He’s undefeated through three contests. He’s growing his coalition and base of support. And he’s staying on message.

How is this a mystery to people?

In the modern era, he is also the culmination of what left-leaning politics has been yearning for.

Face it, barring some radical recalibration, John F. Kennedy was the last moderate Democrat our society will likely see. 

From economic policy—be it taxes, government control and regulation—every Democratic administration since Kennedy got oppressively worse.

Republicans—typically content with only incremental changes to those policies—consistently treaded water or lost ground minus the Reagan and now Trump eras.

But for what looks like a first in a very long time America is going through a bit of a political purification.

This seems to worry some. One Townhall.com's Political Editor, Guy Benson, expressed concern after Sander’s blowout in Nevada that conservatives were rejoicing in Sanders’ win. 

Karol Markowicz, of the New York Post, has uttered on more than one occasion on my show her dismay at “being left with Bernie Sanders” as the nominee.

Joy Ried on MSNBC, S.E. Cupp on CNN, long time Democratic operative James Carville, Never-Trump crank Jonah Goldberg, the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin, my esteemed (Trump-supporting) radio colleague in New York, Frank Morano, and almost the entire election panel on CNN—collectively wring hands and express “worry” at the prospect.

My Twitter feed literally from one end to the other is now discussing the “Never Bernie” concession speech that the unimpressively failed mayor of South Bend issued after failing miserably in Nevada.

But why is anyone surprised?

For dozens of years, I’ve penned columns and books, filled thousands of hours of radio, made commentary on cable news, and have archived thousands more editions of podcasts that have all warned the American voters what it means to vote for Carter, Clinton and Obama. 

The increasingly noxious worldview that says “take more from people who earned it” and forcibly redistribute it to “those who haven’t” had to eventually lead somewhere.

Apply that same idea to policies on the judiciary, immigration, national security, and social framework values and the fault lines pretty much reveal themselves.

Democrats have for decades (since JFK) admired godless socialism. They gift wrap it up in supposed compassionate humanism. But they are literally embracing authoritarian philosophies that have extinguished millions of lives.

They’ve also lied about what it all means—especially during election cycles—knowing that middle of the road Americans wouldn’t quite be able to stomach it. 

In 2016, Bernie Sanders became the authentic face for where this had all been pointing for generations. In 2018, it was his philosophies and “authenticity” that drove the passion behind the incoming “squad” with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rhashida Tlaib. 

It was the force of these new members and their appetite to be openly what they claim—no matter how stupid, unAmerican, and anti-Semitic—that forced Nancy Pelosi and the old guard to capitulate and attempt to undo the election of 2016.

In 2020 Democrats can no longer lie to voters. The base has moved their party, Bernie Sanders speaks openly—even cavalierly—to what they’ve come to expect, and he is now undefeated through the first three contests.

He has actually—to date—won two more states than he had by this point in the 2016 cycle. And he is poised for blowout after blowout on Super Tuesday (California and Texas among them.)

But listen carefully, Americans, conservatives, independents and Republicans should welcome his ascendency, because at the very least, it’s honest.

Elections by nature should serve as referendums on ideas. 

Carter and Clinton pretended to be middle of the road but stacked our judiciary with radicals. Obama pretended to be the president of the “purple states of America,” but he himself was a radical, surrounded by a cabinet of radicals.

These administrations despised the will of the American people while claiming to advance it.

In 2020, a Trump/Sanders contest will make the most honest, direct, and open debate our political body has observed in many decades of what ideas actually mean.

Should people get to keep what they earn? Or should they be forced to give $7 out of every $10 they earn to a centralized “Kremlin” that will then dole out “free benefits” to the people (usually on the basis and preference of the whim of those in power)?

Does the United States Constitution protect the right of free speech, particularly religious speech?

Do the people of the United States truly have the protected right to defend themselves by keeping and bearing firearms?

