ABC Spends Double the Airtime Questioning Melania’s Marriage Than Highlighting Initiative

World News Tonight
May 7, 2018
6:34:35 PM Eastern

DAVID MUIR: Two major headlines involving the White House tonight. First lady Melania Trump walking out alone today and outlining her new initiative, and then, the President joining her, signing a proclamation to mark the day. The President also fighting back tonight, after his attorney, Rudy Giuliani, said he could not promise that the President would not plead the fifth, instead of sitting down with Robert Mueller. Here’s ABC’s senior White House correspondent Cecilia Vega tonight.

[Cuts to video]

CECILIA VEGA: The first lady alone today as she walked into the Rose Garden to unveil her official policy platform. Her focus, helping children, in part, by combatting cyberbullying. A campaign called “Be best.”

MELANIA TRUMP: Let us teach our children the difference between right and wrong. And encourage them to be best in their individual paths in life.

VEGA: As she implored people to be kind, her husband, right there in the front row. Later joining her on stage with a kiss.

A show of affection with their marriage under fierce scrutiny amid mounting questions about hush money paid to pornstar Stormy Daniels just 11 days before the election. And now, the president’s attorney telling George Stephanopoulos it’s possible other women were paid off, too, by President Trump’s long-time fixer and personal lawyer.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Did Michael Cohen make payments to other women for the president?

RUDY GIULIANI: I have no knowledge of that but I — I would think if it was necessary, yes.

VEGA: Today, we pressed the White House for details. Is that possible, are there other women out there who received money from the President to stay quiet?

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS: I’m not aware of any other activity, but I would refer you to Rudy Giuliani to respond to any of those questions.

VEGA: But you’ve been in his circle for a long time now, you were on the campaign. Is that anything that came across your desk?

SANDERS: Again, I’m not aware of anything like that.

VEGA: Rudy Giuliani said he still doesn’t have all the facts, and he did little to clear up one big question, whether the President was lying last month on Air Force One when he said he knew nothing about that payment to Daniels.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels?



Source Article from

Questioning the Douma Hoax

Questioning the Douma Hoax

by Stephen Lendman ( – Home – Stephen Lendman)

Before the television and digital age, Winston Churchill explained “(a) lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

The bigger the lie, the more accurate his observation – especially with 24-hour cable TV and modern technology, instantly communicating globally, repeating the official narrative endlessly, drowning out alternative views.

Robert Fisk and other journalists visiting Douma found no evidence of a chemical weapons attack.

Reporter Pearson Sharp interviewed Douma residents. They denied an attack occurred.

“When I asked (doctors at the town’s hospital) what they thought the chemical attack was, they told me – all of them told me – that it was staged by the ‘rebels’ (sic) who were occupying the town at the time,” Sharp explained, adding:

“They said it was a fabrication and a hoax, and when I asked them why, they told me it was because the rebels were desperate, and they needed a ploy to get the Syrian army off their backs so they could escape.”

GOP Rep. Thomas Massie questioned the official narrative, tweeting:

“In briefing to Congress, DNI, SecDef, and SecState provided zero real evidence. Referenced info circulating online.” 

“Which means either they chose not to provide proof to Congress or they don’t have conclusive proof that Assad carried out gas attack. Either way, not good.”

Days earlier, Massie said “I haven’t read France’s or Britain’s ‘Constitution,’ but I’ve read ours, and nowhere in it is presidential authority to strike Syria” – or any other country preemptively for any reason – especially based on a Big Lie.

Last week Massie tweeted: “It doesn’t make sense that Assad would use gas, immediately after @realDonaldTrump announced we would pull troops out of Syria.  Assad knows a gas attack would provoke US military involvement against his government,” adding:

“(W)e should not get involved in Syria, and we should get out of Syria.”

GOP Rep. Justin Amash and Republican Senator Rand Paul also opposed US, UK, French aggression on Syrian sites.

Ahead of the overnight Friday aggression, war secretary Mattis said he saw no evidence of a Douma CW incident – yet went along with attacking the country anyway.

Hours before it began, he said the Pentagon was still “assessing the intelligence” on the alleged incident.

He lied claiming Trump could attack Syria (and presumably any other country) without congressional or any other authorization.

Washington is currently waging war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Syria, along with special forces deployed in scores more countries, menacing CIA operatives virtually everywhere, many masquerading as diplomats.

Permanent war is official US policy, nations not yet attacked on America’s target list.

A Final Comment

Russian personnel in Douma found toxins used by Jaish al-Islam terrorists to produce CWs.

