Tag: trump derangement syndrome

One of the media’s favorite economists is at it again

For four years the media and other Democrats gaslighted the public about how great the Biden economic policies were. But six months into Trump’s term, the media is trashing Trump’s policies in order to influence, not inform, the voters. And, like clockwork, they trot out Mark Zandi, who they pretend is independent, but is really a Democrat hack. Whenever the media and other Democrats want an economist to support their policies and trash Republican (Trump) policies, out comes Zandi.

Here he is in The Hill saying we are on the precipice of a recession. I guess the deep depression warnings of April the Democrats and media promised didn’t come true, so out he comes again, just like a groundhog, with new warnings:

US economy on ‘precipice of recession,’ Moody’s chief economist warns

  • Consumer spending flat; construction, manufacturing contracting, he says
  • Zandi blames tariffs, immigration policy for economic struggles
  • Low jobless rate masks shrinking workforce, hiring freezes

Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi said the U.S. economy is ‘on the precipice of recession,’ citing indicators from last week’s economic data releases.

The article is everywhere. Not to be outdone, Fox News calls him a leading economist and says the Federal Reserve has few options to save us from financial crisis. Maybe they should lower interest rates? I have to wonder how many times an economist has to be wrong before the media stops considering them to be a leading economist?

Leading economist issues stark recession warning for struggling US economy

Mark Zandi cites weak jobs data and rising inflation as Fed faces limited rescue options[.]

In 2007, Moody’s (Zandi), S & P, and Fitch were earning huge fees by rating junk mortgage pools as Triple A. This allowed brokers, bankers, Freddie and Fannie, to package up trillion dollars worth of garbage to sell to individuals, banks, and mutual funds. This was pure fraud that almost destroyed the U.S. and world economy, and yet these people did not go to jail. The taxpayer bailed them out. 

Yet today Zandi and others are still treated as respectable ratings agents.

Keep reading

Democrats’ Sudden Obsession With Jeffrey Epstein Is An Opportunistic Ploy To Bash Trump

Matt Taibbi recently flagged this choice tidbit from a New York Times story attempting to downplay damning new revelations about the Russiagate hoax from Trump’s first term: “The administration is trying to distract supporters who are angry about its broken promise to release the Jeffrey Epstein files.”

There’s no evidence whatsoever this is the reason why the Trump administration is trying to hold people accountable for falsely accusing the president of colluding with Russia. Trump is rightly angered that his first term was derailed by manufactured accusations of treasonous collusion. His current FBI director, Kash Patel, was involved in unraveling the bogus Russia claims as they were being made and has been warning of a conspiracy against Trump emanating from the FBI and CIA for years — and nearly all of Patel’s warnings have been subsequently validated.

Even without digging through the particulars of the latest Russiagate revelations, since when has it been a respectable journalistic practice to make unsupported assertions that are little more than Democrat Party talking points? Well, major media organizations have been behaving this way ever since I can remember, but the point about it being bad journalism still stands.

Fair or not, it’s hard not to concede that the Trump White House brought this attack on itself. A month ago, Trump’s DOJ issued a memo bluntly refuting the existence of an Epstein “client list,” downplaying conspiracies surrounding Epstein’s death in jail and the blackmailing of wealthy powerbrokers, and announcing that, due to privacy concerns and the court-ordered sealing of documents, the release of more Epstein files wasn’t forthcoming. These might be reasonable conclusions based on the evidence, but the Trump admin had swept into office all but guaranteeing dramatic Epstein revelations. This was overpromising and underachieving on a fairly grand scale, and lots of Trump supporters weren’t happy about it.

It’s worth noting that the recent round of Russiagate revelations began on July 2 when CIA Director John Ratcliffe issued a report on the faulty Intelligence Community Assessment process in 2016. That was five days before the DOJ memo on Epstein that spurred the recent controversy; if anything, the facts support the notion Democrats are seizing on the Epstein memo to distract from very serious new allegations that implicate President Obama in weaponizing the CIA to go after a political rival. On that point, Lee Smith has a lot of eye-opening things to say about how the sudden Democrat interest Epstein is an attempt to obscure the new Russia revelations.

