Trump has figured out he doesn’t need the media

First press briefing leaves media feeling just a tad bit decapitated

By Dan Calabrese —— Bio and Archives January 23, 2017

We’ll have two pieces on this today, with the upcoming one dealing with the subsequent media meltdown over it.

My criticism of Spicer’s performance here would be this: He had a point about the fixation on the crowd size, but the actual facts are arguable. On the MLK bust question, Spicer had the media dead to rights. He could have ripped them a new one on that issue and that issue alone, letting them know that from now on they would pay a very high price for such malfeasance and incompetence, then dropped the mic and walked out.

Game, set, match to Spicer.

By spending so much time on the crowd size, he gave the media points to nitpick over, and unfortunately the MLK bust issue got lost in the shuffle, which is too bad. But since you won’t hear much coverage of what Spicer said about that, listen to it here:

The reason the media are losing their minds over this is that Trump has figured out a way to totally change the balance of the power relationship between him and them, and they’re completely unprepared for it.

·       In the past, if the president wanted to say something to the public, he had to go through the press, which meant he had to be very careful and play nice with them at all times.

·       If they lied or recklessly got facts wrong, he had to be very careful about taking them to task because he needed them as a mouthpiece going forward.

Trump understands that he does not have to play by those rules.

If Trump wants to say something to the nation, he can do so via social media.

·       He doesn’t have to put his message through the filter of the press and he doesn’t have to earn the good will of the press beforehead.

·       He just lets it rip. He can write a quick tweet.

·       He can record a quick video. Everyone will see it exactly as he wants it seen.

·       He doesn’t need the media.

But that’s only one half of how he’s changed the equation.

·       It used to be that when the media reported something inaccurate or just flat-out false, you had to plead with them to retract it or print a correction.

·       They decided if they would, and they decided how prominently to display it if they did. Nowhere near as many people would see the correction as would see the original falsehood, and that’s assuming they would run the correction at all.

·       Now, when the press publishes BS, the president himself can take to social media and blast them for it. And this president is more than willing to do so.

What Spicer was telling the press on Saturday was that accountability now works two ways. In the past it wasn’t possible for the White House to hold them accountable for their lies because they were the controllers of every medium. And it wasn’t necessary for Obama to hold them accountable because they were his willing water-carriers. Trump is the first president to have both the need and the means to turn the tables on them. And because they decided during the campaign to unapologetically declare war on him, he now considers the battle joined.

And if there’s one thing anyone should know about Donald Trump, it’s that he only fights a battle one way - and it’s not to lose.

If the media don’t like this, too damn bad. Trump isn’t the one who declared this war. They are. He’s simply letting it be known that he has no intention to cower or surrender to them.

If the media want a cease-fire, here’s what they need to do:

·       Stop pushing agendas and just report real, truthful news.

·       If you don’t think an argument over crowd size is worthy of the nation, then don’t report on it.

·       If you don’t want to get blasted as fake news, don’t run reports saying Trump removed the MLK bust from the Oval Office when that’s a total lie and Trump did no such thing.

·       If they tell the truth, he won’t attack them.

·       If they don’t, he will and he should. They wanted a war. They’ve got one now.


Source: First press briefing leaves media feeling just a tad bit decapitated


 

America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group

America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group, By Garikai Chengu, Global Research, January 23, 2017

clip_image002

Among Global Research’s most popular articles in 2016.

Incisive article originally published by GR in September 2014.  Terror attacks or mass shootings allegedly perpetrated by the ISIS, the question that should be asked: who are the State sponsors of  Al Qaeda and the ISIS?  (M.Ch. GR Editor).

Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.

The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.

The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.

The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”

During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.

The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.

In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.

There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria:

1.      one between the government and the rebels,

2.      another between Iran and Saudi Arabia,

3.      and yet another between America and Russia.

It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.

America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.

ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.

The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is.

An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.

America is using ISIS in three ways:

1.      to attack its enemies in the Middle East,

2.      to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad,

3.      and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.

By rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, Mr. Obama’s government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while diminishing its citizens’ power to watch their government. Terrorism is an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revolt.

The so-called “War on Terror” should be seen for what it really is: a pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military.

The two most powerful groups in the U.S. foreign policy establishment are the Israel lobby, which directs U.S. Middle East policy, and the Military-Industrial-Complex, which profits from the former group’s actions. Since George W.

Bush declared the “War on Terror” in October 2001, it has cost the American taxpayer approximately 6.6 trillion dollars and thousands of fallen sons and daughters; but, the wars have also raked in billions of dollars for Washington’s military elite.