According to Russia’s radiological, chemical and biological defense corps specialist Alexander Rodionov, “(d)uring the examination of the (terrorists’) chemical laboratory, a lot of hexamin was discovered, which is yet more proof that militants had been producing chemical weapons.”

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

Source Article from

85% of House Committee “Questioning” Zuckerberg Next Week Has Been Given Money by Facebook


Washington, D.C. — (ZH) Facebook and affiliated political groups have donated heavily to members of two committees set to interview CEO Mark Zuckerberg next week, according to analysis from the Center for Responsive Politics via USA Today.

Since 2007, the social media giant has contributed a cumulative $381,000 to 46 of the 55 members on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which will hear from Zuckerberg on Wednesday.

While the average committee member received between $6,750 and $6,800, Committee Chair Greg Walden (R-OR) received $27,000, and top ranking Democrat Frank Pallone of New Jersey received $7,000 from Facebook.

Rep. Anna Eschoo (D-CA), whose district is adjacent to Facebook headquarters and home to many Facebook employees, received the most from Facebook at $55,150 since 2007. Eschoo narrowly lost a battle with Pallone for ranking Democrat position on the committee in the 2014 election.

Walden and Pallone announced Zuckerberg’s appearance on Wednesday to testify on “critical consumer data privacy issues.”

“This hearing will be an important opportunity to shed light on critical consumer data privacy issues and help all Americans better understand what happens to their personal information online,” Messrs. Walden and Pallone said in a Wednesday statement. “We appreciate Mr. Zuckerberg’s willingness to testify before the committee, and we look forward to him answering our questions on April 11th.” (also, thanks for all that money Zuck! We’ll be sure to put the softballs on a plastic “T” for you)

Meanwhile, a Roll Call report reveals that two Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have nearly $100,000 invested in shares of Facebook – with Democratic Reps. Joe Kennedy of MA and Kurt Schrader of OR owning approximately $80,000 and $15,000 respectively.

Twenty-eight members listed stock in the social media giant, according to Roll Call’s Wealth of Congress project. Among them, Democratic Reps. Kurt Schrader of Oregon and Joseph P. Kennedy III of Massachusetts sit on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, while Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island sits on Senate Judiciary.

Both panels, along with Senate Commerce, invited Zuckerberg to appear before them after reports that Cambridge Analytica, a British big data firm, obtained access to private information of millions of Facebook users under questionable circumstances. Cambridge Analytica reportedly incorporated the data in ad-targeting tools used by political campaigns including President Donald Trump’s winning 2016 bid.

“Congressman Kennedy’s stock holdings do not influence his work in Congress,” his office said in response to questions from Roll Call about his Facebook shares. –Roll Call

Ten Democratic members of the Committee, including Kennedy, sent a letter last Thursday to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to commend the agency on its investigation into Facebook.

Meanwhile House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi owns at least $500,000 shares of Facebook through her husband, while Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul reported at least $1 million in Facebook stock and around $30,000 in 2016 capital gains through his wife and child.

Pelosi’s office noted “These investments are Mr. Pelosi’s not Leader Pelosi’s. Leader Pelosi plays no role in this investment and has no stock investments of her own,” an aide said.

That’s not all…

Illinois Rep. Brad Schneider has at least $200,000 in the company through his wife’s IRA, while Rhode Island Rep. Jim Langevin, a fellow Democrat, holds stock worth at least $115,000 and had capital gains of more than $5,000, according to his 2016 financial disclosure. Ohio Republican Rep. James B. Renacci also owns at least $150,000 worth of Facebook stock.

Several lawmakers with holdings in the company say they recognize that new policies on social media oversight are needed after the latest developments. –Roll Call

Several other members of Congress own Facebook as well – however one Senator, Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) wants nothing to do with Facebook, and has announced that he will be selling his shares.

According to Roll Call, here are all the members of Congress who listed Facebook holdings in their 2016 financial disclosures, along with the minimum worth of their stocks and of any capital gains or dividends.

Source Article from

Read This If You Find Yourself Questioning Whether or Not You’re In The Right Relationship

Have you ever thought this to yourself? Maybe when times get rough, or you’re not feeling as sexually attracted to your partner? I believe in full transparency and asking ourselves the difficult questions that some like to hide from at all costs. Even if things aren’t on the rocks, what’s the harm in asking yourself an honest and valid question? Is this relationship serving me in my highest good?

Being clear and checking in with yourself is a powerful tool to create a deeper and more sacred connection. Thoughts of doubt can seep into our actions and words which then have an impact on our relationships, so it’s important to be mindful of our thoughts and create the space we need to find clarity for ourselves.

Below are some questions to reflect on if you’ve been wondering if your relationship is the right one or not.

Do You Challenge Each Other? 

