Navigation
World News Spin Visitors
This area does not yet contain any content.
SEARCH BOX - USE KEY WORDS, NAMES, OR PHRASES.

866-391-6593

Call For Quote

or Click Link!

  •   Build Your Brand
  •       with KLAS!

 

 

 

 

Wednesday
Mar222017

Rushing to Judgement on the Napolitano Charges

This is the perfect storm of the uber-left to feed the American electorate a poison pill to kill one future conservative Supreme Court candidate from being nominated. In a chess game where the current move now on the board has been to capture the Judge Gorsuch nomination, the next one is for the seat of Judge Ginsberg. Liberals are in a real panic, and for good reason - Napolitano is Conservative!

22332482-mmmain_480

Fox News has fired Judge Andrew Napolitano (pictured) for exposing UK spy agencies working with Obama, according to his report.

News Credit: Judge Napolitano

One of the most popular faces on news-based TV, Judge Andrew Napolitano, is being let go by Fox News. This is happening “after disavowing his on-air claim that British intelligence officials had helped former President Barack Obama spy on Donald Trump,” according to Yahoo News. A person with knowledge of the situation who chose not to be named has said that the Judge will not be with the network any longer nor will he be in any Fox segments.

It all started last week on “Fox and Friends.” He said he had three different sources showing that Obama traveled “outside the chain of command” to spy and watch President Donald Trump. The United Kingdom called the accusation “nonsense” following White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer making a reference to the report during a briefing. This all goes back to Trump uncovering that he was spied on by Barack Obama before (and perhaps after) he was elected to office.

Judge Napolitano was at the White House advising about Judge Gorsuch and was rumored to be on a short list for the Supreme Court.

In what seems to be a rather common theme in James Comey’s left leaning F.B.I, it was declared by the agency that there is no proof that Trump was spied upon or wiretapped by Obama. This is the same director that when Wikileaks exposed all of the proof about Clinton, and didn’t need much research to move ahead with her prosecution, claimed that more time was needed. Now for something that DOES need to be researched in depth, it seems that Comey can reach a conclusion in no time at all.

serveimage

The President has flirted with the wise idea of appointing Napolitano to the Supreme Court before. However, he has said regarding the matter, “all we did was quote a certain very talented legal mind who was the one responsible for saying that on television. I didn’t make an opinion on it. You shouldn’t be talking to me. You should be talking to Fox.” This does not mean that “America’s Judge” is forbidden from being appointed to the highest court in the land. Clearly, he is free from other contractual obligations now. The problem is that he may be seen as tarnished, and might face huge opposition to his nomination if it were to happen. Now that he has been fired from Fox, those that oppose him on the left will call this matter in to question as a way to say that he is not honest.

“America’s Judge” has been on the side of the true meaning of the Constitution for a very long time.

fsdfsdf

Shepard Smith at Fox News all but fell over himself trying to run from the comments. He said, “Fox News knows of no evidence of any kind that the now-president of the United States was surveilled at any time, in any way.” This is the kind of statement by both Fox and Smith that could really come back to haunt them should the Judge’s words prove true. Napolitano is not a man who has a reputation for being wrong nor dishonest in any way. For this reason, if he was right, many viewers will see Fox just as they do CNN, which is fake news. They also will not easily forgive the besmirching of Napolitano or Trump, if vindicated.

This is more than likely to happen too, considering that he had served on the New Jersey Superior Court from 1987 to 1995, and has more than a bit of experience gathered from the post to know facts when he hears them. It is not very probable that Napolitano made up the three sources, either. One source could be any crackpot, two sources would be common, but three? For him to pick three as his number, he must have really had the sources. Unfortunately for “America’s Judge,” unless the three prove brave enough to stand up for him, he could be in real trouble trying to prove this. It can not be imagined that he would ask them to out themselves.

While Judge Gorsuch will likely fill the Scalia vacancy, Napolitano was on a short list to replace Ginsburg or any of the elder Supreme Court members in the future.

ssadfasdfsdf

He has been with Fox as a senior judicial analyst since 1998, so it is odd that the network would not have a bit more faith and trust placed in him by now. There is simply no feasible way that he would openly sacrifice his career and quite possibly his future on the American Supreme Court just to flirt with a lie. His motive could be to secure a place of security in Trump’s future plans for the Supreme Court, but he has already been consulted for Judge Gorsuch. His name is ALREADY on the short list for any openings. As such, he has no motive whatsoever to have stretched the truth in this report.

