Michael Savage Turns on Trump, Says Syrian Gas Attack Was False Flag Operation 


Lets hope this blows over and nothing comes of it.

“Nuclear War Much More Likely” Paul Craig Roberts: In Dangerous World, Putin Will Not Trust America


The deep state things they can survive the war but even if they do survive what will be left? Assuming it limited to a couple of dozen bombs and we only kill a a couple of billion the problem is that a technology based civilization will not survive and we’ll be in a second dark age.

Doug Casey on the Coming Holy War 


We are already in that war we just call it terrorism instead of Islam verses Christendom

The Left Becoming Violent in France As they Did Against Trump


Corsica Riots 4-9-2017

In Corsica, the left has stormed into an appearance of Marine Le Pen to disrupt her campaign. The leftist group Ghjuventu Indipendentista claims to be Corsican nationalists who want to separate from France. The group called for everyone to join using Twitter. The goal was to prevent Le Pen from making an election campaign speech in Corsica. About 20 to 30 people managed to gain access to the Hall of the Party Front National (FN) and forced the room to be cleared after a handful used of tear gas. As usual, it is the left which is always violent for they are often the source political revolutions that suppress anyone who disagrees with them and that is pretty standard around the world.

The rioters were arrested. This is becoming a much more frequent trend internationally.

KIM JONG-UN PLACES NORTH KOREA ON “BRINK OF WAR” STATUS


Tomahawks

Germany Passes Bill To Fine FaceBook, Twitter Up To $50MM For “Fake News”


Tyler Durden's picture

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has apparently decided she’s not willing to take the chance of becoming the latest politician to fall victim to the same “Russian hacking” and “fake news” campaigns which ‘undoubtedly’ caused the downfall of America’s liberal darling, Hillary Clinton (forget those pay-for-play scandals, federal record retention violations and willful non-compliance with Congressional subpeonas…total non-factors in the 2016 election).

And since they can’t really control the actions of those pesky ‘Russian hackers,” Germany’s cabinet has instead decided to pass legislation that would impose serious fines of up to 50 million Euros on any social networks that fail to swiftly remove content that could be deemed “hateful” or “fake news.”  Per Yahoo News:

Germany’s Cabinet on Wednesday approved a new bill that punishes social networking sites if they fail to swiftly remove illegal content such as hate speech or defamatory fake news

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Cabinet agreed on rules that would impose fines of up to 50 million euros (53.4 million dollars) on Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms.

German Justice Minister Heiko Maas said that the companies offering such online platforms are responsible for removing hateful content. He said the new bill would not restrict the freedom of expression, but intervene only when criminal hatred or intentionally false news are posted.

Of course, all of this begs the question of exactly how German officials define “fake news” as the lines between what is pure ‘fact’ versus ‘opinion’ often grow very blurred in politics.  Moreover, politicians themselves are often the biggest purveyors of “fake news”…so if someone quotes the erroneous comments of a German politician on FaceBook is the social network then liable?  All questions that would have seemed silly just a year ago…

Masas

Nevertheless, German Justice Minister Heiko Maas is convinced that “verbal radicalization” of snowflakes over twitter and Facebook is often a precursor to “physical violence.”

Social networks need to ensure that obviously criminal content — as defined by German law — will be deleted within 24 hours and other illegal content after seven days.

“Just like on the streets, there is also no room for criminal incitement on social networks,” Maas said.

“The internet affects the culture of debate and the atmosphere in our society. Verbal radicalization is often a preliminary stage to physical violence,” he added.

But nevermind the actual ‘radicalization’ occurring in migrant communities throughout Europe at the moment…that is also just “fake news.”

As we noted last week, Assemblyman Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park) recently introduced a similar piece of legislation in California, the so-called “California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act” or AB 1104 for short, that would have effectively made it a crime to be wrong on the Internet.  The text of the bill implicated anyone who writes, publishes or even shares news stories that could be false, if those news stories are later found to have had an impact on an election.  From the bill:

This bill would modify the definition of the terms “political cyberfraud” and “political Web site” to include Internet Web sites that urge or appear to urge the support or opposition of candidates for public office. The bill would also make it unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on a Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on a Web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on any issue submitted to voters at an election or on any candidate for election to public office.