Should we empower the government to overtake the people’s decisions and lives?

Or should we empower the person to become the best that they can fully be?

These are just a handful of the contrasts that a Trump/Sanders head-to-head will give us.

It will force the American attention span to a place we only rediscovered in 2016. It will be a thorough debate between a man who’s never held a private-sector job, and a man who’s kept 104 campaign promises in his first job in politics.

America should welcome it.

A fistfight of ideas, slugging it out as though everything in the future depended on it.

Because it does!

Message to Never-Trump...



I see many Never Trump personalities (that's really all they are at this point, TV personalities) accusing those of us who supported the 2016 GOP nominee for president and his eventual presidency of being OBSESSED with Never Trump.

"If we're so irrelevant, why do y'all still talk about us?" They ponder aloud in mocking derision.

Allow me to illuminate...

You were AWFUL to us.

You CONTINUE to be awful to us.

You NEVER apologized to us for being wrong in 2016 and you NEVER acknowledged we were RIGHT.

You supported the removal of the president first as Putin's stooge and NEVER acknowledged you were wrong about the collusion hoax.

When you could have supported Republican Devin Nunes you chose to support Democrat hack Adam Schiff and you've NEVER acknowledged you were wrong.

And through it all... you've NEVER paid a price.

You continue to be OVER represented in media as if your perspective represents anything more than 5% of the electorate.

Meanwhile, we have been marginalized by media outlets in deference to your consistently flawed opinions and predictions.

Your prominent, consistent existence in media fills the "Republican Chair" on the panel most left-leaning media outlets grudgingly make available.

So viewers across America are left without any significant voice on most outlets that might articulate what they're thinking and why they support the president.

This breeds anger, frustration and resentment.

Meanwhile, you continue to get it wrong and smugly look down on us as we articulate ideas and political positions embraced by 95% of Republicans.

We are not obsessed with you. We resent your continued prominent position that you did not earn through accuracy or hard work.

You are there for one reason and one reason only: You satisfy the needs of left-leaning networks to further distort the center-right perspective in American politics and to give the false impression that the president faces serious opposition from fellow Republicans.

We were right.

You were wrong.

We are still right.

You are on the verge of voting for a Marxist.

You aren't serious yet you're taken seriously by the gate-keepers of American media.

And you act like you earned that place, deserve it.

That sucks... and, yes, we resent it.

I hope that explains it for you.

Now, enjoy explaining your vote for Bernie Sanders you keepers of the conservative flame. I'll be over here counting the confirmed judges that would've never existed had people actually listened to you.

Thank God you ARE irrelevant.

Memo to the Democrats and the Media: It’s Not the Russians Meddling in our Elections, It’s You


Image created by Brandon Morse for RedState.com

Investigative journalist John Solomon joined Fox News’ Lou Dobbs on Friday night to discuss the left’s latest attempt to resurrect the Russia collusion story and where this latest “leak” had come from. Solomon noted that, “Sometimes, Russians know we’re [U.S. intelligence agents] listening to them, and so they leak something that will cause the sort of distress whoever leaked this did.”

He said he had recently spoken with one of his intelligence community sources, who said, “Putin, in his wildest dreams, could never have imagined he could have done what he did in 2016 if it weren’t for the U.S. media and the Democrats.”

Dobbs replied, “Can you imagine the delight that the Russian intelligence folks and, of course, Putin have had as they watch. All they have to do is just sprinkle this nonsense across our media and they rise like Guppies to it predictably and destructively just as it’s intended.”

It’s remarkable that the liberal elites running the Democratic Party and the major U.S. media outlets, who consider themselves to be the smartest, savviest, and most highly educated of Americans, don’t see that the Russians have played them like a fiddle. Since the early days of the 2016 presidential election season, they’ve reacted to the slightest Russian provocation as if it’s a five alarm fire. When the news first broke that the Russian government was trying to sway American voters and sow political and social discord via ads on newly created social media accounts, the alarm was sounded. The ads were all pro-Trump, the media told their audiences.

