Trump lays the groundwork for larger Syria war

For someone who campaigned on the promise that he would stay out of Syria, President Donald Trump seems to be working overtime to escalate the conflict and get into a full-blown shooting war with Syria and Russia.

Trump broke his Syria promise – just one of many he’s broken before halfway through his first year – on April 7 when he ordered U.S. warships to launch Tomahawk missiles at an airbase that he believed was home to the Syrian planes alleged to have dropped chemical weapons on Syrian civilians. We told you at the time that the April 4 gas attack was a false flag, just like the 2013 chemical attack that Barack Obama tried to go to war over was a false flag.

In a statement announcing the attack, Trump said:

Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the air field in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched. It is in this vital national security of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons….

There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and ignored the urging of the UN Security Council. Years of previous attempts at changing Assad’s behavior have all failed and failed very dramatically.

But stating “there can be no dispute” does not eliminate the dispute, no matter how much he and Zionist neocon warmongers pulling his chains want it to be so. MIT professor emeritus and weapons expert Theodore Postol issued a series of reports on whether there was concrete evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad had used gas and found there was none.

Postol stated:

In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document point to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of 4 April.

“This conclusion is based on an assumption made by the White House when it cited the source of the sarin release and the photographs of that source. My own assessment is that the source was very likely tampered with or staged, so no serious conclusion could be made from the photographs cited by the White House.

Now the Trump Administration has issued a new warning to Syria, Russia and Iran, claiming it has evidence that Assad is preparing a chemical weapons attack and putting Assad  on notice that “his military will pay a heavy price” if he “conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons.”

Of curious timing was a news report by prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh – released just prior to Trump’s new red line announcement – that there was no evidence the Assad regime used gas on April 4, that the president’s national security team knew at the time there was no evidence gas had been used, that the U.S. was informed in advance by Russia about the attack, that the Syrian fighter-bomber had dropped a conventional weapon on the intended target, and that Trump was made aware of it all.

Still, Trump – apparently egged on by daughter Ivanka and pictures of what was purported to be dead and dying children – was determined to “bomb the shit out of Syria.”

So what Trump has done with his red line statement is to goad the so-called rebels fighting the Assad regime – who have the most to gain from further U.S. intervention and who have shown a willingness to use gas on two occasions – into using gas on civilians in order to draw the U.S. further into the fight.

And Trump will have to back up his bellicosity and respond, or risk being derided much as he derided Obama for not following through in 2013 and later.

One of Hersh’s intelligence sources said as much, stating:

The Salafists and jihadists got everything they wanted out of their hyped-up Syrian nerve gas ploy (referring to increased tensions between the U.S., Syria and Russia). The issue is, what if there’s another false flag sarin attack credited to hated Syria? Trump has upped the ante and painted himself into a corner with his decision to bomb. And do not think these guys are not planning the next faked attack. Trump will have no choice but to bomb again, and harder. He’s incapable of saying he made a mistake.

Of course, the military-industrial complex always has much to gain through a wider conflict – mass profits. The mainstream media love wars because of ratings.

Trump, who loves accolades and acclaim as much money, was widely praised by the MSM after his April attack on the Syrian airbase, with MSNBC talking head Brian Williams going so far as calling the launch of missiles “beautiful.” It’s certain he figures that will repeat.

But the American people – especially the sons and daughters and husbands and wives sent to fight — have the most to lose.

The post Trump lays the groundwork for larger Syria war appeared first on Personal Liberty®.


This day in WND history: WND sues Esquire for faked report


WND sues Esquire for faked reportesquire_fake

June 29, 2011: WND filed a lawsuit in the nation’s capital seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages for a faked “report” in Esquire magazine that falsely said a New York Times best-selling book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President,” by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., had been pulled from store shelves by the publisher.

The claim was filed by attorney Larry Klayman for Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, on behalf of the company, WND Books, himself and author Corsi.

Defendants named include Esquire Magazine Inc., parent company the Hearst Corp., and Mark Warren, the author of the false article.

“You can’t just make up words and put them in people’s mouths, deliberately misleading the public, deliberately defaming others and deliberately lying to inhibit commerce,” Farah said. “Media institutions such as Esquire magazine and its parent, the Hearst Corporation, for which I was employed for nearly a decade, should know better. And they will as a result of this lawsuit.”

View the full story

Baby’s 1st steps … at 12 weeks in the womb

walk_in_wombJune 29, 2004: Vivid 3D images, produced by new ultrasound technology, go far beyond the grainy pictures shown to proud parents-to-be in the doctor’s office.

Scans pioneered by a London professor reveal complex behavior in unborn children from an early stage of development – some of which was thought only to occur much later.

The advanced imagery has captured a 12-week-old fetus “walking” in the womb and others apparently yawning and rubbing their eyes.

A whole range of typical baby behavior and moods can be observed beginning at 26 weeks, including scratching, smiling, crying, hiccuping and sucking.

Smiling was believed to not start until six weeks after birth.

View the full story

To see WND highlights from every calendar date, click here.
Never miss another big story. Sign up for WND’s free email news alerts right now!