It is far more likely that the Judge has stood by his morals and his ethics. He was most likely fired for refusing to expose who told him. He could do that, but then he would have to look into the mirror when done. Considering that so many people are murdered for bravely telling the truth, Napolitano could, in theory, be signing someone’s death sentence with such a disclosure. Beyond that, if they worked for a UK spying agency as said, these three heroes could lose their jobs, pensions and perhaps even be sent to prison for treason. If England uses the firing squad, that too could be an option since we are talking about spying agencies at the very top.

sadgfdf

President Trump is irate over hacking and wiretapping that he says is coming from the left.

Rather than send these sources to a life of exile as Snowden’s Russian neighbor, Napolitano can be expected to simply take the blow no matter how damaging. If he never gets to wear the black robe as he sits on the Supreme Court because of his report, he will accept it. If his future shot at that is lost then it was lost for the truth (at least the truth as he believed it to be when he said it). That is something a just judge can live with.

Such a man is not driven by power or greed, so he would be (and still is) a remarkable choice for such a post. That will depend on two things, however. First, it depends on how much time passes before his name comes up when a justice retires or dies, and secondly, if Trump would still appoint him. If so, the president will see many political arrows from the Obama left flying for his head if, or when, he does.

We do know that in all of these years of loyal judicial and analytical service, Judge Andrew Napolitano has been nothing but consistently correct. That means that either he suddenly decided to soil his reputation by lying about three sources in a spy story that otherwise would have passed the news cycle, or he was telling the truth. Where there is smoke, one often finds a fire. Hopefully, that burning smell is the aroma of the Judge happily torching his contract and looking onward.

News source: https://conservativedailypost.com/breaking-fox-news-fires-judge-napolitano-after-he-proved-obama-treason-live-on-the-air/ 

Wednesday
Nov022016

Election News Email Dump Twist 


 
Integrity in Journalism - Is There any Truth?

Close Relationship of Hillary & Huma 

 

Is a story about a lesbian first lady ever true?

They read at first blush like the plaints of a lovelorn schoolgirl. “Oh dear one,” begins a letter dated 1933. “It is all the little things, tones in your voice, the feel of your hair, gestures, these are the things I think about and long for.”

Goes another when the two were apart: “Hick darling. Oh I want to put my arms around you. I ache to hold you close. Your ring is a great comfort. I look at it and think, she does love me, or I wouldn’t be wearing it.”

These newly released billets-doux were, in fact, written on White House stationery by Eleanor Roosevelt. They have suddenly ignited a sizzling scholarly debate about their author’s relationship with the woman they were addressed to: a salty, cigar-smoking, stoutly built reporter named Lorena Hickok.

As author Doris Faber reveals in her 1979 book, The Life of Lorena Hickok, the journalist and the President’s lady were an odd couple but a close one. They exchanged 3,360 letters in a correspondence that began in 1932 and ended with Eleanor’s death three decades later. Large numbers sound familiar? - like 3,360 Roosevelt letters verses 600,000 Clinton emails? Of course, there are  Hillary-Huma private emails expected in that mix too.

Forty years have passed since Doris Faber uncovered, to her frank dismay, incontrovertible evidence at the F.D.R. - Roosevelt Library that Eleanor Roosevelt had once been in love with another woman, a crackerjack Associated Press reporter named Lorena Hickok. The two women had exchanged more than 3,300 letters that survive—we’ll never know how many more Hickok destroyed due to their explicit nature.

Like much of the early scholarship surrounding the Roosevelt-Hickok relationship, “The Life of Lorena Hickok” (1980), the book that resulted from Ms. Faber’s discovery, suffered from a did-they-or-didn’t-they prurience in keeping with Reagan-era squeamishness about AIDS and gay issues generally. It fell to Blanche Wiesen Cook to dispel Victorian prudery and sensationalism alike. Ms. Cook’s game-changing work is rightfully acknowledged by Susan Quinn in “Eleanor and Hick,” her poignant account of a love affair doomed by circumstance and conflicting needs. Combining exhaustive research with emotional nuance, Ms. Quinn dives deep to convey the differing characters of president and first lady. Confronted with the pending divorce of their daughter, Anna, Eleanor encourages the younger woman to escape an unhappy marriage. FDR, by contrast, urges caution, reminding her that many couples “got on very well in the end without love.”

By her own admission, Eleanor Roosevelt fought a lifelong battle against fear, the fear of being unloved most of all. It was a vulnerability she was quick to recognize in others. Enter Lorena Hickok, Hick to her friends and colleagues. Raised in rural South Dakota, she survived a nightmarish childhood with an abusive father who, not content to beat his animal-loving daughter, dashed a favorite kitten’s brains against the barn. Taught “never to expect love or affection from anyone,” Hick was 13 when her mother died. Within a year she was sent packing by the dead woman’s replacement. Taking refuge in books and music, she found work, at age 19, as a cub reporter on a Battle Creek, Mich., newspaper. There she impressed editors with her versatility, humor and sensitivity toward outcasts of every stripe. In Minneapolis and Milwaukee she covered sports as authoritatively as a society ball. By 1932 the sole woman reporter on Franklin Roosevelt’s presidential campaign train, Hick concluded of the candidate’s wife: “That woman is unhappy about something.”