The reality is that “some may have been, but most were not.”
Here’s how The Washington Post’s Tony Romm explained it:
In many cases, the Kremlin-tied ads took multiple sides of the same issue. Accounts like United Muslims of America urged viewers in New York in March 2016 to “stop Islamophobia and the fear of Muslims.” That same account, days later, crafted an open letter in another ad that accused Clinton of failing to support Muslims before the election. And other accounts linked to the [Kremlin-sponsored Internet Research Agency] sought to target Muslims: One ad highlighted by the House Intelligence Committee called President Barack Obama a “traitor” who had acted as a “pawn in the hands of Arabian Sheikhs.”

It might surprise the left to learn that billionaire Michael Bloomberg is now using a similar tactic and on a far bigger scale than Russia ever did. The Wall Street Journal reported that the campaign is “hiring a social-media army to promote Bloomberg to all their contacts.” Workers will be paid $2,500 per month. This is being rolled out only in California for now, but if it appears to work, they will deploy the program nationwide. This program will reach many times the number of voters that were targeted by the 2016 Russian ads. But, hey, when you’re trying to beat Trump, all is fair.

Democrats and the media reacted to every perceived message from the Russians that fit their narrative. I don’t know if the rest of the Russia collusion hoax would have followed if it hadn’t been for Russia’s early social media campaign. Either way, it was only part of the story. It provided a reference point for future events brought to us courtesy of the Democratic Party and promoted by the U.S. media.

For example, when the DNC announced their server had been hacked, they immediately blamed it on the Russians. After all, the Russians had already interfered in our election, hadn’t they?

The story grew even bigger once a pro-Western Ukrainian lawyer and activist named Alexandra Chalupa became involved. Chalupa had worked as a consultant for the DNC and for Democratic politicians including several Clinton campaign officials and was well-connected in Washington as well as in Ukrainian diplomatic circles.

She hated Paul Manafort for his role in the re-election of pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2010 and his subsequent work for the pro-Russian party in Ukraine. She even quit her job to devote herself entirely to discrediting Manafort.

Once Manafort became associated with the Trump campaign, her efforts intensified. In his book, “Spygate,” Dan Bongino wrote that “allegations of Trump-Russia collusion started to gain steam” once Manafort joined the team and much of this narrative was driven by Alexandra Chalupa.”

In the spring of 2016, she worked feverishly to destroy Paul Manafort and to promote the theory that Trump was colluding with the Russians to win the presidency. Chalupa’s smear campaign involved journalists and diplomats as well as contacts inside the DNC.

It’s unknown whether or not Chalupa played a role in the The New York Times’August 19, 2016 article. The Times reported that a ledger had been found in Ukraine which alleged that a $12.7 million cash payment had been made to Manafort by the pro-Russian Party of Regions. (Solomon reported several months ago that this ledger turned out to be a fake.)
Once this story broke, Paul Manafort was forced to resign from the Trump campaign. The narrative the Democrats had worked so hard to promote since they’d learned about the Russian’s social media interference, grew more plausible.

And finally, the all-important Christopher Steele dossier, a collection of fictional stories the FBI used as the basis for obtaining a warrant from the FISA Court to spy on Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. The dossier, paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, was believable because of the Russian social media campaign. ‘See, it’s true, Trump was working with Russia.’

So, Russia’s early interference, had it stopped there, would have amounted to nothing. But the Democrats and the media pointed to it, over and over again, to give credence to their own actions – the phony story that Russians hacked the DNC’s server, Chalupa’s obsessive efforts to bring down Manafort and the Trump campaign, and the commissioning of a fake dossier to discredit Trump.

If this were a game, the score would be:

Russians: 1

Democrats and the U.S. media: 10

It’s pretty clear who really interfered in the 2016 election.