A sign of a great partner is that they celebrate your successes and challenge you to be the best version of yourself. Long story short, you mirror one another! Getting along, having a great time and being attracted to each other are all very necessary elements to a thriving relationship but if we’re not showing up for each other, celebrating and challenging each other to be our best selves, are we truly thriving?

Challenging one another doesn’t mean arguing or fighting. It means being transparent, honest and forward. My partner and I constantly check in with each other, our emotions, goals, the relationship and our personal lives outside of our relationship.

Are You Attracted To Each Other? 

It’s important to keep physical intimacy alive, although a relationship should not be built around it, it’s a strong energetic exchange that keeps you feeling connected on another level. Sometimes this might be the string that holds you two together through a difficult time.

Do You Respect Your Partner?

You respect and admire your partner for who they truly are; mind, body and soul. There is no judgement or no secrecy, but transparency and love.

Is There Trust?

You have trust in your partner and don’t project your insecurities onto them. You allow your partner the space to explore other friendships and celebrate them creating experiences outside of your relationship. When you’re in love, you don’t fear unfavourable outcomes. You are not consumed with feelings of doubt and you want to see your partner thrive.

Do You Feel Free Within The Relationship?

We often forget that we are two separate beings living two separate experiences. We have agreed to be together but we don’t have ownership over the other and we don’t have expectations of our partners. You allow your partner to just be, you receive anything your partner has to offer as a gift rather than expecting it of them.

What If You Are Unsure?

If you read through this article and felt that your relationship could improve, that some aspect of you is feeling out of alignment, then maybe it’s time to make some new agreements together. Most of the time our partners are unaware of what it is that we need. Sometimes a simple conversation can spark a new and exciting time in the relationship.

I coach relationships to build new agreements, stop projecting their shit at each other and choose a life of joy and abundance together. Contact me at if you want to work together 1-on-1 or 2-on-1.

With Love,


Source Article from

YouTube is giving strikes to people just for questioning the florida shooting

Source Article from

CNN Analyst Comes To Defense Of Those Questioning Objectivity of FBI and DOJ In Trump/Hillary Investigations

HARLOW: You’re seeing the Mueller team. You’re separating the two here?

CALLAN: Well, I think they all kind of merge together, ultimately, because if we talk about the McCabe situation, he’s the deputy director of the FBI, or at least was the deputy director of the FBI. And he — his wife was running for a Senate seat in Virginia and she took $700,000 in contributions from Terry McAuliffe and passed control by him to support her in that campaign. And he then is in the chain of command of the Hillary e-mail investigation.

Now, that would be like if the FBI, let’s say they were investigating a bank and, do you think they’d let an agent investigate a bank if his wife was taking a $700,000 loan from the bank? No! They’d pull the agent from that investigation.

HARLOW: Let me ask you. So you know the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified before Congress just a few weeks ago. He was asked and really hammered on questions over political bias within the agency. Here’s one of his answers. He said, quote, “It’s important to recognize that when we talk about political affiliation,” he went on to say, “The issue of bias is something different.” So, what he’s saying is there can be a line there. These are humans who can have beliefs, et cetera. That does not translate into bias. Where is that line in your opinion? And is there anything that clearly, do you think clearly outlines that?

CALLAN: I think there’s a clear line and it’s a common sense line. If your wife is taking $700,000 from the Democrats, maybe you shouldn’t be handling the investigation of who’s going to be the next president of the United States. That’s a clear line, in my view. There’s even a federal law, the Hatch Act, by the way, while a federal employee can be registered and vote with a particular party, he can’t be active with a particular party under the Hatch Act.

Now, that doesn’t apply to his wife, but common sense would say, if a wife is taking a lot of money from a Democratic Party or a Republican Party, anybody who’s under investigation, it may be best to put a different agent in the case. Now the FBI didn’t do that. As a matter of fact, this is the person in charge of making these sensitive decisions, and he’s — he doesn’t have the common sense to see that he’s in a conflict situation, himself. So I think there’s legitimate criticism of the FBI here. I’m talking about the leadership, not the field agents.

Source Article from

Steve Cutts’ Recent Animation Will Have You Questioning Your Definition of Happiness

Next Story

The pressure for happiness or to ‘be happy’ can be overwhelming in today’s social media driven society. Yet our quest to experience this emotion at every moment has an unintended consequence, making us feel worse rather than better. As human beings, we’ve been gifted with a wide range of emotions, all of which serve us in different ways and work as fantastic guides to which areas of our lives need the most attention. We may not fully know our true purpose for being here on this planet, but it’s likely that our soul has entered Earth in the hopes of learning more about ourselves and bettering our connections with other people. The human experience is perfect for this, and while it may seem hard at times, we are gifted daily with many opportunities to further our growth.