CNN: Trump makes it dangerous for reporters

(REALCLEARPOLITICS) — CNN’s Clarissa Ward, a foreign correspondent, served as guest co-host on Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s News Day. Ward fretted “people” in war zones have been “emboldened” by President Trump’s “declaration of war on the media.” Ward, expressing concern for members of the media in dangerous areas of the world, said to guest Chris Cillizza, ‘I can only imagine what a person like you is dealing with. At what point does this become reckless or irresponsible?’

It should be noted Chris Cillizza is a Washington-based political correspondent and commentator.

Playboy White House correspondent Brian Karem, who has received new-found fame after his exchange with White House deputy spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders at Tuesday’s press briefing, said Ward is “absolutely right” and talked about the trial and tribulations of reporters who have been jailed and even killed.


Guidestar sued for using far-left ‘hate’ labels


One of the nonprofit organizations slammed with a false “hate” label by the charity-reporting service GuideStar, which relied on information from the domestic terror-linked Southern Poverty Law Center, is suing for damages to its reputation.

“GuideStar and its political ally, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), are intent on destroying pro-family organizations. The ‘hate group’ label is false and dangerous,” said Mat Staver, founder of the legal advocacy group Liberty Counsel.

“GuideStar’s CEO, Jacob Harold, is using GuideStar as a weapon to defame, harm, and promote his liberal agenda by using the SPLC to falsely label good nonprofit organizations as ‘hate groups,’” he said.

Staver said the only purpose of “providing the SPLC false and dangerous ‘hate group’ label is to inflict reputational and financial harm to Liberty Counsel.”

“GuideStar has lost all credibility. GuideStar will now have to answer for its reckless, defamatory, and harmful political labeling,” said Staver.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Virginia asks the court to declare that GuideStar’s publication of SPLC’s “false and misleading” report designating Liberty Counsel as a “hate group” amounted to defamation, violating the Lanham Act, which prohibits false or misleading statements that harm a consumer or business.

Get the Whistleblower Magazine’s revelations about SPLC in “The Hate Racket,” the story of how one group fools government into equating Christians and conservatives with Klansmen and Nazis – and rakes in millions doing it.

GuideStar, which describes itself as the “world’s largest source of information on nonprofit organizations,” used “the SPLC false and dangerous ‘hate group’ designation by placing its logo and rhetoric, which states ‘This organization was flagged as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center,’ on Liberty Counsel’s page. GuideStar placed the same ‘hate group’ label on 46 nonprofit organizations, including Alliance Defending Freedom, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council and others,” Liberty Counsel said.

GuideStar, after 41 of the groups sent a letter regarding the derogatory information, issued a statement and temporarily took down the labels.

But Staver said GuideStar “has not retracted its ‘hate group’ label and continues to provide false, defamatory and harmful information it pushes as fact to the public.”

“The damage by GuideStar is far reaching because this false and defamatory labeling has been spread through scores of media sources and the internet. It also appears on the GuideStar Wikipedia page.”

Liberty Counsel said Guidestar’s CEO and president, Jacob Harold, is “a liberal activist like the SPLC.”

“According to his bio, Harold has written extensively on climate change and has further training in grassroots organizing from Green Corps. He has also worked for Rainforest Action Network, Greenpeace USA and Citizen Works. In addition, Harold’s Twitter account shows he is a climate change advocate, and he retweeted a GuideStar-published piece that uses pro-LGBT and pro-transgender language. Harold was a host for a NARAL Pro-Choice D.C. men’s event in 2014, and he blogged for Huffington Post. He also donated to the Obama campaign in 2011 before joining GuideStar in 2012. His wife is also a pro-abortion advocate. Harold tweeted a picture of himself at the so-called ‘Women’s March’ in January 2017, holding a protest sign obviously directed against President Donald Trump. This march overtly promoted abortion.”

The “hate” labels come from SPLC’s “caustic and false rhetoric,” which is used in its “Hate Map,” said Liberty Counsel.

It puts on that list groups that disagree with its extreme pro-homosexual and pro-abortion agenda.

“Mark Potock with the SPLC admitted in an interview: ‘Our criteria for a ‘hate group,’ first of all, have nothing to do with criminality or violence or any kind of guess we’re making about ‘this group could be dangerous.’ It’s strictly ideological.’ Mark Potok is on video in a public meeting stating, ‘Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on. I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them,’” Liberty Counsel explained.

SPLC has been linked to two Washington, D.C.-area shootings.

SPLC “admitted James Hodgkinson, the D.C. shooter who gunned down Rep. Steve Scalise, two staff members and two U.S. Capitol Police officers, ‘liked’ the SPLC on Facebook,” Liberty Counsel said.

SPLC previously had contended Scalise “promoted white supremacy and supported a ‘hate group,’” LC noted.

“The SPLC is also linked to the attempted mass murder in the 2012 shooting at the Washington, D.C. office of the Family Research Council (FRC). Floyd Corkins II was stopped by the FRC security guard, who was shot in the process. Corkins confessed to the FBI that he intended to commit mass murder and was motivated by the so-called ‘Hate Map’ on the SPLC website that listed FRC as a ‘hate group.’”

The organization noted others’ conclusions about SPLC.