In fact, more than seventy American companies and individuals have won up to $27 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last three years, according to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity.

According to the study, nearly 75 per cent of these private companies had employees or board members, who either served in, or had close ties to, the executive branch of the Republican and Democratic administrations, members of Congress, or the highest levels of the military.

In 1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Truth is, the only way America can win the “War On Terror” is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America.

Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer.

Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles.

Garikai Chengu is a research scholar at Harvard University. Contact him on garikai.chengu@gmail.com

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Garikai Chengu, Global Research, 2017


Source: America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group


 

The Democratic Party is on Life-Support

Robert Reich: The Democratic Party is on Life-Support

Arthur Christopher Schaper, January 22, 2017

clip_image001They have lost an election which DNC leaders rigged to ensure that their prized queen would win, first through engineering her victory in the primary against Weekend at Bernie’s, then through media frauds and collusion during the General Election.

And Democrats still lost.

Crooked Hillary actually believe that she could lie, cheat, and steal her way through this election, just as Barack Obama had demagogued key issues to shame conservative opponents into silence in the two previous elections.

The Democratic Party has been overrun by communists, socialists, thugs, public sector union cronies, and outright anti-patriotic hatemongers. The former mantra of playing to minorities and social grievances has not worked.

Their embrace of climate alarmism has turned off millions of voters, particularly in rural areas. Once Democratic strongholds have become rapidly Republican, embracing core pro-family values as well as attention to fiscal probity and responsibility.

The Democratic Party is now stuck in the past, with no chance of moving forward. People living in this country now, and those who lived in North America before this nation was born, have experimented with the closed model of oppressive government which stifles innovation and limits liberty.

Now the Democratic Party is heading into another political wilderness, from which the leaders have no interest in listening or learning from their mistakes.

Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton and current pseudo-intellectual for MoveOn.org, is trying to wake up and save the Democratic Party:

The ongoing contest between the Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders wings of the Democratic Party continues to divide Democrats.

This fight is going from bad to worse, no doubt about it.

Reich then declares some sobering news for Democrats (but great news for the rest of us):

The [Democratic] Party is on life support.

No kidding!

Reich listed the reasons:

1. Democrats are in the minority in both the House and Senate, with no end in sight.

Democrats are going to face a horrendous Senate map in 2018. In at last five of the 23 seats they have to defend, both Republican Presidential candidates carried those states. In three more. Trump won, and Republicans are dominating at the state level in the legislature as well as the governors’ mansion.

The Democratic Party is not going to pick up enough House seats to win back the lower chamber, either. The districts have either been safely drawn to protect (Republican) incumbents, and states with Republican dominance are actually prospering or growing.

Besides, non-Presidential election years are better for Republicans, since they have the larger share of likely voters. And Donald Trump is waging unprecedented successes already.

2. Democrats lost 1,034 state and federal seats. They hold only 17 governorships, and face 32 state legislatures fully under GOP control.

OUCH! Just let those numbers sink in. Republicans have had their troubles, during the 1930s and shortly after the Watergate Scandal. Both times, however, Republicans bounced back.

3. No one speaks for the party as a whole.

What does the Democratic Party stand for? More socialism? Bigger government? Anarchism? Tolerance for international and domestic terrorist groups? Rampant corruption?

4. The Party’s top leaders are aging, and the back bench is thin.

They current Senate Minority and House minority leaders are continuing to embrace the very policies which have ensured Democratic minorities for years to come. Arrogance, elitist, out of touch, in bondage to wealthy donors in remote coastal enclaves with no understanding of what every day Americans are enduring.

What’s worse for Reich, though, is that he fails to see past the populist mantra to the Constitutional republicanism re-installing itself in Washington DC:

We are now in a populist era. The strongest and most powerful force in American politics is a rejection of the status quo, a repudiation of politics as usual, and a deep and profound distrust of elites, including the current power structure of America.

The problem that Reich and other regressive Democrats are ignoring is that ... socialist policies like the massive redistributionist policies he favors have become ... the status quo.

Young people and their parents are relearning the blessings of liberty. They have experienced eight years of command-control governance, and they do not like it.

·       It’s costly.

·       It’s corrupt.

·       It’s vastly ineffective.

·       All the hopes and dreams which regressive leftists imparted to Barack Obama are all about to be done away with through the flick of a pen and the use of a phone.

·       Such is the result of Big Government hubris, now brought low by voters.