However, it’s not all strategic. At a base level, Democrats are simply trying to exploit a rift in Trump’s base to drag his approval down by tarring him with Epstein. This why you now have even the most milquetoast figures in the Democrat Party — Quick, what’s the name of the senator from Arizona again? Wasn’t he an astronaut or something? — gleefully intimating Trump is covering up and/or implicated in a dark pedophile conspiracy.

If they were so alarmed by this pedophile conspiracy and convinced it implicated Trump, you’d think they would have done something about this last year when Democrats controlled the DOJ and Trump was running for president. You’d think releasing concrete evidence of his unsavory involvement with Epstein would have put a damper on his reelection chances. After all, it has been reported that Trump’s name pops up numerous times in the Epstein files.

The problem is that, as we’ve noted, Trump has already been victim of a major conspiracy emanating from the Justice Department. Even Trump’s tax returns were leaked. New York state combed through his real estate docs to invent a charge against him and fine him $400 million for the crime of receiving a loan and paying it back with interest. It’s entirely possible Trump’s name appearing in the Epstein files is a reason why they haven’t been released; but it strains credibility to think that Democrats controlled the DOJ the last four years and didn’t bother splashing damaging information about Trump from those same files all over The New York Times.

What we do know is this: Trump and Epstein were friends throughout the 90s, but that the pair had a major falling out around 2004 when Trump supposedly banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago. The source of the feud is not clear, but one of Epstein’s most outspoken victims, Virginia Giuffre, had been working at Mar-a-Lago’s spa, and Epstein reportedly “stole” her from Trump’s employment. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has said, “The fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club for being a creep to his female employees.” The investigation into Epstein was opened a year later in 2005.

These facts, combined with the total lack of leaks of damaging info from a hostile DOJ, are pretty thin gruel. And yet, the media and Democrats, but I repeat myself ad nauseum, are really flooding the zone here.

Keep reading

Smoking gun? Obama endorsed bogus CIA claims on Trump and Putin before analysis was even finished

President Barack Obama made public statements as early as mid-December 2016 indicating that he was endorsing a predetermined CIA view about Vladimir Putin allegedly wanting Donald Trump to win and Hillary Clinton to lose. The intelligence community assessment (ICA) had not even been completed and was still being debated and drafted.

The record — bolstered by newly-declassified documents — shows that Obama was a central figure at key points throughout the Russiagate saga. Obama directed the creation of a new ICA on Russian meddling only after Trump was victorious in November 2016. Well before the ICA was finalized, Obama repeatedly endorsed the controversial and inaccurate conclusion from the CIA, run at the time by Director John Brennan. That conclusion was spun into a widely-adopted narrative that Putin had allegedly ordered election meddling in 2016 to hurt Clinton’s chances and to help Trump win.

Obama endorsed an anonymously-leaked CIA assessment on Russian meddling in mid-December 2016 during an interview with NPR, roughly two weeks before the ICA was finalized in late December 2016. Obama said during the interview that no one should be “surprised by the CIA assessment that this was done purposely to improve Trump’s chances” — a claim he was making following anonymous leaks to the media about the CIA’s alleged position, preempting the completion of the formal ICA later that month.

Obama’s pre-judged outcome

Obama similarly hinted that he had already come to the conclusion that Russia had allegedly meddled to hurt Clinton and help Trump during a mid-December 2016 White House press conference and a mid-December 2016 appearance on The Daily Show — both roughly two weeks prior to the ICA being completed.

Despite Obama’s perpetuating the falsity in mid-December 2016, a recent CIA review ordered by Director John Ratcliffe stated that the most-highly classified version of the ICA would not be completed until December 30, 2016. A less declassified version of the ICA would be dated January 5, 2017 — with the public version of the ICA dated the following day.