“Laird Wilcox, founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements at the University of Kansas’ Kenneth Spencer Research Library and a leading expert on ‘extremist’ organizations, has identified the false, misleading and destructive nature of the SPLC’s ‘hate group’ designations. Mr. Wilcox has noted that the SPLC has gone into ‘ideological overdrive and has developed many of the destructive traits that characterize moral crusaders, including the demonization of critics and dissenters.”

And the Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn described SPLC as “the archsalesmen of hatemongering.”

Staver said that despite “serious concerns about the false labeling by the SPLC, GuideStar has used this harmful rhetoric for the purpose of causing financial and reputational injury to Liberty Counsel and other nonprofit organizations.”

“Guidestar is playing with fire. There are unhinged people who have relied upon this reckless rhetoric to threaten and even cause physical harm and death because a person or organization was falsely labeled as a ‘hater’ or ‘hate group.’ This is not a game,” he said.

WND reported at the time GuideStar dropped the “hate” labels that it intended to “provide even more information to our users.”

Get the Whistleblower Magazine’s revelations about SPLC in “The Hate Racket,” the story of how one group fools government into equating Christians and conservatives with Klansmen and Nazis – and rakes in millions doing it.

One of the 46 organizations targeted, the Washington-based Family Research Council, reacted to the move.

FRC’s executive vice president, Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, said: “We are generally encouraged by GuideStar’s decision to remove the labeling of non-profit webpages like ours based on characterizations made by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a bitterly partisan political organization that has been linked in federal court to a domestic terrorist shooting.”

Boykin noted, however, that SPLC “continues to list on its website people such as House Majority Whip Steve Scalise who was recently shot by James Hodgkinson who ‘liked’ SPLC’s Facebook page.”

“GuideStar correctly decided to end its reliance on the SPLC, a decision that is in line with organizations like the FBI and the U.S. Army under Secretary McHugh,” he said.

WND reported last week a letter sent by FRC and dozens of other SPLC-targeted organizations to GuideStar asked that it stop its program of “ostracism and dehumanization.”

WND previously reported GuideStar’s notice posted on the pages of selected organizations said, “This organization was flagged as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.” And it had provided a link to the far-left SPLC, accompanied by the group’s logo.

The letter addressed to GuideStar CEO Jacob Harold said: “We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, write to express our strong disagreement with Guidestar’s newly implemented policy that labels 46 American organizations as ‘hate groups.’ Your designations are based on determinations made by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a hard-left activist group. As such, SPLC’s aggressive political agenda pervades the construction of its ‘hate group’ listings.”

Get the Whistleblower Magazine’s revelations about SPLC in “The Hate Racket,” the story of how one group fools government into equating Christians and conservatives with Klansmen and Nazis – and rakes in millions doing it.

However, the leaders point out SPLC “has no bona fides to make such determinations.”

How Guidestar had Christian groups labeled

How Guidestar had Christian groups labeled

“It is not a governmental organization using a rigorous criteria to create its lists, and it is not a scientifically oriented organization. The SPLC is merely another ‘progressive’ political organization,” the letter said.

The letter is signed by representatives of Eagle Forum, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, American College of Pediatricians, Wallbuilders, Liberty Counsel, Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage, London Center for Policy Research, Center for Security Policy, American Family Association, ACT for America, Secure America Now, Alliance Defending Freedom, Judicial Watch, the Heritage Foundation and many other groups.

“The ‘hate group’ list is nothing more than a political weapon targeting people it deems to be its political enemies,” the letter stated.

“The list is ad hoc, partisan, and agenda-driven. The SPLC doesn’t even pretend to identify groups on the political left that engage in ‘hate.’ Mosques or Islamist groups that promote radical speech inciting anti-Semitism and actual violence are not listed by the SPLC even though many have been publicly identified after terrorist attacks.

“Radical, violent leftist environmentalists or speech suppressing thugs – like the rioting ‘antifa’ movement – receive no mention from the SPLC.”

The letter pointed out that violence has been provoked by the lists promoted by the SPLC.

“Despite its denials to the contrary, this highly refined method of ostracism and dehumanization practiced by the SPLC isn’t just about verbal debate – it can foreseeably lead to violence,” the letter said. “Can it be of any surprise then that SPLC’s hate map was used by a political activist and domestic terrorist to perpetrate the very sort of hate crimes SPLC claims to oppose? In 2012, a shooter entered the Family Research Council headquarters in Washington, D.C., to ‘kill as many as possible’ because SPLC had identified FRC as a ‘hate group,’ and the killer-to-be relied on SPLC’s website to identify targets, according to his sworn testimony.

“The SPLC continues to list on its website people such as House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who was recently shot by James T. Hodgkinson, who ‘liked’ SPLC’s Facebook page. Does it not concern you that within the past five years, the SPLC has been linked to gunmen who carried out two terrorist shootings in the DC area?”

GuideStar declined multiple requests from WND for an interview.

SPLC’s past targeting of FRC was cited in court as the impetus for an attack on the Christian organization’s Washington, D.C., headquarters.