Reich continues to diagnose the near-fatal status of the Democratic Party with:

1. Big moneyed interests subsidizing candidates, who in turn reward special interests and their greedy limited goals.

2. The destruction of labor unions, particularly public sector unions.

In response to these two issues:

1.     The Democratic Party establishment chose the most corrupt, colluding Presidential candidates in modern times. She was a Wall Street puppet from Day One. Further, Democratic policies by their very nature help Big Business to do its dirty deeds, regardless of the hollow mantras of the Democratic Party as “The Working Man’s Party.”

2.     As for Big Labor, this phalanx represents the perverse and disastrous consequences of big government collectivism. Men and women have been forced to join syndicates and subsidize their left-wing, destructive policies. Cities and now states are going bankrupt as the bills now have to be paid.

3.     The Democratic Power has played the public with their control of the media to spout lies about Republicans and conservatives. Now that the media is crashing and burning, the Democratic Party has nothing left but to consider embracing conservative ideals for a change or go further into irrelevance and decay with a doubling down on socialism.

4.     It’s no wonder, then, the Democratic Party is on life support, and with no viable ideas with respect to God, country, and citizenry, they will end up in the ash heap of history just like the Soviet Union and other communistic regimes around the world.


Arthur Christopher Schaper -- Bio and Archives | Click to view 3 Comments

Arthur Christopher Schaper is a teacher-turned-writer on topics both timeless and timely; political, cultural, and eternal. A life-long Southern California resident, Arthur currently lives in Torrance.

Twitter—@ArthurCSchaper
Facebook

aschaper1.blogspot.com
asheisministries.blogspot.com
waxmanwatch.blogspot.com


Source: Robert Reich: The Democratic Party is on Life-Support


 

The Legacy Of President Barack Obama

Ce qui est intéressant ce vidéo provient d'un vlogue de démocrate.

Les Etats-Unis n'ont pas cessé de se mêler de la politique intérieure de ses alliés et clients

L'obsession anti-russe ou le testament d'Obama

·        Par Eric Delbecque

 

·        Publié le 17/01/2017 à 18:54

clip_image002

FIGAROVOX/TRIBUNE - La fin du second mandat de Barack Obama a été marquée par une dégradation des relations américano-russes. Pour Eric Delbecque, l'obsession américaine pour discréditer Moscou traduit la volonté de Washington de continuer de peser sur les affaires du monde.


Le harcèlement anti-Poutine marquera le crépuscule de Barack Obama. Le président démocrate achève son deuxième mandat en amplifiant la perception du désastreux bilan de la politique étrangère des Etats-Unis depuis le début du XXIe siècle. Après 2003, l'Oncle Sam n'a cessé d'apparaître comme une puissance incapable de comprendre le reste de la planète, multipliant les occasions d'instabilité géopolitique plutôt que de tenter de les apaiser. On imputa l'obsession unilatéraliste de la Maison-Blanche à Georges W. Bush et aux néoconservateurs, mais il fallut rapidement s'y faire: les Démocrates n'avaient pas l'intention de rompre avec les mauvaises habitudes du dessein hégémonique. Le style et les mots changèrent, pas les intentions et le fond de la stratégie de sécurité nationale.

 

Le harcèlement anti-Poutine marquera le crépuscule de Barack Obama. Le président démocrate achève son deuxième mandat en amplifiant la perception du désastreux bilan de la politique étrangère des Etats-Unis depuis le début du XXIe siècle. Après 2003, l'Oncle Sam n'a cessé d'apparaître comme une puissance incapable de comprendre le reste de la planète, multipliant les occasions d'instabilité géopolitique plutôt que de tenter de les apaiser. On imputa l'obsession unilatéraliste de la Maison-Blanche à Georges W. Bush et aux néoconservateurs, mais il fallut rapidement s'y faire: les Démocrates n'avaient pas l'intention de rompre avec les mauvaises habitudes du dessein hégémonique. Le style et les mots changèrent, pas les intentions et le fond de la stratégie de sécurité nationale.

Que proposent les Américains au reste des nations du monde ? De contribuer au confort des Etats-Unis…

 

Quant à l'Union européenne et aux Etats qui la composent, ils s'enkystent dans le suivisme le plus affligeant et multiplient les erreurs d'analyse géostratégique facilitant l'expansion du salafisme djihadiste (en Lybie et en Syrie) ; parallèlement, ils sacrifient leurs intérêts économiques fondamentaux à ceux des Etats-Unis ou de la Chine, sous le prétexte de se conformer aux dogmes les plus absurdes du droit de la concurrence.