The post-election January 2017 ICA was put together by just the CIA, FBI, and NSA — led at the time by then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-NSA director Admiral Mike Rogers, and since-fired FBI Director James Comey — with input from then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

Gabbard: Proof that Obama knew it was false

“There is irrefutable evidence that details how President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false,” Gabbard asserted from the podium at the White House press briefing room last month. “They knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true. It wasn’t.”

A spokesperson for Obama released a statement in response to Gabbard’s allegations, where he sought to deny Gabbard’s claims.

“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one,” the Obama statement read.

Keep reading

Is Rachel Maddow Trying to Get Trump Killed? It Sure Looks That Way

On Monday of this week, the only night that Rachel Maddow hosts her MSNBC show, she looked depressed and dejected as she delivered her opening monologue.

In her screed, Maddow spent the better part of ten-plus minutes describing the Trump presidency as a dictatorship and saying that the country “has an authoritarian leader.”

What is Maddow doing here? There have already been two attempts on Trump’s life. Is Maddow pushing for a third? It sure looks that way.

Transcript via NewsBusters:

RACHEL MADDOW: Life has not stopped and none of our personal lives have stopped. But also at the same time, life in the United States is profoundly changing. It’s profoundly different than it was even six months ago, because we do now live in a country that has an authoritarian leader in charge. We have a consolidating dictatorship in our country. And it sounds melodramatic to say it, I know, but just go with that for a minute, right?

Think– think in melodramatic terms. Think in cinematic terms. Imagine the cartoon level caricature of what you think a dictatorship looks like. I mean, it’s secret police, right? A massive anonymous unbadged, literally masked, totally unaccountable internal police force that apparently has infinite funding but no identifiable leadership. And they act in ways designed to instill maximum fear and use maximum force.

I mean, when you imagine an authoritarian country, right, what you imagine is masked secret police breaking people’s car windows and snatching people off the streets and out of church parking lots and courtroom hallways and taking them away with no charges, no notice, no paperwork, no explanation, not letting them see lawyers, and then moving them secretly to what are effectively black site prisons where they won’t tell you who’s there and where no one is allowed in to see what’s going on. Right?

Keep reading

Donald Trump Corrects CNBC Host On-Air, Live Fact Check Backfires

President Donald Trump called into CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Tuesday, where he addressed a wide range of topics, including his 2024 election victory, economic policies, Democratic leadership, and congressional redistricting.

During the live segment, Trump fact-checked the host in real time over his record vote count in Texas—and was quickly proven correct.

During the conversation, Trump stated, “I got the highest vote in the history of Texas,” referring to the 2024 election results.

CNBC co-host Joe Kernen responded, “I have to check on that,” prompting a brief exchange.

Moments later, Kernen confirmed the claim, saying, “Okay, so huh, here we go, you did get the highest number of votes in Texas. So, that’s true.”

Trump replied, “I did. Okay, you don’t have to say anything more, Joe. No, don’t say anything more, don’t qualify it by saying…” Kernen conceded, “You did,” before moving on to the next topic.

Keep reading

Obama’s 2016 NPR interview comes back to haunt him in ways he never imagined…

At the height of the Russiagate frenzy, before the evidence, before the Twitter Files, before the whole thing unraveled, Barack Obama sat down for a soft-pitch, hour-long NPR interview designed to sell the biggest political hoax in American history.

Eight years later, that smug, elitist performance is aging like room-temperature milk.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of the Trump administration and intel leaders like Tulsi Gabbard, the truth is finally out. We now have proof, not suspicion, not random speculation or whispers, that Obama’s fingerprints were all over the plot to sabotage President Trump before he even took office—and after he won. It wasn’t just Hillary, like we’ve been told. It wasn’t just Comey or Brennan. It was Barack Obama. He knew. He directed. He approved… and he also pushed it.

It wasn’t some goofy misunderstanding. It was a full-blown coup effort.