The legal team at Liberty Counsel, criticizing SPLC for “falsely and recklessly labeling Christian ministries as ‘hate groups,’” noted SPLC is “responsible for the first conviction of a man who intended to commit mass murder targeted against a policy organization in Washington, D.C.”

“On August 15, 2012, Floyd Corkins went to the Family Research Council with a gun and a bag filled with ammunition and Chick-fil-A sandwiches. His stated purpose was to kill as many employees of the Family Research Council as possible and then to smear Chick-fil-A sandwiches in their faces (because the founder of the food chain said he believed in marriage as a man and a woman). Fortunately, Mr. Corkins was stopped by the security guard, who was shot in the process. Corkins is now serving time in prison. Mr. Corkins admitted to the court that he learned of the Family Research Council by reading the SPLC’s hate map.”

WND reported a video showed Corkins entering the FRC offices and confronting Leo Johnson.



Corkins later was sentenced to prison for domestic terrorism. It was during an interview with FBI officers that Corkins named SPLC as his source of information.

Central to the case, according to the government’s document, was that Corkins “had identified the FRC as an anti-gay organization on the Southern Poverty Law Center website.”

FRC officials repeatedly have explained that they adhere to a biblical perspective on homosexuality but are not “anti-gay.”

SPLC also exhibited behavior so egregious that it was reprimanded by the far-left administration of Barack Obama.

Judicial Watch, citing a letter to Michael M. Hethmon, senior counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, and others, said the DOJ reprimand came in 2016 but was “kept quiet at the agency’s request.”

“[It] involves the SPLC’s atrocious behavior during immigration court proceedings. Two groups that oppose illegal immigration, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), were the target of personal, baseless and below-the-belt attacks from SPLC attorneys during official immigration court proceedings. The SPLC filed a motion attacking and defaming the two respected nonprofits by describing them as ‘white supremacist,’ ‘eugenicist,’ ‘anti-Semitic,’ and ‘anti-Catholic.’ In its reprimand the DOJ says it is troubled by the conduct of SPLC lawyer Christopher Strawn and that his conduct ‘overstepped the bounds of zealous advocacy and was unprofessional.’ Furthermore, SPLC made ‘uncivil comments that disparaged FAIR and its staff,’ the rebuke states, adding that the language constitutes frivolous behavior and doesn’t aid in the administration of justice,” Judicial Watch explained.

“The Obama administration kept the reprimand confidential and asked FAIR and IRLI to keep it under wraps. In the meantime, SPLC continues to publicly trash the groups and escalate attacks against them by putting them on the official hate list. The executive director and general counsel of IRLI, Dale Wilcox, says his nonprofit and FAIR will keep fighting for immigration policies that put America first. ‘The SPLC’s latest tactic in its never-ending witch-hunt and the federal government’s resulting reprimand should send the following message to the mainstream media,’ Wilcox said: ‘Stop using the SPLC as a legitimate hate-watch source in your news coverage. That a cabal of biased list-keepers can play such an important role in distorting the immigration debate in this country is testament to the utter failure of much of the mainstream media which frequently publishes their inflammatory commentary and refuses to question their baseless methods or financial motivations,’” Judicial Watch said.

The letter explained the DOJ stopped short of “formal disciplinary proceeding[s],” instead opting for the rebuke in the letter.

“We take this opportunity to remind the attorney practitioners involved in this misconduct that practitioners before EOIR should be striving to be civil and professional in their interactions with each other, the public, the board and immigration courts. Attorneys owe a duty of professionalism to their clients, opposing parties and their counsel, the courts, and the public as a whole.”

Get Whistleblower Magazine’s revelations about SPLC in “The Hate Racket,” the complete story of how one group fools government into equating Christians and conservatives with Klansmen and Nazis – and rakes in millions in the process.



‘Big day for freedom’: Trump to trash Obama’s outrageous water rule


President Trump made good on a major campaign promise Tuesday, as the Environmental Protection Agency announced the beginning of a process that will roll back the Waters of the United States rule, a move that has champions of private-property rights cheering loudly.

On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt made the policy shift official.

“We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation’s farmers and businesses,” said Pruitt in a statement.

“This is the first step in the two-step process to redefine ‘waters of the U.S.,’ and we are committed to moving through this re-evaluation to quickly provide regulatory certainty in a way that is thoughtful, transparent and collaborative with other agencies and the public,” he added.

“It’s a big day for freedom, for property rights and the Constitution,” said Robert J. Smith, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Smith said the Waters of the United States rule, or WOTUS, which was put forward during the Obama administration, was nothing more than gross distortion of what Congress intended for the EPA to regulate as part of the Clean Water Act.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

The act specifically allowed government to regulate “navigable” waterways, which Smith said was well understood to mean bodies of water on which commerce traveled through shipping. But he said the government, nevertheless, expanded its authority.

“‘Navigable waters’ kept getting stretched by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers year after year,” Smith explained. “First, it would go to tributary streams. Then, it would go to smaller streams. Then, it would go to creeks, and it would go to irrigation ditches, things that nothing could navigate.”

It didn’t stop there.

“Then it began to control the lands that were adjacent to navigable waters and lands that were adjacent to things that ran into navigable waters,” he said.