 

Seule la Russie de Vladimir Poutine offre une résistance entêtée aux prétentions états-uniennes à régenter brutalement une mondialisation dont ils maîtrisent les principaux titans.

 

Seule la Russie de Vladimir Poutine offre une résistance entêtée aux prétentions états-uniennes à régenter brutalement une mondialisation dont ils maîtrisent les principaux titans (il suffit de regarder les Top 100 des marques les plus influentes en 2015) et les normes financières, technologiques, culturelles et juridiques. A cet égard, la dénonciation de la cyberguerre menée par la Russie et de l'ingérence du Kremlin dans le processus électoral qui a porté Donald Trump au pouvoir, s'inscrit d'abord dans l'objectif de décrédibiliser toute forme d'opposition à la vision américaine des grands enjeux internationaux. On peut sans aucun doute souligner que la Russie déploie sa propre stratégie de puissance de l'Ukraine à la Syrie: mais Vladimir Poutine ne prétend pas travailler à la diffusion des idéaux de la démocratie. Il défend de manière fort transparente et revendiquée les intérêts de la nation russe et dénie à la bannière étoilée le droit de coloniser les cultures étrangère et de se prétendre l'Empire du Bien en toutes circonstances.

Depuis le début de la Guerre Froide, les Etats-Unis n'ont pas cessé de se mêler de la politique intérieure de ses alliés et clients.

 

Car ce qui se révèle finalement insupportable, c'est la position de donneuse de leçons adoptée par l'administration Obama. Comment peut-elle sérieusement faire le procès en manipulation de Poutine après la révélation de l'affaire PRISM ou l'élaboration du TAFTA (qui exporte la vision anglo-saxonne des affaires et participe au développement de la prospérité du big business américain)? Depuis le début de la Guerre Froide, les Etats-Unis n'ont pas cessé de se mêler de la politique intérieure de ses alliés et clients, de l'Amérique du Sud à l'Asie en passant par l'Europe, y compris en poussant leurs pions sur l'échiquier culturel et intellectuel (souvenons-nous du Congrès pour la liberté de la culture dans les années cinquante, une association anticommuniste financée par la CIA).

 

La coopération internationale et la conquête de la paix ne se construisent pas sur le syndrome de Tartuffe mais sur la réflexion stratégique approfondie et la prise en compte des matrices culturelles.

 

Il ne s'agit pas de privilégier systématiquement la Russie par rapport aux Etats-Unis, de «préférer» Poutine à Obama ou Trump, mais de cesser de coller à la roue des Américains et d'en finir avec cette permanente posture moralisante alors que la politique internationale exige de la nuance et la prise en compte d'équilibres de long terme (alors que les émotions spontanées nous rendent vulnérables aux manipulations de l'information et aux opérations d'influence). Le rôle de la France et de l'Europe consiste précisément à faire valoir une différence capitale: marier leurs intérêts, et l'atteinte d'objectifs éloignés dans le temps, avec la croyance en des valeurs fondamentales (qu'il faut qualifier d'humanistes, et pas simplement de libérales et démocrates) que la réalité nous force à négocier au cas par cas, puisque le reste de la planète ne croit pas forcément aux principes occidentaux. La coopération internationale et la conquête de la paix ne se construisent pas sur le syndrome de Tartuffe mais sur la réflexion stratégique approfondie et la prise en compte des matrices culturelles. Par conséquent, il conviendrait d'adopter avec Poutine une attitude de vigilance résolue mettant néanmoins l'accent sur la volonté de construire une puissante dynamique de coopération avec Moscou. Humilier ouvertement et verbalement l'Ours russe accentue le chaos du monde, sans aucun bénéfice pour quiconque.

 

Le harcèlement du personnage Poutine conduit consciencieusement depuis des années par le gouvernement des Etats-Unis ne traduit pas un engagement moral mais l'impuissance des élites américaines à penser l'altérité. Dans la mesure où Washington échoue avec constance sur la scène internationale, les têtes de l'Etat fédéral en reviennent aux bonnes vieilles méthodes: chercher le candidat idéal qui coiffera le chapeau du bouc émissaire et du meilleur ennemi! La sclérose de la pensée diplomatique et sécuritaire de l'Oncle Sam influence négativement la planète entière. Barack Obama fut un symbole magnifique qui suscita une immense espérance: son testament politique consacre une désillusion.


clip_image007Source : L'obsession anti-russe ou le testament d'Obama