Tag Archives: President Trump

How the Underground Press Will Thwart the Media and Re-Elect Donald Trump, by Jack Cashill

Few people yet realize the power of what Jack Cashill calls the underground press, also known as the alternative media. It elected Trump in 2016 and it may do so again. From Cashill at americanthinker.com:

As the saying goes, the difference between the New York Times and the old Soviet Pravda is that Pravda readers knew they were being lied to.

To circumvent the Soviet mainstream media, dissidents created what they called the “samizdat,” their word for the clandestine copying and distribution of literature banned by the state.

To circumvent our mainstream media, conservatives have created their own samizdat, an unorganized network of blogs, public forums, news-aggregators, online publications, talk radio shows, citizen-journalists, and legal monitors such as Judicial Watch, a truth force that one Second Amendment blogger aptly called “a coalition of willing Lilliputians.”

Despite repeated attempts by Big Tech to thwart the samizdat, the internet has given the Lilliputians unprecedented reportorial power, and social media —  Facebook and Twitter most prominently — have given them an ability to distribute their message in ways Soviet dissidents could only imagine.  It was the samizdat that carried Donald Trump to victory in 2016 and, barring massive vote fraud, will carry him again in 2020.

The samizdat has done most of the real reporting on the major news stories of the last dozen or so years, most recently on the Black Lives Matter (BLM) mania.  To understand the samizdat’s effect, consider a recent Gallup poll on the U.S. sports industry.  A year ago, by a 45-25 margin, most Americans had a favorable view of professional sports.  Today, by a 40-30 margin, most have an unfavorable view.

These numbers had to shock the more woke among NFL and NBA execs.  All summer, these execs have been reading about the largely peaceful protests against the systemic racism responsible for the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Rayshard Brooks among others and the crippling of Jacob Blake.  How, they wondered, could sports fans not embrace those athletes who stood (or knelt) in support of social justice?

Continue reading→

 

Democratic Derangement: Party ‘Games’ A Possible Coup If Trump Wins In November, by the Issues and Insights Editorial Board

Are Democratic election war games actually blueprints? From the Issues and Insights Editorial Board at issuesinsights.com:

Photo: Ted Eytan, licensed under Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

he strength of America’s elections lies in people’s confidence that votes will be fairly tallied, and that the losing party will bow out gracefully and become the loyal opposition. But what if a loser refuses to acknowledge the results of a free and fair election? What if it instead takes to the streets to commit violence and mayhem? Or even attempts a coup?

We ask because there’s every sign now that the Democrats, in a panic over candidate Joe Biden’s lackluster basement campaign and growing evidence that he is suffering age-related mental impairment, will refuse to acknowledge President Donald Trump for a second term, even if he wins clearly.

The last time we had a party really refuse to accept the results of an election was in 1860. Then, Democrats in southern states threatened to secede if Abraham Lincoln, candidate of the anti-slavery Republican Party, won. He did, and southern states began seceding before he even took office. We fought a civil war.

Today, we might be edging toward another.

“We now seem to be on the cusp of relitigating the question, only instead of slaveholding southerners blackmailing the country with secession, it’s anti-Trump Democrats and left-wing radicals threatening to tear the country apart if Trump wins in November,” writes John Daniel Davidson at the Federalist. “For them, the Union is conditional, and Trump’s reelection will violate their conditions.”

Of course, in 2000 and 2016 the Democrats also objected to the election outcome, but at least could argue that the Republican winner in neither election had a majority of the popular vote. (Irrelevant, of course, since thanks to the Founders’ wisdom we choose our president through the Electoral College, which gives individual states clout in picking the nation’s chief executive. That keeps the U.S. from being dominated by a dictatorship of just four or five heavily populated states.)

Since 2016, however, Democrats have openly made it a full-time political job to stymie Trump’s presidency. They’ve charged him with cheating in the 2016 election, colluding with the Russians, and even killing thousands of Americans due to his supposedly incompetent response to the China virus pandemic.

Continue reading→

Six Reasons Why the Wrong Party Will Win the Most Important US Election Since 1860, by Doug Casey

SLL is more optimistic than Doug Casey, who does a good job of laying out the pessimists’ case. From Casey at internationalman.com:

The upcoming election may be the most important in US history. At least as important as that of 1860, which led directly to the War Between the States. In 2016 I believed Trump would win and placed a money bet on him. This time I’m not so sure, despite Trump’s “incumbent advantage” and the fact the Democrats could hardly have picked two worse candidates.