And now that the lights are on, there’s no slithering back into the shadows for these Deep State bad guys. Heads should roll. The American people were put through years of CIA-style psyops, fake news and hysteria, and national humiliation. And all of it—every last bit—can be traced back to the Barry machine.

Speaking of that, Stephen Miller just reminded us that President Trump wasn’t the only one who was harmed by this treasonous conspiracy. All of America was.

Keep reading

No Doubt Left… Russiagate Was A Cover-Up

The most infuriatingly complex scandal of all time has just been reduced to a page or two, thanks to another declassified release…

It was a cover-up.

The Russiagate scandal has long been one of the most convoluted, hard-to-follow news stories of all time. It even has multiple names thanks to its peculiar chronology. From 2016 until April 2019 — while Democrats still held out hope of “presidency-wrecking” revelations that would topple Donald Trump — it was generally known as the Trump-Russia scandal. After Special Counsel Robert Mueller broke the hearts of MSNBC audiences by issuing a report without new indictments, attention began to be cast on the scandal’s fraudulent construction, how it was propped up by political spying, illegal leaks, and WMD-style intelligence fakery. Trump and others began to call it Spygate or the Russia hoax, but the name that stuck was Russiagate.

Those of us who covered the story from the start had a difficult time explaining to audiences what it was, as we ourselves didn’t know. Now we do, after a month of disclosures, capped yesterday by the release of an explosive (and inexplicably long-classified) annex to the report of Special Counsel John Durham. Finally, it seems, we can explain how the idea that Donald Trump was “gaffing his way toward treason” through a secret love affair (really!) with Vladimir Putin and extensive “ties” or “links” with Russia suddenly became The Biggest Story in the World in the summer of 2016.

It wasn’t the start of a corruption story about Trump, but the cover-up of a still-unresolved Hillary Clinton scandal. This is purely a Clinton corruption story, probably the last in a long line, as neither Bill nor Hillary will have careers when it’s finished, if they stay out of jail. Characteristically, the most powerful political family since the Kennedys won’t just bring many individuals down with them, but whole institutions, as the FBI, the CIA, the presidency of Barack Obama, and a dozen or so of the most celebrated brands in commercial media will see their names blackened forever through association with this idiotic caper. A fair number of those media companies should (and likely will) go out of business.

Now, we know. With the help of the declassified Durham material, we can explain the whole affair in three brushstrokes.

One, Hillary Clinton and her team apparently hoped to deflect from her email scandal and other problems via a campaign tying Trump to Putin. Two, American security services learned of these plans. Three — and this is the most important part — instead of outing them, authorities used state resources to massively expand and amplify her scheme. The last stage required the enthusiastic cooperation and canine incuriosity of the entire commercial news business, which cheered as conspirators made an enforcement target of Trump, actually an irrelevant bystander.

I’ve tiptoed for years around what I believed to be true about this case, worrying some mitigating fact might emerge.

Now, there’s no doubt.

Hillary Clinton got in a jam, and the FBI, CIA, and the Obama White House got her out of it by setting Trump up. That’s it. It was a cover-up, plain and simple…

Keep reading

Here’s What Gabbard’s Russiagate Report Missed

“An easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia — from a position of strength — is possible. Common sense says this cycle of hostility must end.” Candidate Donald Trump said that on April 27, 2016. At first glance that might sound rather irrelevant to Gabbard’s Russiagate revelations. But let me connect the dots for you.

The first point is that Russiagate has inflamed US-Russia tensions. That action actually had a number of beneficiaries. Their interests would be harmed by Trump’s aspiration.

Who are they? Primarily I’m talking about the US defense industry and those connected in some way. Certainly a strong defensive capability is of vital importance. But the demand for defense production becomes inflated by provocations like Russiagate. However, such demand is not essential for a strong defense posture.