“By vastly expanding this, they’ve reached a point now where something that was only supposed to protect major rivers to see that commerce could take place in America now controls whether a farmer can plow his own land,” Smith said.

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Robert J. Smith: 



And that creeping government control forces property owners to beg Uncle Sam to use their own property.

“It takes an endless amount of time, years of time, money and still uncertainty to try to get a permit to use your own land. Anything that rain falls on now could technically be considered waters of the United States,” said Smith, noting that building a home on seemingly dry land on one’s own property could lead to millions of dollars in government fines.

The rescinding of WOTUS is not the end of the story. Pruitt’s announcement triggers a 30-day comment period, which will be considered in revising the existing rule.

“EPA and the corps together will come up with a revised rule, hopefully a rule that protects property rights and puts the EPA and the corps back into the constitutional mode they’re supposed to be in,” Smith said.

He also wants Congress to make sure the EPA can never stretch the definition of “navigable waters” ever again.

“The United States Congress needs to go back and revisit the Clean Water Act of 1972 and amend it so that it unequivocally says that ‘navigable’ means navigable and it means by commercial shipping, not by somebody in a motor boat, not by somebody in a canoe or a kayak or a rubber raft or even floating down a little tiny creek in a tube,” he said.

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!


Polls say what about Trump? Don’t you believe it!


The headlines on presidential approval polls have become repetitive, with “Independent voters sour,” “Trump’s approval at 40%,” “Trump’s approval rating plummets” and “Majority disapprove of President Trump.”

But an analysis of media polling practices by McLaughlinOnline suggest the media isn’t give you the real story.

For example, the Washington Post recently reported a survey in which the paper concluded Trump is “the least popular president in modern times.”

In the second-to-last paragraph, however, the Post said the “new survey finds 46 percent saying they voted for Clinton and 43 percent for Trump, similar to her two-point national vote margin. Asked how they would vote if the election were held today, 43 say they would support Trump and 40 percent say Clinton.”

So a “Trump is unpopular” survey actually indicated he would win the presidential race winner all over again.

What to today’s top authors have to say about Washington? Find out at the WND Superstore in “Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger,” “Throw Them All Out,” “Inside the Beltway,” “Capitol Punishment” and many more.

In an unscientific Internet poll by the Drudge Report, 92 percent of respondents said Trump was doing a “great” or “good” job six months into his presidency.

Chris Buskirk and Seth Leibsohn explain how the conservative elite, Washington insiders, and mainstream media were so completely out of touch with reality during the 2016 US presidential election cycle, in “American Greatness.”

wndb-Buskirk-American-Greatness-COVER-v3Another indicator of Trump’s popularity came in the special election in Georgia to replace Rep. Tom Price, who was appointed by Trump as secretary of health and human services.

Despite have spent some $32 million, the most ever in a congressional race, Democrat Jon Ossoff lost to Republican Karen Handel.

A recent survey by McLaughlin took into account the “gotcha” pitfalls in polling practices, concluding Americans have a higher view of Trump than reported and want to move away from President Obama’s agenda.

McLaughlin’s poll, taken a few weeks back, found 4 in 10 voters said America is going the right direction, a significant improvement over the past four years and “by a 5 to 4 ratio, 48 percent-41 percent, voters prefer the country change and move away from the policies of Barack Obama over continuing Obama’s policies.”

Further, the results showed more people approve of Trump’s agenda and their priorities for Congress are to create jobs and keep America secure from terror.

Also, a majority, 53 percent, believe the economy is getting better, and “in spite of Congress’ failure to act yet, the majority of voters still favor repealing and replacing Obamacare.”

And, they want smaller government.

The bias in many poll is alarming, the report contended.

“At the time of this writing the ‘unbiased’ and ‘non-partisan’ media polls are claiming that President Trump has the ‘lowest’ approval rating for any president this early in their tenure with a Real Clear Politics average of recent media polls of only 42 percent approve to 52 percent disapprove.

“However, unlike partisan candidate or party polls that are often held to more accountability and transparency to examine their internal political and demographic composition, media polls are not held to that standard and often just taken as fact in spite of very significant diversions from the actual electorate.

In short, that means stacking the poll respondents with Democrats will produce a Democrat bias.

The organization reported that during the last two congressional election years, participation by Republicans and Democrats was about even. In presidential elections, the Dems held a six-point advantage for Obama’s last run and a three-point margin for Hillary Clinton.

Accurate polling requires weighting the demographics to reflect the reality of voters at polling stations.

However, “As we head for another midterm election many media sponsored polls for some undisclosed reason fall outside of this range,” the report said.

The result is predictable.

“This partisan bias for the Democrats could explain why their findings seem more negative toward President Trump and the Republicans,” the report said. “This becomes a very important distinction since we are in an age of hyper-partisanship where a single-point shift adds a point or deletes a point from the president’s ratings.

“For example, in our recently completed national poll Republicans approve the job the president is doing 90 percent to 8 percent disapprove. In contrast among Democrats only 17 percent approve of the president while 80 percent disapprove. So for each point you take away from a poll’s Republican affiliation, you’re taking a point away from the president’s job approval. Conversely, when you add five points more Democrats, you’re adding four points to the president’s disapproval. It’s that simple.”