Within the human experience we’re tested, especially in this era of deceit, where images are being shoved in our faces of emotions we desire to feel; love, passion, acceptance, and happiness, to name a few. At the core of our existence lies a simple expression of who we are, which is Love, and many believe this translates into never ending happiness and bliss.  Corporations recognize this desire and use it to their marketing advantage. If we’re told we can feel good, at least for a day, we’re likely to (quite literally) buy into that dream because we have forgotten that our daily emotions, both good and bad, are necessary for our personal growth.

You’re likely familiar with the works of Steve Cutts, a London-based illustrator who aptly depicts our daily grievances and society’s many shocking truths that we absurdly accept as normal. In his most recent animation short titled “Happiness,” Steve uses rats to  symbolize the rat race we’re all so familiar with.

You’ll soon see other startling similarities — a clearly depressed, overcrowded society surrounded by ads guaranteeing happiness via cologne, clothes, film, and drugs. You may watch this and recognize these behaviours in others, but consider whether you have fallen victim to them as well. “Feeling down? Nothing a glass of red wine won’t fix.” When we search for happiness in external things, we soon have a real problem that nothing material or external can fix. See, all that is ever offered to us are ‘quick fixes’ to problems that have been festering for years. Steve accurately portrays our need for feeling happy and shows we will do and buy practically anything to ensure we can feel that emotion all the time — a futile struggle that leaves us depleted and miserable.

Happiness can be attained every day, and there is no need to spend money trying to feel it. Spend time with family and friends, read a good book, try something new, meditate, journal — these all bring true happiness, and may help you discover why you seek to escape your other feelings through material goods.


Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.


Source Article from

89-Year-Old Grandma Loses Appeal, Sentenced to Prison for Questioning the Holocaust


Detmold, Germany – An 89-year-old German woman was sentenced to 14 months in prison for incitement of racial hatred after losing an appeal on a prior conviction.

Ursula Haverbeck, often referred to in the German press as the “Nazi Grandma,” is known for extremist views that have run afoul of German hate speech laws in the past—with courts having previously given her fines and another suspended sedition sentence, according to Fox News.

In Germany, anyone who publicly denies, endorses or plays down the extermination of Jews during Adolf Hitler’s regime can be sentenced to a maximum of five years in jail for incitement of racial hatred.

Wikipedia explains German hate speech laws as:

Volksverhetzung, in English “incitement of the masses”, “instigation of the people”, is a concept in German criminal law that refers to incitement to hatred against segments of the population and refers to calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them, including assaults against the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population. It is often applied to, though not limited to, trials relating to Holocaust denial in Germany.

According to a report by German state-run broadcaster, Deutsche Welle (DW):

A German court in Detmold has sentenced Holocaust denier Ursula Haverbeck to 14 months in prison, after the 89-year-old woman lost her appeal to a prior conviction on Tuesday. However, four months were shaved off her original conviction of 18 months. Prosecutors wanted the sentence upheld, Haverbeck’s lawyers were seeking exoneration.


The Detmold court had initially sentenced Haverbeck to eight months imprisonment in September 2016, after she sent a letter to the town’s mayor, Rainer Heller, claiming that Auschwitz was not a concentration camp.


Following the trial, the octogenarian handed out pamphlets to journalists, as well as the judge and prosecutor, entitled “Only the truth will set you free,” in which she once again denied the Nazi atrocities. Haverbeck was handed an additional 10-month sentence for the stunt.

In the United States, incitement of violence is criminal but “assaults against human dignity of others by insulting, malicious maligning, or defaming segments of the population” are considered an exercise of free speech, and thus protected under the First Amendment.

Essentially, German law has criminalized speech as a means of controlling political discourse—meaning the government will tell you what is acceptable to say, and who is fair game to malign, and what groups and classes are protected.

While some speech may be extreme and repulsive, the prohibition on certain ideas, even the most repugnant, being put into the public marketplace of thought is a fast track to totalitarian governmental control—essentially legitimizing the “thought police.”

According to DW:

Haverbeck and her late husband Werner Georg Haverbeck, who was an active member of the Nazi party in the run-up to and during the Second World War, founded a right-wing education center called Collegium Humanum, which has been banned since 2008. She has also written for the right-wing magazine Stimme des Reiches (Voice of the Empire), which she also used to express her views that the Holocaust never took place.

Haverbeck has been sentenced on similar charges on five other occasions but has not yet served any jail time as she appeals the cases.

In October, she was sentenced to six months in prison by a Berlin court after being found guilty of inciting racial hatred for claiming the gas chambers at Auschwitz concentration camp “were not real.”