It is natural behavior for an industry to try to protect itself and to grow. That means the defense industry would be receptive to provoked demand. And there is evidence that many American politicians would be motivated to support that unnecessary production. Here’s why. First, if there were no politically provoked demand there would be a lesser need for defense production. Congressional district and state economies could be negatively impacted by fewer defense contracts, there would be fewer jobs, out of work people would spend less money thus impacting local economies, there might be fewer revolving-door opportunities for politicians leaving government service, and there could be fewer campaign contributions, free trips including foreign visits, and a reduction in other favors provided to politicians (such as supporting pet charities or projects of a politician).

In short, a peace dividend from better US-Russia relations would be felt quite negatively by the foregoing. And that’s where my cited Trump quote favoring better relations with Russia connects. His aspiration runs counter to certain political interests by compromising them.

Perhaps that’s why just 36 days after Trump’s cited aspirational statement, Hillary Clinton said, “If Donald gets his way, they’ll be celebrating in the Kremlin. We cannot let that happen.”

Now, I don’t think she meant literally celebrating like a birthday party. Being very happy might fit the metaphor.

But why wouldn’t both countries be happy over the advent of better relations? Certainly that was the case back when President Ronald Reagan made friends with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. For comparison, wouldn’t the US administration be happy if it convinced the leadership of Iran to honestly seek better relations with us?

Countries enjoying solidly good relations generally don’t fight each other directly or by surrogacy.

So this is what Gabbard’s reports missed: They omitted the greater context concerning the benefits for some from undertaking the Russiagate hoax. Gabbard makes it sound simply like a big untoward political squabble. She missed the point that it is within some commercial interests to vilify Russia as did Russiagate.

Her reports expose the political culprits responsible for the hoax. But they ignore that greater context in which they did it. And that context is far more consequential than the political angle that has dominated the Gabbard news story. Even putting Obama in jail, as some have mused about, wouldn’t solve the fundamental problem.

There are real problems created by those who benefit from conflict in the world. Those problems are inextricably related to the onset of the Russiagate hoax. All the perpetrators of the hoax may not have been astute enough to realize that. Yet it remains at the heart of the matter.

Keep reading

The Left’s Overreaction Addiction

Sunny Hostin claims Stephen Colbert’s show cancellation is an instance of the “dismantling of our democracy.” An X commentator wrote, “Democracy is when Colbert is on television.” Sunny must have fallen off Venus and is unused to Earth gravity—or she’s just a host on The View. She epitomizes the overreaction that has overtaken rational thought and replaced political discourse in America.

As background for those who have not fallen with Sunny, Stephen Colbert is a political shouter who has been a fixture on late night TV for decades, starting out on The Daily Show, then his own satire show The Colbert Report, and now The Late Show. Democracy in America predates Colbert by some 200 years. Things came to an unfunny conclusion of sorts in July when parent company CBS announced Colbert would go off the air next year for financial reasons. That last thing is what set off the Venusians.

Colbert was a Trump critic. That is to say whatever Trump did or said on any particular day, later that night Colbert would mock, ridicule, and otherwise shout hatred toward, in front of a woke audience pre-triggered to bray for more blood. It wasn’t funny and didn’t even try to be funny; it was just the Two Minutes of Hate each night. As Orwell wrote, this forced expression of negativity was a key mechanism for maintaining social control, reinforcing the Party’s ideology and preventing independent thought. It is a baseline for processing information. So it was with Colbert—plus a musical guest.

Nobody among his audience, or for that matter apparently anybody who voted Democrat, thought the reason for Colbert’s demise was “financial reasons.” Every X post, every statement issued by a hip Democratic senator said the same thing: Colbert was canceled because he criticized Trump, often characterized as “the regime” or something Hitler-esque. We have gotten to the point, said one Facebook meme, “where those who make fun of the Dear Leader are disappeared.” They all seemed to believe it, and “I Stand with Colbert” signs appeared at the usual protests. On air Colbert told CBS to “F**k off,” while his mentor Jon Stewart composed an entire musical number consisting of the words “F**k off” to CBS. Biting satire.