Her journalist’s intuition served her better than her journalist’s detachment. Before Election Day, Hickok had been given a privileged glimpse into the unorthodox Roosevelt marriage—into Eleanor’s “special friendship” with a handsome New York state trooper named Earl Miller; and Franklin’s intimate attachment to his longtime personal secretary Missy LeHand. All this Hick kept secret, along with FDR’s long-ago betrayal of his marital vows—and her own growing attachment to the tall, vulnerable woman who trusted her discretion.

“Remember,” Eleanor told Hick shortly after becoming first lady, “no one is just what you are to me.” By then Hick had quit the AP, trading her career for a fantasy life to be shared exclusively with her new love. For her part, ER plotted ways to escape the White House, traveling—more or less—incognito with Hick through Canada and on the West Coast. When, inevitably, their identities were uncovered, Hick’s former colleagues were not kind in their descriptions of her girth, appetite or bruising manner. Sufficient hints were dropped to feed suspicions about the first lady’s unconventional attachments.

Eventually, Eleanor’s ardor cooled. Needing to be needed, she couldn’t bear the thought of being possessed. “You have a feeling for me which I may not return in kind,” she told Hick in 1935. Deeply wounded, Hickok took to the road as a semiofficial diarist of the Great Depression. 


Thursday
Sep292016

The True November 2016 Surprise is Here Now!

Don't believe what the mainstream press is printing and putting out as facts, they hide the unknown knowns!

 
...Say hello to enormous Obamacare premium hikes! To be announced on November 1st,  seven days BEFORE the November 8th Presidential election, Obama is feverishly trying to delay the announcement until after the elections! ...Now, where are all of those "rich" people Hillary says that need to pay their "fair share" for the people?  ..Guess not anymore after the election, but we people all still owe by IRS law to be paying for it anyway, right now! ...Say, huh?

Quote of Whatever

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones."
—Donald Rumsfeld


Sunday
Sep252016

The Real Truth About SNOPES.COM

Don't Ever Doubt Again this Ultra-Left Wing Site is Honest!

This quite enlightening article will put to bed any doubt that the uber-liberal "Snopes.com" that everyone goes to is just plain full of shit.  Don't take my word, read from an ABC News article written in September, 2016 about what the founder says in his own words on Snopes.com while commenting on a featured political news story!

David Mikkelson, founder of Snopes.com, a website known for its biased opinions and inaccurate articles they write about stories on the internet in order to generate advertising revenue, told ABC News that he approves of what a story like this is accomplishing.

“You have to understand that when a story like this goes viral, and we spend a minute or two debunking it, we make lots of money. Stories like this have helped put my children through college, buy a new car, a home and even get the sex reassignment surgery my wife Barbara always wanted since she was a little boy,” Mikkleson said. “We claim ‘to provide evidence for such debunkings and confirmation as well‘, but that’s just ridiculous. Do you know how much time that would take? Instead, we just copy and paste parts of the original article into ours, write a couple sentences, and that’s it. I just want to be clear, our website does zero journalism or anything creative, and I’m only telling you this for legal reasons.” Mikkleson continues, “A typical story of ours makes wild claims, using grammatical errors, misspellings and words like ‘umimumimaginative’, ‘recycled’, ‘hoax’, saying that a story ‘illegally appropriates the trademarks of legitimate news organizations’, but we list no links or sources of information, they are all just wild claims by us. And that story will get 50,000 shares or more on Facebook, that’s a lot of ad revenue for only writing a couple sentences.” Mikkelson further explains, “It is common for us to rewrite a story we’re debunking if we don’t like it. In one recent story of ours, we actually removed a person’s name from the original article and then called him a liar, it’s so funny! We also like to post fakeun-funny, juvenile disclaimers supposedly from the site in question and it is our authors, such as Jeff Zarronandia who are responsible for those gems. We tell our readers that the disclaimer is from the story we are debunking, but a simple google search will show that our disclaimer is 100% fabricated. Sometimes I think that someone should start a company that debunks our debunkings, they could probably make a lot of money,” Mikkelson laughs. “And lots of people complain about ourauthors attacking websites and their owners for reasons that are 100% proven false, but since we block archive.org it just becomes their word versus ours. Our writers like Zarronandia go as far as to say that the story originated from ‘a clickbait fake news site that infringes the trademark-protected visual elements and domain names of legitimate news outlets in order to generate traffic and drive advertising revenues by creating and spreading entirely false “news” stories‘. But we don’t list ONE factual piece of evidence to back up our claims; It’s just more of our hack, unethical journalism, and as I said before, I only tell you this for legal reasons. I think it is business as usual for us to accuse the story we are debunking of spreading malware and viruses, but we never say what website it actually is. I think warning people about a site that could potentially destroy their computer is probably a good idea, and I hope one day to do that kind of ethical journalism, but people will click our ads regardless, bottom line; so why do the extra work?”