Prior to that, in August, she was given a two-year prison sentence by a regional court in Lower Saxony, according to DW.

The 89-year-old has appealed the rulings passed down against her in each case and claims she has been merely been repeating an opinion.

The most recent appeal verdict is not final, either, as Haverbeck’s attorneys plan to take the case to the Higher Regional Court in Hamm – which will serve as the final opportunity to challenge the prison sentence.

As Hall wrote in The Friends of Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Source Article from

Lemon Whines After Being Exposed for Questioning Trump’s Mental Health, Smears Critics as Partisan

CNN Tonight with Don Lemon
August 23, 2017
10:04 p.m. Eastern

DON LEMON: So Nia, he says there is no place for bigotry or hate on Monday, then he uses dog whistles and goes on attack by Tuesday and today he is back on teleprompter calling for unity. He is all over the place. 


10:07 p.m. Eastern

LEMON: What did you think of the former director of national intelligence coming out and saying that, David? 

DAVID ROHDE: Well, startling, frightening and everything else. He used another phrase, though, that — I don’t — I don’t like the whole that he’s crazy argument. I think he knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s being incredibly divisive for political reasons but something that Clapper said was that he’s — 

LEMON: Listen, listen. Before you go there, he did clarify and said he didn’t mean crazy meaning mentally but he was just saying fit for office in his actions and whether he was prepared to do the job.


10:11 p.m. Eastern

LEMON: Let’s talk about this new Quinnipiac University poll, Nia. 68% of voters say the president is not level headed. Does that number surprise you? What do you think? What does that mean? 


10:13 p.m. Eastern

LEMON [TO ROHDE]: 68 percent of voters say that the President is not level headed and people are now saying it on camera. Not as many people as who say it off camera, especially Republicans who say they worry about the President’s fitness. I mean, you heard there was a recording between, you know, two lawmakers. I think it was Susan Collins and I forget who is the second lawmaker was, saying that they were — you know, saying things I would not repeat. What do you think of that poll? 


10:15 p.m. Eastern

LEMON: Garrett, I want to ask you about this because this was startling last night when you hear the former top Intel official like James Clapper voicing concerns about the President’s fitness and access codes to nuclear codes and his access to nuclear codes. None of this is theoretical when you consider North Korea if he wanted to launch a strike, how would this work? Can he unilaterally do this? Can he act unilaterally? 

GARRETT GRAFF: Not only can he, it’s actually the way that the system is supposed to work. This is a Cold War system that was designed to respond to having tens of thousands of nuclear weapons between the Soviet Union and the United States on a hair trigger alert. 


10:29 p.m. Eastern

MIKE MURPHY: I don’t believe the crazy Trump theory. I believe he’s a narcissist. I believe he has an impulse control problem and I think he’s most insecure person I’ve ever seen in public life which is something that attracts a lot of insecure people. So, he’s a record setter 

LEMON: Yeah, but you know, when someone says unfit or —

MURPHY: — but it’s his crazy rhetoric has been worse than his actions which have been more rational. 

LEMON: But that’s what you — you’re smart. You know that when someone says — when people say unfit they don’t necessarily mean crazy. They just mean unfit for the job.

MURPHY: Exactly. Yeah, Look, I’ve said unqualified by temperament, knowledge, or character to be president of the United States. I’ve said it publicly — I’ve said it for a long time. I believe that. But that — you know, it’s — it’s easy to get down the slippery slide into the nuclear madman stuff and everything. I’m not sure that is accurate but he is unfit because he does not understand the role of the President is not only to be the head of government in our system but head of state which means you have a responsibility to be kind of a reference clock for proper behavior in defending American values and either he doesn’t understand that or doesn’t care. So, that’s why we have this insult comic communication added with total disregard for the truth that has become such a toxic stain on this presidency. 

LEMON: Well —


LEMON: Go ahead. 

JAMES FALLOWS: Yeah. Just to take that point one step further here is a specific example of what fitness for office means. There’s a skill that you have as a live performer which Donald Trump really has which is knowing the pulse of a crowd, the mood of the crowd and he plays to it really well. We saw that last night. He was working the crowd for cheers. Fitness for being President involves being aware that every single second of your life, every utterance you put out, every word you say or don’t say, every phrase has consequences around the world and in this country and so, his entire inability to even imagine that, I think that is a kind of fitness that he’s not getting better at. 

LEMON: Yeah and I think that, you know, when — when people criticize and say, oh, they are questioning the President’s sanity and all that, they know better. They’re just — they’re doing it just, you know, just because to make a political point of some sort.

Source Article from