I see at least six reasons why this is true, namely:

  • The Virus
  • The economy
  • Demographics
  • Moral collapse of the old order
  • The Deep State
  • Cheating

The consequences of a Democrat victory will be momentous. Let’s look at why it’s likely.

1. The Virus

Despite the fact COVID is only marginally more deadly than the annual flu, and the fact it’s only a danger to the very old (median death age 80), the hysteria around it is changing the nature of life itself. It’s proven much less serious than the Asian flu of the late ’60s or the Hong Kong flu of the late ’50s. And not even remotely comparable to the Spanish flu of 1918-19. None of those had any discernable effect on the economy or politics. COVID is a trivial medical event but has created a gigantic psychological hysteria.

The virus hysteria is, however, a disaster from Trump’s point of view for several reasons. None of them have anything to do with his “handling” of the virus—apart from the fact that medical issues should be a matter between a patient and his doctor, not bureaucrats and politicians.

First, the virus hysteria is severely limiting the number and size of Trump’s rallies, which he relies on to keep enthusiasm up.

Continue reading→

Corrupt Worldly Power is an Illusion, a Fleeting Pleasure, a False Premise, a Broken Promise, by Doug “Uncola” Lynn

What do you really have when you have power over another human being? Not much. From Doug “Uncola” Lynn at theburningplatform.com:

power

1 a: ability to act or produce an effect

b : legal or official authority, capacity, or right

2 a : possession of control, authority, or influence over others

power

1 a: ability to act or produce an effect

b : legal or official authority, capacity, or right

2 a : possession of control, authority, or influence over others

b : one having such power specifically : a sovereign state

c : a controlling group

d archaic : a force of armed men

3 a : physical might

c : political control or influence

Merriam Webster

The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world.

– Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

My blog was started four years ago this month. Inspired by the courage of other writers out here on the still-free internet, I thought I’d add my two cents, as it were; an American Nobody speaking truth to power. Indeed, in September 2016, I fully expected Hillary Clinton to win the presidency in a matter of weeks.

 

During the two months immediately preceding November 8, 2016: I wrote on the Trojan Horse aspect of political correctness, immigration, the giant sucking sound of manufacturing jobs lost to Mexico, mainstream media obfuscation, the rise of the technocracy, George Soros, Obama, Hillary, Trump, the Illuminati, the rigged-game of American politics, Agenda 21, Cloward-Piven, Fractional Reserve Banking, and encroaching tyranny.

My penultimate article prior to the 2016 election was entitled “Winners Who Won the Wind”, whereupon the following was written:

To those who are encouraged regarding recent headlines of the FBI reopening the case again Hillary a few weeks before the election, keep in mind even this could be a play by the globalists to orchestrate a Trump win. There are some who claim the best play by the financial elite would be to allow the nationalist movements behind both Trump and Brexit to have their day in the sun. This would allow the establishment to simply collapse the system in any number of ways and thus blame the ensuing wreckage on nationalist naiveté and the foolish dreams of protectionism.

With a Hillary win it will be a fast track to war, financial armageddon and third world status. With a Trump win, the powerful moneymen can simply change the order to: financial armageddon, war and then, third world status. The names may change but the end results will be the same. Either way, the winners have won.

Continue reading→

Maintaining Pretence Over Reality: ‘Simply Put, the Iranians Outfoxed the U.S. Defence Systems’, by Alastair Crooke

The neocons inside and outside the Trump Administration can talk all they want about waging war against Iran, but supported by the Chinese and Russians, Iran would be a tough, perhaps impossible, nut to crack. From Alastair Crooke at strategic-culture.org:

So it never was then a ‘peace agreement’ between Israel and the UAE. It was ‘normalisation’ for the purposes of mounting a military alliance against Iran. Pompeo suggested so, this weekend. He said that the UAE and Israel have agreed to form a security and military alliance against Iran to ‘protect’ U.S. interests and the Middle East. This agreement and any that might follow means that there will be an Israeli military and security military presence in the Gulf, and a joint Israeli-UAE intelligence base on Socotra Island in the Red Sea basin overlooking the Bab al-Mandab Strait. According to Pompeo, this agreement will transform the conflict in the Middle East from being Arab-Israeli, to Arab-Iranian, and perhaps Arab-Turkish later on.

The language used by Pompeo is significant in another way. Trump is proud of having taken Jerusalem ‘off the table’ (in the context of negotiations with the Palestinians). He says he has taken the Golan and the Jordan valley ‘off the table, too’. Pompeo’s formulation of the conflict transformation he believes he has just engineered says something else too: It is that the Palestinian issue is ‘off the table’ as well. It is now all about Iran (in Trump’s optic). The Palestinians are to stew in their own juices.