Such variables mean that methodology and sampling for polls is crucial.

“Then there is the wording of the questions in some polls which if negative to the president could cause Trump voters to disconnect or refuse to take the poll,” the organization said.

“These differences probably accounted for many media pollsters to proclaim Hillary Clinton with an ‘electoral lock’ last fall and miss the possibility that Donald Trump was about to win in the biggest anti-establishment election upset in the country’s history,” the report said.

Recent polls, however, have been biased toward Democrats simply because of the makeup of the respondents.

“Even though the last four national elections had Republicans significantly over 30 percent, only two of nine media polls did. The Washington Post/ABC poll had Republicans as low as 24 percent; the Economist and Quinnipiac even lower at 23 percent. That’s ten points lower than Election Day. Also while the largest partisan margin for the Democrats was +6 percent in 2012 and the average was +2 percent, the average margin for these polls was +7 percent Democratic and six of the nine polls gave the Democrats a partisan edge of 6-points or better.”

The report continued: “At some level when aggregated there seems to be a prevalent media polling bias for the Democrats at the president’s expense. Not only does it affect his job rating and favorable rating, it also affects the policies and issues these polls purport to measure. Maybe this is why so many Republicans, Independents and Trump voters seem to disregard media polls. It appears the media is once again sacrificing their credibility for their liberal, anti-Trump bias.”

The organization’s two principals, John and Jim McLaughlin, have extensive experience with strategy and polling.

John has worked on projects with Steve Forbes, Fred Thompson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jeb Bush, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Conservative Party in the U.K. and former Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada.

Jim has worked with more than 70 members of the House and 14 senators

The true measure of public opinion, some contend, is at the ballot box. Of the four special elections required so far to fill seats vacated by Trump appointments, the GOP has won all four.

The party also has reflected the desire of the American public by taking majorities in state legislatures, in many governor’s office, and in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House.

WND reported earlier this year that when the establishment media claimed in January that Trump’s approval was only 40 percent, making him “the most unpopular incoming president since at least Jimmy Carter,” critics pointed out those same pollsters had predicted a Hillary victory.

Zerohedge at the time reported Trump’s comments that the results were “rigged.”

And it explained how pollsters oversample to insert a bias.

“In the month leading up to the election on November 8th, we repeatedly demonstrated how the mainstream media polls from the likes of ABC/Washington Post, CNN and Reuters repeatedly manipulated their poll samples to engineer their desired results, namely a large Hillary Clinton lead (see ‘New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook for Rigging Polls through ‘Oversamples” and ‘ABC/Wapo Effectively Admit to Poll Tampering as Hillary’s ‘Lead’ Shrinks To 2-Points’). In fact, just 16 days prior to the election, an ABC/Wapo poll showed a 12-point lead for Hillary, a result that obviously turned out to be embarrassingly wrong for the pollsters,” the analysis revealed.

“But, proving they still got it, ABC/Washington Post and CNN are out with a pair of polls on Trump’s favorability this morning that sport some of the most egregious ‘oversamples’ we’ve seen. The ABC/Wapo poll showed an 8-point sampling margin for Democrats with only 23 percent of the results taken from Republicans … while the CNN poll showed a similar 8-point advantage for Democrats with only 24 percent respondents identifying as Republicans.”

In layman’s terms, it’s this: If you have many more Democrats responding to a poll than Republicans, especially on political issues, it’s not a surprise that the results favor Democrats.

“Of course, as we’ve repeatedly pointed out, these sampling mixes couldn’t be further from reality,” ZeroHedge said, citing a party affiliation measure that shows Republicans and Democrats in the nation within a few points.

What to today’s top authors have to say about Washington? Find out at the WND Superstore in “Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger,” “Throw Them All Out,” “Inside the Beltway,” “Capitol Punishment” and many more.



Debbie Wasserman Schultz challenger: Probe Seth Rich murder

Murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich

Murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich

WASHINGTON – Any American who cares about the rule of law should be demanding the truth about the mysterious murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich, says Tim Canova, a Democratic law professor who is challenging former DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her congressional seat in 2018.

Murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich

Murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich

Canova has been slammed by left-leaning media outlets for calling attention to the unusual circumstances surrounding the July 10, 2016, murder of Rich, the DNC voter-expansion data director who is rumored to have leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks.

“There should be a thorough investigation of what happened,” Canova told WND. “I know millions of people are asking the same question – they just want to know what happened in this investigation. That’s really all I am guilty of, making that plea for a thorough transparent investigation.”

He continued: “Whether we are talking about Seth Rich or anyone else, if you believe in the rule of law, you should want to apprehend people who commit these types of crimes, and I say that without speculating about who did it. I am grateful [WND] is looking into it.”

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

Canova’s 2018 opponent, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., served as DNC chairwoman until emails were made public by WikiLeaks revealing that under her leadership the DNC collaborated to undermine Bernie Sanders’ campaign.