And even though author Ed Chau described AB 1104 as “an important step forward in the fight against ‘fake news’ and deceptive campaign tactics”, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital-rights advocacy group, said the bill was “so obviously unconstitutional, we had to double check that it was real.”

Memo to California Assemblymember Ed Chau: you can’t fight fake news with a bad law.

On Tuesday, the California Assembly’s Committee on Privacy and Consumer Affairs, which Chau chairs, will consider A.B. 1104—a censorship bill so obviously unconstitutional, we had to double check that it was real.

This bill will fuel a chaotic free-for-all of mudslinging with candidates and others being accused of crimes at the slightest hint of hyperbole, exaggeration, poetic license, or common error. While those accusations may not ultimately hold up, politically motivated prosecutions—or the threat of such—may harm democracy more than if the issue had just been left alone. Furthermore, A.B. 1104 makes no exception for satire and parody, leaving The Onion and Saturday Night Live open to accusations of illegal content. Nor does it exempt news organizations who quote deceptive statements made by politicians in their online reporting—even if their reporting is meant to debunk those claims. And what of everyday citizens who are duped by misleading materials: if 1,000 Californians retweet an incorrect statement by a presidential candidate, have they all broken the law?

At a time when political leaders are promoting “alternative facts” and branding unflattering reporting as “fake news,” we don’t think it’s a good idea to give the government more power to punish speech.

But, unlike in Germany, California actually realized how idiotic their bill was before passing it into law…

After Brexit, Likely Frexit – Hungary, Poland Threatened With Expulsion By Vindictive EU


The EU will be gone by the end of 2018

What Pisses Me Off About The Susan Rice Unmasking Scandal


The French Debates – Le Pen Wins = Bullish for Europe – Loss = Devastation for Europe


French Debate 4-5-2017

France holds its first round of voting on the 23rd of April, 2017. Unless one candidate wins more than 50% of the vote, the two leading contenders will go to a second round on May 7th. The French Debate took place and of course Emmanuel Macron the press is cheering as the victor. Of course, we have seen how the press tries to manipulate the public in Britain against BREXIT and in the USA against Trump. The press agenda in France is no less corrupt.

Macron attacked Ms Le Pen’s nationalist proposals declaring “Nationalism is war. I know it. I come from a region that is full of graveyards,” Reported Reuters. Macron is showing how nasty he really is as a person. He then attacked Le Pen’ dead father “You are saying the same lies that we’ve heard from your father for 40 years.”

Francois Fillon, the scandal plagued conservative who paid his wife to be an assistant more than the President of the United States is paid, said that France needed Europe when up against the US and China. Fillon would never change anything and doom France in the process the same as Macron. Indeed, Fillon tried to also attack Le Pen and she responded to Mr Fillon: “You shouldn’t pretend to be something new when you are speaking like fossils that are at least 50 years old.”

Francois Asselineau, who is the nationalist right-wing outsider, chimed in and said that he was “the only true candidate of Frexit”, and promised to trigger Article 50 as has Britain to begin the divorce from the EU immediately if he were to win power.

While the press is now touting Macron as the leader, what is very clear is that the failure to elect Le Pen will really be devastating for the EU. Why? Because a Le Pen victory would be far more of a soft-landing for the EU and actually raise hope that Brussels would be forced back to just a trade union rather than a political union demanding the surrender of individual nation sovereignty. That will actually raise the risk far greater for a European war. Brussels will wipe its brow and declare “populism” is dead and press full stream ahead to federalized Europe.

But the economics of the EU are crumbling and this indicates that no matter how hard Brussels tries to keep this mess together, it will crumble and fall apart. A Le Pen victory would be the soft-landing and political reform would then be possible in Europe. A Le Pen defeat, will only invite civil unrest that can turn to war within Europe because Brussels will not reform and it will only get worse.

You have already the Arrogance of Brussels telling Poland and Hungary they MUST accept the refugees or get out of the EU. That is a totalitarian position and the sovereignty of individual states will no longer matter. The argument are akin to surrendering the United States to be ruled by the United Nations.