It was several late nights of this until little bits of “truthiness” (a Colbert term) came out. The Late Show’s ad revenue had plummeted after the pandemic. Gutfeld! beat The Late Show in the ratings for 21 straight months. Rational sources explained the Colbert show loses $40 million for CBS every year. Of the network late night shows, Colbert’s had the smallest footprint on social media. The format of late-night television, wrote the Guardian, “was a living relic of a different time, when a youth-skewing audience would reliably pop on linear television at 11:30 pm. The field has been contracting for years, with programs hosted by Samantha Bee, James Corden, and Taylor Tomlinson ending without replacement.” Ad revenue for the genre as a whole was down 50 percent from Trump 1.0 and the Covid years. 

“It’s long been assumed,” continued the Guardian, “the hosts currently in these once-coveted chairs would be the last, their programs expiring when they decided to step down.” And if Paramount axed Colbert because the White House didn’t like it, why did they give $1.5 billion to South Park, which literally the next day attacked the president harder than Colbert ever has (it portrayed Trump begging for sex from Satan)? That night Colbert riffed off South Park to make a micropenis “joke” about Trump.

Colbert actually was canceled for financial reasons. None of that mattered, because the Orange Man had scuttled another piece of democracy and we were one step closer to fascism. Everybody said so. If Trump supported it, the left must oppose it. If the left opposed it, it must be part of America’s creep toward fascism. Nothing is just a problem, a disagreement, a fact anymore. Everything is life or death, at least until the next meme spikes the bloodstream of the mainstream media and social media to call the left again to arms. It should be seen as the kind of biting satire The Daily Show used to be capable of before it started to view itself as the last gasping voice of freedom (plus commercials.)

As with Colbert, the overreaction compulsion finds leftists getting tangled up supporting the most bizarre things.

Keep reading

Revolution Camp: Unhinged White Liberals Spend Weekend Smashing Junk In Anti-Trump Fury

The permanent protest-industrial complex, bankrolled by dark-money leftist NGOs, was at it again Saturday, orchestrating yet another nationwide demonstration, this time branded “Rage Against the Regime,” targeting President Trump. As with previous actions, the protests were primarily attended by crazed, elderly white liberals. The Democrats and their NGO machine have lost not just the narrative but are drifting deeper into irrelevance. 

50501 (“50 Protests, 50 States, 1 Movement”) is part of the permanent protest-industrial complex and was behind the underwhelming demonstrations this weekend. The group’s mission is to organize large-scale, nationwide color revolution-style operations against President Trump, including these previous events:

  • February 5: Anti-Trump kickoff rallies
  • February 17 (Presidents’ Day): “No Kings on Presidents Day”
  • March 4: Third round of demonstrations
  • April 5: “Hands Off” protests, among the largest anti-Trump protests
  • June 14: “No Kings”

Each of the nationwide protests listed above has failed to generate enough momentum to shift public opinion and move the polls. The dark-money-funded NGOs behind the permanent protest-industrial complex have grown increasingly frustrated; so much so that they reportedly offered $20 million to a ‘rent-a-protester’ firm. 

Last month, Adam Swart, CEO of an activist group called “Crowds on Demand”, called out one unnamed leftist entity …

“We had to reject an offer worth around $20 million for nationwide, large-scale demonstrations across the country. Personally, I don’t think it’s effective. I’m rejecting the contract not because I don’t want the business, but because, frankly, this is going to be ineffective and make us all look bad.”

“One of the more bizarre highlights of this past weekend’s failed protest operation was a 50501 staffer setting up what appeared to be a “smash room” for deranged white leftists in the parking lot of a retail center in Tim Walz’s state.

“After smashing a watermelon, one attendee screamed “REVOLUTION” stating that the experience was “cathartic” and left her shaking,” journalist Savanah Hernandez wrote on X. 

Keep reading