Tuesday, July 4, 2017

While the Swamp Creatures Are Still Slithering Around, President Trump is America's Protector-in-Chief

ON THE DAY AFTER AMERICA'S NATIONAL BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION, THE REAL NEWS IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS AMERICA'S PROTECTOR-IN-CHIEF. • • • FixThisNation reported last week that on June 25, the New York Times, although it again reported that it is sure Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election because the US intelligence community said so. We remember that in the closing weeks of the election Hillary Clinton & Hacks (including 99% of the mainstream media) kept repeating the supposedly-damning fact that Russia interfered in the election and that they did so to make sure Donald Trump was elected President. They said they were confident in this fact because all 17 US intelligence agencies were in unanimous agreement about it. As FixThis Nation put it : "Case closed. No more argument to be had," and, if Trump is still saying there’s great doubt about it, then he’s obviously hiding something. This MSM drumbeat was supposed to convince us that he was in collusion with the Russians the whole time. • Trump said, and we heard it from others, that it was a fraudulent claim (i.e., a lie), but finally are we are starting to see some of our fake news media admit it. • The June 25 New York Times article repeated the fake news. BUT, on June 25 -- perhaps warned by CNN’s recent troubles and their own impending court battle with Sarah Palin -- the Times decided to correct the record, writing : “The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.” • That may not seem like a big deal, but it is. The report accusing Russia on interference and hinting at Trump collusion did not come from the full intelligence community -- it was a cherry-picked, 4-agency conclusion. Here’s what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8 -- he said that the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies -- CIA, NSA, and the FBI -- not all 17 components of the intelligence community.” Clapper then acknowledged that the analysts who produced the January 6 assessment on alleged Russian hacking were “hand-picked” from the CIA, FBI and NSA. BUT, any intelligence expert will tell you that if you “hand-pick” the analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion. FixThisNation says : "For instance, if the analysts were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided report that they did. And that [is] what many skeptics of the Russia story have been claiming all along. And the fact that the media and the Democrats have gone out of their way to make this “hand-picked” selection of analysts look like full, 17-agency unanimity just adds more suspicion to the fire. There is a scandal here. It’s just not the one the Democrats want us to see." • The additional take-away from the NYT confession is that President Trump was right all along about the Times making a fake claim. We may now ask what other fake claims about President Trump have been printed by the New York Times and its Democrat lapdog propagandists in the media. • • • SARAH PALIN SUES THE NYT. In the same week in which the lying MSM had to correct its 6-month old story about the auqlity of its facts in the Russia hacking story, CNN took the brunt of the punishment, with a one-two punch that included their botched story about a Trump associate and his supposed link to the Russia scandal -- which CNN had to retract -- followed by a James O’Keefe undercover video that showed a CNN producer admitting that the entire Russia story was “likely bulls**t.” And, while CNN was trying to find a way out of its self-created mess, the New York Times was confronted with the legal consequences of an editorial they ran in the aftermath of the June shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise. • Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin filed a lawsuit against the Times last Tuesday, accusing them of defamation in relation to the editorial, which recklessly repeated a partisan lie that fact-checkers had said was untrue years ago. On June 14, the Times’ Editorial Board wrote that the Alexandria, Virginia, shooting fit a “sickeningly familiar pattern” of political violence that could be compared to Jared Loughner’s 2011 mass shooting -- an attack whose victims included Arizona congresswoman Gabby Giffords, and the NYT repeated the debunked lie : “Before the [2011] shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs." The connection between Palin's campaign ad map and Loughner’s insane actions is completely false. There was and is no evidence to suggest that Loughner was even politically aware, much less that he saw the map in question. Furthermore, the map did not show Giffords herself under the cross hairs, only her district. And while liberals at the time cited this supposed connection for a few days, it has been widely known for years that it was never anything more than wild, irresponsible supposition. • Even the New York Times was forced to issue a correction to their June 14 editorial after social media lit up with accusations of another NYT lie. But, a correction does not repair the damage of such a reputation-smearing suggestion, and there was no excuse for the NYT to publish that lie in the first place. The only reason it wound up in the editorial to begin with was so the New York Times could place itself and the rest of the Progressive Democrat mainstream media on the 'look, it’s happened on the other side, too' side of the Scalise shooting. Sarah Palin was having none of it. Her lawsuit states : “Mrs. Palin brings this action to hold The Times accountable for falsely stating to millions of people that she, a devoted wife, mother and grandmother, who committed a substantial portion of her adult life to public service, is part of a pattern of ?’?lethal?’