Well, Pompeo perhaps was speaking loosely when he designates it now an Arab-Iranian conflict. It is (at least for now), the UAE alone that has put itself on the Front Line. The Qatari-owned Al Quds al-Arabi scathingly noted that “in this alleged alliance against Iran … were the unwanted were to happen, and [a larger] war break out against Iran, the Emirates will be on the receiving end of the blows – and will be the biggest loser.”

Continue reading

Trump and Biden Should Tell Americans When They Plan To Go to War, by Doug Bandow

What countries will the US defend, and under what circumstances? Inquiring minds would like answers from the two candidates. From Doug Bandow at antiwar.com:

With the election just weeks away, both President Donald Trump and former vice president Joe Biden claim to be the best person to protect Americans in a dangerous world. Yet neither one has explained when they would take the U.S. into war.

Trump was recently asked whether he would let China “get away with” invading Taiwan. That’s an important question, which deserves an answer. What would the administration do? Most important, would the president authorize military action to defend the island state and attack the People’s Republic of China?

He responded: “China knows what I’m gonna do. China knows.” However, he wouldn’t say any more: “I think it’s an inappropriate place to talk about it. … This is just an inappropriate place to talk about it.”

Why is it inappropriate? The president said that PRC officials know. Why shouldn’t the American people know as well? Indeed, with an election just weeks away, he has an obligation to tell us what he would do. Voters should be able to evaluate his foreign policy judgment in deciding who to support.

No doubt offhand presidential comments can be unsettling. Trump knows that very well, indeed, almost every day, but it never stopped him before. Nor is he the only culprit. In 2001 President George W. Bush created a stir when he declared that he would do “whatever it took” to defend Taiwan. However, that controversy reflected the fact that he appeared to be breaking from past policy without have notified anyone in his administration. Moreover, he had not informed Beijing of his policy. Then-Chinese President Jiang Zemin certainly did not know what Bush was “gonna do.”

Continue reading

Structural-Racism Hoax a Loser for Dems, by Robert Ringer

Has the Democratic party been a “good deal” for blacks? Not by a longshot, which is why blacks are shifting to Trump in unheard of numbers for a Republican. From Robert Ringer at lewrockwell.com:

With President Trump’s support among African-Americans edging toward 40 percent, it’s clear that an increasing number of blacks now understand that liberty and capitalism, not big government — and certainly not socialism — are the keys to a productive and prosperous life.

What has taken so long for blacks to recognize that liberty and capitalism are their friends is the fact that Democrats have controlled the levers of power for decades — especially in major cities. They have mastered the art of empty promises, childish hyperbole, and hysterical rhetoric. They have also mastered the art of keeping their history from the general public, especially blacks.

Since its founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has had a long history of racial discrimination. It passionately defended the unconscionable practice of slavery (including starting the Civil War to keep slavery in place), opposed Reconstruction, founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, and engaged in lynching. Democrats also fought tooth and nail against the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s.

In the infamous 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford case, the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were property and therefore could not be citizens.  The seven justices who voted in favor of this decision were all Democrats, while the two dissenting justices were Republicans.  Have you ever heard a Republican talk about this?  Of course not.  It might offend their Democratic colleagues.  In this respect, Republicans have enabled Democrats in their ongoing efforts to keep blacks uninformed.

Ever since the implementation of Democrat Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, government welfare programs have decimated black families.  To add insult to injury for inner-city folks, politically correct police guidelines have made it easier for criminals to terrorize black communities.  Through both their actions and lack of action, Democrats have made it clear that black lives don’t matter to them at all.

Continue reading→

Reconsidering the Presidential Election, by the Saker

Many people, including the Saker, have misgivings about Trump but will vote for him because they’re pretty sure he won’t turn the country over to violent criminals. From the Saker at unz.com:

In early July I wrote a piece entitled “Does the next Presidential election even matter?” in which I made the case that voting in the next election to choose who will be the next puppet in the White House will be tantamount to voting for a new captain while the Titanic is sinking. I gave three specific reasons why I thought that the next election would be pretty much irrelevant:

  1. The US system is rigged to give all the power to minorities and to completely ignore the will of the people
  2. The choice between the Demolicans and the Republicrats is not a choice at all
  3. The systemic crisis of the US is too deep to be affected by who is in power in the White House

I have now reconsidered my position and I now see that I was wrong because I missed something important:

A lot has happened in the past couple of months and I now have come to conclude that while choosing a captain won’t make any difference to a sinking Titanic, it might make a huge difference to those passengers who are threatened by a group of passengers run amok. In other words, while I still do not think that the next election will change much for the rest of the planet (the decay of the Empire will continue), it is gradually becoming obvious that for the United States the difference between the two sides is becoming very real.