President Trump announces $3B defense deal with India

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 8:38 AM PT — Monday, February 24, 2020
President Trump took to Twitter Monday to state that America loves and respects India. He made the comment while visiting the country during a two day trip. The president also said Americans will always remain true and loyal friends of the people of India.

President Trump delivered remarks to thousands of people at a rally at the Ahmedabad cricket stadium Monday alongside Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He touted the U.S.’s strong trade ties and bilateral relations with India.
The president also pledged to provide India with additional defense equipment and confirmed the two countries are in talks for a possible trade agreement.

“And I am pleased to announce that tomorrow, our representatives will sign deals to sell over $3 billion in the absolute finest state of the art military helicopters and other equipment to the Indian armed forces,” announced President Trump.
Following his speech, the president and the first lady visited the iconic Taj Mahal, where they toured the grounds and posed for pictures. The trip marked the president’s first official visit to India since he took office.
https://www.oann.com/president-trump-announces-3b-defense-deal-with-india/

The Coming and Welcome Clash of Bernie and Trump



The showdown between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders increasingly seems likely. But the truth is it was always inevitable.

Ever since the populist wave of 2016 that brought us Brexit and the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, various “experts” and members of the political elite desperately have been trying to regain the power they lost. If the current state of the 2020 presidential election is any indication, however, they have not retaken anything. Instead they have lost more ground than populists in 2016 ever thought it would be possible to see them lose.

Feeling the Bern

It might be wise to start conducting an autopsy report right away, because the Democratic National Committee is already dead. It’s not so much that Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) killed it, but rather, that the DNC died by an entirely avoidable misadventure in their desperate attempts to stop him.

First there was the extremely questionable Iowa caucuses, where it is likely that voter fraud occurred and stole what could have been a clear-cut Bernie victory. Sanders’ supporters translated this into even more energy, allowing him to win New Hampshire. Then there were the breaking “reports” that the Sanders campaign, allegedly, is being “assisted by Russians.” Sanders pulled no punches in his very Trumpian response, calling out the Washington Post and the media in general for deliberately timing the release of such a politically convenient story.

The shark officially jumped—and comparisons between what the Democratic machine was doing to Bernie and what they did to Trump becoming not only accurate, but required—Chris Matthews of MSNBC rounded things out nicely by reacting to Bernie’s landslide win in the Nevada caucuses by comparing Bernie’s political rise to the Nazis taking over France. As President Trump has demonstrated, when they start calling you a Nazi and falsely accusing you of Russian collusion, then you know you have won and they have absolutely nothing left.

Just as the establishment GOP tried to run as many candidates as possible to stop then-candidate Trump, but only succeeded in dividing the field so much that he ran away with the early contests due to mere pluralities, so too is history now repeating itself with the DNC in Bernie Sanders’ long march to the nomination.
In the end, as Breitbart’s John Nolte put it best, they could not stop Bernie for the same reasons they could not stop Trump: For all of Bernie’s radical positions, at the end of the day, he is still a sincere and authentic individual who believes everything he says. He has his core base of passionate supporters not because he pretends to believe in universal healthcare (like Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren does), but because he has actually believed in it his whole life. As Michael Bloomberg has demonstrated, money, media, and institutional power cannot defeat authenticity.

Berning Down the Establishment

Yes, there are plenty of reasons to be fearful of a Bernie Sanders nomination. He is, after all, an unapologetic and self-described socialist who wants to take away all private healthcare and push fraudulent, fascist schemes like the “Green New Deal.” His nomination would indeed signal a terrifying shift to the far-left by the Democratic Party as it has no choice but to embrace a man who aligns more closely with Karl Marx than with Bill Clinton or John Kennedy.

But in the event that Sanders officially accepts the Democratic nomination, there will be a few victories to be claimed for all of us. That moment, if it happens, will be the end of the Democratic establishment. After four years, and after numerous attempts to stop him electorally, legally, and in the media, the DNC still will have failed. Anything that is bad for the political establishment, on both sides, is good for the rest of us.