WSJ: Susan Rice Was Not Alone In “Unmasking” Team Trump


Tyler Durden's picture

As part of its daily wrap of the Susan Rice newsflow, which focused on her first media appearance since she was “outed” as the persona responsible for “unmasking” members of team Trump, the WSJ provides two new pieces of incremental information: i) in addition to Michael Flynn, at least one more member of the Trump transition team was “unmasked” in intelligence reports due to multiple foreign conversations that weren’t related to Russia; and ii) Rice wasn’t the administration official who instigated Mr. Flynn’s unmasking, confirming there is at least one more high-level official giving “unmasking” orders.

But first, a brief detour.

“Unmasking” is a term used when the identity of a U.S. citizen or lawful resident is revealed in classified intelligence reports. Normally, when government officials receive intelligence reports, the names of American citizens are redacted to protect their privacy. But officials can request that names, listed as “U.S. Person 1,” for example, be unmasked internally in order to give context about the potential value of the intelligence. Unmasking is justified for national security reasons but is governed by strict rules across the U.S. intelligence apparatus that make it illegal to pursue for political reasons or to leak classified information generated by the process.

It is the accusation that Rice unmasked members for purely political reasons – ostensibly in coordination with president Obama – that has gotten Republican smelling blood in the water.  Republicans have for weeks signaled that they saw unmasking as the key to investigating the source of media leaks damaging to the Trump administration — such as the exposure of former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was forced to resign in February after media reports revealed that he misled Vice President Pence about the contents of his discussions with the Russian ambassador.

To that end, earlier this month, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) pressed FBI Director James Comey in a public Intelligence Committee hearing: “It would be nice to know the universe of people who have the power to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name… because that might provide something of a roadmap to investigate who might’ve actually disseminated a masked U.S. citizen’s name.”

He went on to press Comey on whether specific Obama officials, including Rice, would have had the authority to request that a name be unmasked. “Yes, in general, and any other national security adviser would, I think, as a matter of their ordinary course of their business,” Comey answered.

Shortly thereafter, The Hill notes Nunes made his shocking announcement that he — and he alone — had viewed documents that showed inappropriate unmasking by Obama-era officials.

Today, Susan Rice came out to defend herself and told MSNBC that “the allegation is that somehow, Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes,” Rice told Mitchell. “That’s absolutely false.”

She added that “The notion, which some people are trying to suggest, that by asking for the identity of the American person is the same is leaking it — that’s completely false. There is no equivalence between so-called unmasking and leaking.”

And yet, that is precisely what many republicans are suggesting because otherwise there is no explanation for how the WaPo and NYT received, on a virtual silver platter, stories about Mike Flynn’s communications with intel-level detail.

Perhaps Rice is simply lying as she lied on March 22 when in a PBS interview she said “I know nothing” about unmasking Trump officials. Less than two weeks later, we learn that she did.

But perhaps there is more to the story than what we know so far.

* * *

And this is where the WSJ comes in, with the new info that according to a Republican official familiar with deliberations by GOP lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee said that the names of two U.S. citizens who were part of Mr. Trump’s transition team have been unmasked in intelligence reports. One is Mr. Flynn and the other hasn’t been identified. The report involving Mr. Flynn documented phone conversations he had in late December with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.

The WSJ then reports that Rice had requested the unmasking of at least one transition official — not Mr. Flynn — who was part of multiple foreign conversations that weren’t related to Russia.

And the punchline: “The Republican official and others said Ms. Rice wasn’t the administration official who instigated Mr. Flynn’s unmasking.

In other words, the story that Susan Rice is the unmasker is incomplete as there is at least one more person exposing the identities of people in Trump’s circle, and that the NSA and other intel agencies have been surveiling, accidentally or otherwise,  at least one, so far unnamed individual, from Trump’s circle. It may well be someone that the WaPo and NYT have already published about, or it may be someone who has yet to hit the newswire, delivering the latest twist of the ongoing intelligence-fed news cycle.

For now the answer is unknown, although when Rice testifies under oath before the House Intel Committee, we hope that all outstanding questions will finally get answers.