Why?

This is probably the first presidential election in US history where the choice will be not between two political programs or two political personalities, but the stark and binary choice between law and order and total chaos.

It is now clear that the Dems are supporting the rioting mobs and that they see these mobs as the way to beat Trump.

Continue reading→

Trump Connects the Generals and the Military-Industrial Complex, by Hunter Derensis

Not a week goes by where someone in the alternative media doesn’t write an article about the cozy relationship between America’s generals and military contractors, but Trump is the first president in decades to talk about it publicly. From Hunter Derensis at theamericanconservative.com:

Top brass are suspiciously cozy with contractors who profit from war. Trump is the first president to point it out.

President-elect Trump with retired Marine Corps General James Mattis, who would soon become Secretary of Defense in between stints at General Dynamics. (By a katz/Shutterstock)
Once again, the whispers of phantoms masquerading as administration officials have attempted to put Donald Trump on the defensive only two months before the fall election. And in typical fashion, the roused president has gone on an immediate rhetorical offensive.

Trump has doubled down on his affirmations towards the U.S. military and the American soldier, while simultaneously confronting the class of generals who command them. “I’m not saying the military’s in love with me—the soldiers are,” Trump said at a Labor Day press conference. “The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.”

This is a dramatic shift in perspective from the man who spent the first two years of his presidency surrounding himself with top brass like Michael Flynn, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, and James Mattis (along with almost being beguiled into nominating David Petraeus as Secretary of State). Perhaps Trump learned the hard way that the generals of the forever wars don’t measure up to the twentieth-century soldiers he adulated growing up.

For instance, when George Marshall oversaw the deployment of 8.3 million GIs across four continents in World War II, he did so with the assistance of only three other four-star generals. In retirement, Marshall refused to sit on any corporate boards, and passed on multiple lucrative book deals, lest he give the impression that he was profiting from his military record. As he told one publisher, “he had not spent his life serving the government in order to sell his life story to the Saturday Evening Post.”

Contrast that to the bloated, top-heavy military establishment of today, where an unprecedented forty-one four-star generals oversee only 1.3 million men and women-at-arms. These men, selected and groomed because of their safe habits, spend years patting themselves on the back for managing wars-not-won, awaiting the day they can cash in. According to an analysis by The Boston Globe, in the mid-1990s nearly 50% of three- and four-star generals went on to work as consultants or executives for the arms industry. In 2006, at the height of the Iraq War, that number swelled to over 80% of retirees.

Continue reading→

 

Playing With Fire: Democrats and Their Military Quislings Flirt With Borderline Seditious Military Coup, by Revolver

Prominent Democrat Hillary Clinton has already told Biden not to concede under any circumstances and other Democrats are making similar noises, and they’re making all sorts of plans for insurrection if Trump clearly wins. From Revolver at revolver.news:

As the election approaches, more and more ominous evidence is quickly piling up that the U.S. military’s nearly 250-year separation from national politics is eroding. Frightening signs indicate that senior members of the military are open to an anti-Trump coup d’etat. If such a coup happens, Democrats will gleefully cheer it on.

Revolver wants make clear that this article is not based on any inside information. Nobody on the Joint Chiefs of Staff is passing on warnings about what the military is planning. Instead, this article is based on a reading of public statements and events, which are already worrisome enough.

The first red flag is buried in Bob Woodward’s latest book on the Trump Administration, Rage. According to the book, former Defense Secretary James Mattis spent much of his tenure in office plotting to undermine the elected leader who appointed him.

The book documents private grumblings, periods of exasperation and wrestling about whether to quit among the so-called adults of the Trump orbit: Mattis, [then Director of National Intelligence Dan] Coats and then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Mattis quietly went to Washington National Cathedral to pray about his concern for the nation’s fate under Trump’s command and, according to Woodward, told Coats, “There may come a time when we have to take collective action” since Trump is “dangerous. He’s unfit.” [Washington Post]

The Post glances over this incident quickly, treating it as just one more example of a disgruntled senior Trump official. But it is far more than that. This is the top defense official in the United States, himself a former general, discussing “collective action” against the president with a top intelligence official. “Collective action” could take many forms, perhaps a concerted effort to invoke the 25th Amendment and have the president declared incapacitated and removed. This would be a coup, and it would be motivated not by Trump’s incapacity, which is justa fig leaf, but by political disagreements.

Continue reading→