When Donald Trump did this to the Republican Party, it pulled back the curtain and exposed a GOP elite that was complacent in the eroding of our culture, comfortable in ceding ground on social issues, lazy in a foreign policy that had become little more than forever war, and directly responsible for mass, unfettered immigration into our country just to please the donor class with an endless supply of cheap labor. 

With Bernie Sanders, the mask has been torn right off the DNC. It has exposed them as the oligarchical, un-democratic machine that they always have been—a power structure providing mere lip-service, and nothing more, to their increasingly far-left base. Yet as much as the GOP desperately tried to stop Donald Trump with rhetoric and in forming temporary alliances between the various ideological factions, they never tried actually rigging the primaries or the delegates against him. The same cannot be said for the Democrats, and Bernie has just proven this to the entire world for a second time.

A Populist is a Populist is a Populist

When one thinks of political debates, chances are he is thinking of some historic presidential debate, such as Reagan vs. Carter or Trump vs. Clinton, or perhaps one of the more entertaining primary debates, like the first two Republican debates of 2016, or the bloodbath that was the most recent Democratic debate in Las Vegas.

But perhaps one of the most significant political debates of all time was one held over a year and a half ago by two non-politicians. In November of 2018, right before the midterm elections, former Breitbart CEO and chief strategist to President Trump Steve Bannon took on the notorious NeverTrumper David Frum of The Atlantic, in an installment of the televised “Munk Debates,” in Toronto, Ontario. In addition to arguing over the merits of President Trump’s policies and his long list of successes in office, the main idea of the debate, as argued by Bannon, was that the future of Western politics is no longer the “liberal” world order of previous decades, but a new frontier dominated by populist movements.

This, Bannon argued, was not in dispute. The only question to be asked, then, is this: Will it be a right-wing, nationalist, conservative form of populism, as represented by Donald Trump, or will it be a left-wing, socialist, progressive populism like what Sanders has to offer? Bannon’s words are even more prescient today, as the showdown between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders increasingly seems likely. But the truth is it was always inevitable.

It has been said that as goes the United Kingdom, so goes America. If Brexit had never happened, there most likely would not be a President Trump. It was true in 2016, and once again it appears that our nation’s ancestor across the pond has set the stage for what is to unfold politically this year.

Last year, the United Kingdom held its third general election in four years. Although the primary issue in play was the carrying out of Brexit in the official withdrawal from the European Union, there was even more on the line in that election. The incumbent prime minister, an unapologetic nationalist with a unique head of blonde hair as wells as a knack for being politically incorrect and breaking many political norms, faced off against an aging, angry socialist who had driven the country’s major left-wing party even further to the Left.

The result was that Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party won an even greater landslide than the most generous polling projections anticipated—taking its biggest majorities since Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, while Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party suffered its worst defeat since a man named Adolf was in power in Germany. Johnson, having already made swift work of a successful Brexit, has since wasted no time in addressing other crucial issues such as cracking down on immigration.

Of course it is still too early to know for sure how the 2020 election will go. If the U.K. is any indication, however, then “the Bern” will be extinguished by the Donald’s hurricane in the fall. But as Bannon would agree, this is an election that needed to happen regardless of how clear the outcome now seems. Even more important than one outsider being pitted against the establishment, like in 2016, is two outsiders with polar opposite opinions, both having defeated their respective establishments, now vying for the power vacuum that has been left behind.

Rather than facing more decades of political false dichotomies, like Romney vs. Obama or Bush vs. Kerry, where the same establishment class holds all the cards regardless of who wins, a Trump vs. Bernie election truly will mark a revolutionary choice, the likes of which America has never before seen. It will truly be the first free and actual choice that Americans have had in a presidential election in a very, very long time. That alone is worth celebrating and embracing as a win for our republic.