Tim Canova, left, and Debbie Wasserman Schults, right

Tim Canova, left, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, right

Unsolved murder of Seth Rich

As WND has reported, Rich, 27, had accepted a position with Hillary Clinton’s campaign just before his death. He was murdered in Washington, D.C., near his apartment in an affluent neighborhood. Rich was shot twice in the back with a handgun, and his wallet, credit cards, watch and phone were left in his possession. The Metropolitan Police Department has described the murder as a “botched robbery.”

Private investigators have claimed there is evidence Rich was the source WikiLeaks used to obtain thousands of Democratic National Committee emails released on the eve of the party’s presidential nominating convention last July. The emails, indicating the party was manipulating the primary race in favor of Hillary Clinton, led to the resignation of Wasserman Schultz. On July 22, just 12 days after Rich’s death and days before the Democratic Party Convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks released 20,000 emails from DNC officials.

WND has launched a GoFundMe campaign to get to the bottom of the Seth Rich murder. Help us find out what really happened to the DNC staffer!

Former detective Rod Wheeler

Former detective Rod Wheeler

Also as WND has reported, former detective Rod Wheeler was initially hired by Rich’s parents through a third party to find their son’s killer. Wheeler alleges former interim DNC chairwoman Donna Brazille contacted the Metropolitan Police Department demanding to know why he was “snooping” after Wheeler began investigating Rich’s murder. As a result, he said, law-enforcement authorities are now refusing to provide him with more details about the case.

Wheeler and another source also told WND that the family’s spokesman, Brad Bauman – a Democratic political crisis consultant – was “assigned” to the family by the DNC. Bauman denies the DNC hired him to represent the Rich family, calling the claim “patently 100 percent false.”

As WND reported, the total reward for solving Rich’s murder currently stands at approximately a half-million dollars. However, the DNC has offered no reward for information leading to the arrest of the murderer of its own young staffer. Instead, the DNC honored its murdered employee by dedicating a bike rack outside its headquarters to Rich’s memory.

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

Media, critics pounce with ‘conspiracy’ label

Establishment media have ignored recent revelations concerning Rich’s case. The little coverage of the investigation has been devoted to dismissing speculation surrounding Rich’s murder as “conspiracy.” And Canova has been ridiculed for speaking out about the unsolved crime.

In a DailyKos article headlined, “Democrat pushing hateful Seth Rich conspiracy theory to run against Wasserman Schultz again,” Jeff Singer wrote, “Rich’s parents have repeatedly begged people to stop dragging their son through the mud to advance their own agenda, and we can only hope that Canova will listen and stop spreading these lies.”

After weighing in on social media about the Seth Rich murder mystery, Canova quickly became the target of widespread criticism.

“I Facebook live-streamed walking past his murder scene. I happened to be in Washington at the time,” Canova told WND. “People objected. They thought I was trying to use his murder for political reasons, that I was disregarding the feelings of Seth Rich’s family. So I took down the video. It’s others, my opponents, who want to politicize the Seth Rich murder.”

He continued: “I think the criminal justice system has to be able to work without political interference. I cross my fingers and hope that the Seth Rich family and others are pushing for a complete investigation.”

Intersection where DNC staffer Seth Rich was found 'conscious and breathing with apparent gunshot wound(s) to the back,' according to a July 10, 2016, police report (WND photo: Alicia Powe)

Intersection where DNC staffer Seth Rich was found ‘conscious and breathing with apparent gunshot wound(s) to the back,’ according to a July 10, 2016, police report (WND photo: Alicia Powe)

Why do mainstream and left-leaning media outlets continue to berate those who suspect Rich’s murder wasn’t robbery related, labeling them as “conspiracy theorists”?

“The mainstream media, they are looking to divide the progressive left,” Canova said. “They are looking to demonize and discredit. They try to discredit, and they engage in their own conspiracy theorizing. I’m very unconcerned with what the mainstream media are saying on any given day at this point. I am reaching the voters, where the voters live and where the voters work, and we are talking to the about real issues, the issues they care about.

“Ordinary people,” he continued, “don’t really give a damn about what the mainstream media are saying. There is a reason why the media are so low in digits in approval ratings. They are lower than Congress at this point.”

WND has launched a GoFundMe campaign to get to the bottom of the Seth Rich murder. You can personally help us get to the truth of what really happened.

‘My politics were very aligned with Sanders’

Canova told WND he has been a longtime supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

“In 2011, I was appointed by Sen. Bernie Sanders to a select advisory committee on reforming the Federal Reserve, so for years I had been doing a lot of work on the Federal Reserve and other financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund,” he said. “My politics were very aligned with Sanders.”

Sanders, then a presidential candidate, endorsed Canova, stating in May 2016 that “[Canova’s] views are much closer to mine than to Wasserman Schultz’s.”

Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., debate in 2016

Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., debate in 2016

After Canova became outspoken about Seth Rich’s unsolved murder, Sanders declined to endorse the law professor in his second Democratic bid for the Florida seat.

Sanders told the Miami Herald: “I have no idea about Tim Canova, I honestly don’t. I know nothing about Tim Canova.”

Leading conservatives, including Fox News host Sean Hannity and best-selling author Ann Coulter, argue that Democrats’ ongoing probe of the Trump administration’s alleged collusion with Russia, supposedly to rig the election by hacking DNC emails, will be derailed completely if Rich is proven to have leaked the DNC emails.

Murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich

Murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich

Canova concurs with that assessment, arguing that Democrats are hurting themselves by focusing on Russia.

“I am not one to think that the Russian focus is a productive one. I think it a very counterproductive one for the Democratic Party,” he said. “A lot of folks want to see more hard evidence if that’s what happened. Even taking their narrative as the truth, if the Russians can hack into our election systems, anyone can hack into our election system. And we need to focus a lot on election integrity.”

He continued: “I don’t have the time to focus on any of this Russia stuff. I am running for office, and I am focused on constituents, who are every day [working to] making ends meet, and worried out of their minds about their job prospects, the job prospects of their children, the health care for their aging parents. These are real issues that real people care about.”

DNC and Wasserman Schultz sued for election ‘rigging’

As WND reported, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz are currently facing a class-action lawsuit filed by attorneys Elizabeth and Jared Beck on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters who claim they sought to rig the election.

On June 13, lawyers and plaintiffs suing the DNC told the U.S. District Court in Florida that they’re being harassed with threatening messages and “freaky” encounters and they fear for their safety – particularly in the wake of the mysterious and unsolved murder of Rich – but the court denied their request for protection.

On June 1, the Becks filed a motion in court claiming they received a voice-modulated phone call from a number matching Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ office.

Elizabeth Beck told WND someone called her office using a voice-changing device and inquiring about the DNC lawsuit. She said this phone number, belonging to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Aventura, Florida, office, popped up on the phone's caller ID (Photo: Beck)

Elizabeth Beck told WND someone called her office using a voice-changing device and inquiring about the DNC lawsuit. She said this phone number, belonging to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Aventura, Florida, office, popped up on the phone’s caller ID (Photo: Beck)

One of the plaintiffs, Angela Monson, claimed in an affidavit to have awakened to her porch door open. She said both of her computers had been moved and showed evidence of tampering.

Similarly, Canova, who lost his 2016 Democratic primary bid against Wasserman Schultz, alleged June 17 in a now-deleted tweet that his computer was hacked and an electrical surge had fried both of his computers, after he announced an official rematch against her.


“Announced last night 8 p.m. run vs. @DWSTweets again,” Canova wrote, implying the disgraced former DNC chair may have been linked to the alleged attack. “At 2 a.m. my computer was attacked & surge protector fried. Same happened last campaign.”

Wasserman Schultz ‘put finger on the scale … to clear field for Hillary’

As a longtime Sanders supporter and an outspoken advocate of election integrity, Canova told WND he was infuriated by the foul play that took place within the Democratic Party during its primary.

“It became increasingly clear that as chair of the DNC, [Wasserman Schultz] was putting her fingers on the scale to try to undermine the Sanders campaign and to clear the field for Hillary Clinton,” he said. “That aggravated me. I had already been a Bernie Sanders supporter from early on when he got in the race. As it became increasingly clear that Wasserman Schultz wasn’t just [failing to represent] her constituents but was really doing an atrocious job as DNC chair, undermining democracy within the Democratic Party, it made the urgency of challenging her that much more acute.”

Former Democratic Party nominee for president Hillary Clinton embraces Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Photo: Twitter)

Former Democratic Party nominee for president Hillary Clinton embraces Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Photo: Twitter)

Canova said Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s record of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporations, while doing nothing to help her constituents, compelled his candidacy.

“During the course of her career, she had taken millions of dollars from big Wall Street banks, fossil fuels and other big corporate interests.

“She took money from private prison corporations, and was pushing for a private prison in our district. Their district has a lot of problems, especially economic problems. Low income, out of work, under employed – and it’s never been on her agenda. It’s been a very corporate agenda,” he explained. “So we started to look around for someone who would challenge her. No one else would, and I did. I am continuing to for those reasons. I think our district needs representation.”

Tim Canova

Tim Canova

Canova said he’s disappointed not only in Wasserman Schultz, but in the entire Democratic establishment.

“When I ran against Wasserman Schultz, I was running against the entire establishment, the entire time,” he said. “My beef is not just a personal one with Wasserman Schultz. My campaign is not just about replacing a single congresswoman but the party’s politics. [I’m] hoping it’s … not too late to reform this party.”

Canova said he believes he has a better chance of winning the primary in 2018 now that Hillary Clinton is not running as the party’s nominee for president.

To ensure Democratic Party establishment doesn’t rig the election against him, as it’s accused of doing to Sanders, Canova said he plans to pay for a recount, “no matter the election outcome.”

“Certainly, millions of Americans have concerns about the fairness of elections and the way the ballots are counted,” he said. “Election integrity is an enormous issue for my campaign. Really, it should be an enormous issue nationwide right now.”

Canova argued that Wasserman Schultz is viewed as a liability, even among party insiders, after being forced to resign as DNC chair.

“This time, I am in early,” he said. “This time, she is not going to be in a Clinton White House or cabinet. And I am not so sure she can count on the same level of support even from the establishment. Nobody wants to be seen standing next to her and campaigning for her. It’s a different race.”