Monday
Aug292016

Ready to Lose Your Internet? ...Really?  ...Yeah!

For God's Sake! - For Your Own Sake! - Tell Congress to keep the Ban on this Obama Bill!

 

 HAPPENS BEFORE OBAMA LEAVES OFFICE - THE OCTOBER SURPRISE!

The Obama administration has again announced the end to the U.S. stewardship open Internet; Russia and China will take advantage of the American ICANN surrender too.  Authoritarian regimes want to grab control recognizing the 'different modes and methods in Internet management'.--code for a major subversion of the Internet and restriction to freedom of speech. 

Meanwhile, Obama is stealthly trying to pass his 'Executive Order' on the down-low and bypass congressional oversight once again; it will be far from the 'modest change in policy' that Obama claimed in March, 2014.  Is Obama aware of the major damages?  Of course not, he is again clueless!--How many more times must the public take that silly clueless excuse and just admit he knows what he is doing?        

Sands in an Hourglass."Like sands in the hourglass, so are 'The Days of Our Lives'."--to borrow the line from a popular daytime soap opera introduction. Since 1965, it is one of the longest-running scripted television programs in the world. It is even older than the Internet--my how time flies!

FACTOID: On October 24, 1995 the Federal Networking Council, FNC, unanimously passed a resolution defining the term 'Internet'. This definition was developed in consultation with members of the internet and intellectual property rights communities.

RESOLUTION: The Federal Networking Council (FNC) agrees that the following language reflects our definition of the term 'Internet'. It refers to the global information system that -- (i) is logically linked together by a globally unique address space based on the Internet Protocol (IP) or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons; (ii) is able to support communications using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons, and/or other IP-compatible protocols; and (iii) provides, uses or makes accessible, either publicly or privately, high level services layered on the communications and related infrastructure described herein.

"The Internet has changed much in the three decades since it came into existence. It was conceived in the era of time-sharing, but has survived into the era of personal computers, client-server and peer-to-peer computing, and the network computer. It was designed before LANs existed, but has accommodated that new network technology, as well as the more recent ATM and frame switched services. It was envisioned as supporting a range of functions from file sharing and remote login to resource sharing and collaboration which had spawned electronic mail and more recently the World Wide Web, Internet telephone and Internet television.

"The most pressing question for the future of the Internet is not how the technology will change, but how the process of change and evolution itself will be managed. The architecture of the Internet has always been driven by a core group of designers, but the form of that group has changed as the number of interested parties has grown. With the success of the Internet has come a proliferation of stakeholders - stakeholders now with an economic as well as an intellectual investment in the network. [Those major multi-national stakeholders have taken their suppressive political underpinnings to threaten the global Internet freedom of speech that have been advanced since the beginning by the United States ICANN organization.] 

"We now see, in the debates over control of the domain name space and the form of the next generation IP addresses, a struggle to find the next social structure that will guide the Internet in the future. The form of that structure will be harder to find, given the large number of concerned stakeholders. At the same time, the industry struggles to find the economic rationale for the large investment needed for the future growth, for example to upgrade residential access to a more suitable technology. If the Internet stumbles, it will not be because we lack for technology, vision, or motivation. It will be because we cannot set a direction and march collectively into the future."

Like those 'sands in the hourglass' our Internet freedoms are quickly slipping right between our fingers to be lost forever. With our U.S. Federal Communications Commission, the United Nations, the European Union, the various sovereign nations, partisan coalitions and special interest groups they all have strict regulatory agendas to curb current Internet freedoms. Can they all get along?--Read about the U.N. Security Council...

Look at the ridiculous farse exhibited by the United Nations Security Council, its members are so stacked up against any United States participation. Under the Charter, the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members, and each Member has one vote. Under the Charter, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions. The Permanent Five members, P5, are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.  Each of the permanent members has power to veto, enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft. 

All substantive United States' resolutions are null and void by design. --And so after reviewing over 70 years of poor performance of the U.N., do we now give up U.S. control of our Internet and all set a direction to march collectively into the global future?? 

WATCH YOUR INTERNET BILL GO UP!

OR

EMAIL SENATORS & CONGRESSMEN NOW!