? politics and responsible for inciting an attack that seriously injured numerous people and killed six, including a nine-year-old girl who, at that time, was the same age as Mrs. Palin’s youngest daughter." In a Facebook post after the NYT editorial appeared, Palin was even more direct in her response : “With this sickening NYT’s editorial, the media is doing exactly what I said yesterday should not be done. Despite commenting as graciously as I could on media coverage of yesterday’s shooting, alas, today a perversely biased media’s knee-jerk blame game is attempting to destroy innocent people with lies and more fake news.” • We can only hope that Progressive Democrat propagandist news media will reconsider its 'fake news' approach to journalism. Perhaps, Sarah Palin has started the ball rolling and the NYT will be the first to pay up after an adverse civil court verdict. • • • PRESIDENT TRUMP KEEPS ANOTHER CAMPAIGN PROMISE. Fulfilling his campaign promise to the American people, President Donald Trump is “draining the swamp” -- by dramatically cutting the budget of the White House payroll, ultimately saving the American taxpayers a projected $22 million. According to the Trump administration annual report on White House personnel, which was released recently, the President is reducing “czar” and “fellowship” posts Barack Obama had put in place, and is refusing his presidential salary. The report includes the name, status, salary and positions of all 377 White House employees. Obama appointed 50 czars through the span of his administration, 39 of which were unconfirmed by the Senate and largely unaccountable to Congress. As government watchdog Judicial Watch pointed out, most of the “czars” activities were often outside the reach of the Freedom of Information Act, “creating a veil of secrecy about their precise role in the administration.” • In 2011, Congress -- including thirteen Democrats -- voiced its disapproval of Obama’s use of czars to undermine government accountability by introducing a bill intended to eliminate funding for czars. But, SURPRISE !! The then-Democratic-controlled Senate did not pass the bill. • While the Obama administration was heavily criticized for using czars as a mean to circumvent Congress, the Trump administration has yet to employ a single “czar,” according to Trump’s 2017 budget. Trump also eradicated Obama’s “fellowship” position. “Fellowship” candidates of the Obama White House managed special programs including Michelle Obama’s “Let Girls Learn” initiative and others. The Obama administration’s fellowship program comprised $158,000 of Obama’s annual budget. • The Trump administration has also drastically reduced the White House workforce by cutting the amount spent on the First Lady’s budget. Melania has a staff of just five, compared to Michelle Obama’s 24. Michelle Obama entered the White House with 22 staff members, whose salaries annually amounted to approximately $2 million, $1.4 million more than that of her predecessor, Laura Bush. • There are 110 fewer in employees in the White House under President Trump than there were under the Obama administration, saving nearly $5 million alone. • Throughout the course of the presidential campaign, candidate Trump said he would turn down any salary as President. The left-leaning Think Progress attacked President Trump in March for receiving at least one paycheck. White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders explained to Politifact : "He is required to get a paycheck but will be giving it back to (the) Treasury or donating.” In any case, the President’s apportioned salary is not listed in the budget as a line item. Adhering to his campaign promise, Trump is foregoing his $569,000 annual presidential salary, including extras and amenities. • When an MSM reporter cynically asked whether Trump administration cutbacks will create difficulty for already overstretched White House staffers, Press Secretary Sean Spicer assured that President Trump will review all aspects of government for potential savings : “There’s going to be a respect for taxpayers in this administration, so that whether it’s salaries or actual positions or programs, he’s going to have a very, very tough look at how we’re operating government, how many positions they’re in, what people are getting paid.” • • • DEAR READERS, it may take another year or so, but we will finally hear the Washington elites saying they surrender --- even if they will never be able to bring themselves to say that President Trump has done nothing wrong or illegal or in collusion with Russia and has, in fact, done al ot of good. We Deplorables have know it all along, but the Swamp Creatures and their fake news media have small reptilian-size brains so it takes them much longer to understand the truth. And, by then, President Trump will have done so much good for all Americans that he will be well on the way to keeping his promise to Make America Great Again.

2 comments:

  1. NIT DURECTLY REKATED, BUT ... The Korean Peninsula needed to be a finished question some 65 years ago when the state of the art military equipment was some M-1 rifles and a few million North Koreans were being prodded on by China and Mao.

    Now it's nuclear weapons endangering the entire freedom of the Northern Asian quadrant and the real possibility of rockets hitting the West Coast of the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A Tool 4 FreedomJuly 5, 2017 at 12:02 PM

    It's time we accept the simple fact that American is not being pulled in the same direction by all those inside the Beltway around Washington, DC today. But was it ever in unison? Did everyone agree with Jefferson?

    Certainly Reagan had a very large anti- Reagan out to get him. Lincoln, unlinked by 59% of the North, and most likely all the South.

    My point is leaders lead in the face of dissent. In the face of public opinion. They mead when their believes are true and not a PR ploy.

    ReplyDelete