5 Bold Predictions for a Donald Trump Presidency

On the eve of his inauguration, we take a look at 5 bold predictions for Donald Trump in the first 100 days as president.

• With one day left for Obama to pardon Hillary Clinton for her email controversy, (which many suspect he won’t do, frankly because Obama never really cared for her), it sets up the possibility of Trump ordering his own inquiry into the scandal. Actual likelihood: 3/10

• Millions of Americans were tired of the status quo career politicians, and Trump is quite clearly the opposite of that. He also has a warm relationship with Putin, who many see as a key to conflicts in the Middle East. Where George W. Bush and Obama failed to reach resolution, the Putin lead, Trump assisted duo will succeed. Actual likelihood: 6/10

• This one is easy. Trump will impeach himself. He’s a loose cannon, make no bones about it. I’d like to hope that he’ll have enough support around him to ask questions and give the right answers, but he just doesn’t strike me as the type. Should this happen, the more reliable, less unpredictable Mike Pence would take over. Actual likelihood 5/10

• Earlier this morning, it was announced that a man with connections to the Clinton family had been held for questioning related to an assassination attempt on Trump during his inauguration. This one may not be so bold, since a vast majority of Pro-Democrat supporters wanted anyone but him in office. Actual likelihood: 5/10

• Trump will scrap Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act as it is officially known. This could prove costly, and highly unsuccessful, but Republican’s control both the senate and the house of representatives, so any bill requiring a high approval rate could easily be pushed through. It’s likely that a Trump presidency will see the act repealed and repackaged. Actual likelihood: 7/10

Excerpts from the Declassified Intelligence Report

The recently released Grizzly Steppe joint document assembled by the CIA/FBI/NSA and Homeland Security outlined some serious accusations at Russia, and Vladimir Putin’s regime. None of which, to this date, have been proven.

Homeland Security, I might add, also refused to sign off on this document, which you can read here.

Media Watch has received access to the Declassified report which you can read here.

NSA’s level of confidence has also been listed as moderate. And you would think, if anyone had pertinent info related to the supposed hacks, it would be that department.

Here are a few key excerpts from the “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” document:

• “Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Hillary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency.”

But the document also decides that Russia didn’t influence vote tallying.

• “Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.”

• “We have high confidence in these judgements, CIA and FBI, NSA has moderate confidence.”

• “Russian behaviour since early November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessment of Russian motivations and goals.”

• “Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties.”

• “Russia’s state-run propaganda machine (RT) contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.”

Russian Roulette

Happy New Year, and welcome back to Media Watch. We’ve taken a little break over the holidays, but now we’ve returned to deconstruct the media. Alternately, between posting days, you can also follow our Facebook page.

It’s a curious tale, this Russian hacking spectacle. The US are wont to believe the Russians are involved. It would solve all their problems. It would solve the DNC’s problems. It would solve poor John Podesta’s problems, and it would certainly solve Hillary’s problems.

But the catalyst of all this, is surely Obama, who pointed the gun squarely at the Russians, and pulled the trigger. Click. His statement of intent was clear when he said “These data thefts and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government.”

It isn’t his party come January 20th. He has created a sea of waves for Trump to calm, and that course of action must take place soon, or a new digital cold age might be upon us.

Cyber security expert Jeffrey Carr, author of Inside Cyber Warfare has stated that a joint report released by the FBI and Homeland Security, titled Grizzly Steppe “adds nothing to the call for evidence that the Russian government was responsible.” Top level security execs have also labelled it “Fatally flawed”, and “poorly done.”

But it was the US that interfered in 1996 to help Boris Yeltsin win. And it was Hillary who paid protesters to interfere in the Russian elections in 2008. We have short term memories, when it suits us.

The reality here, is that Putin has never liked Hillary, and never liked Obama. And the key to Middle East resolution is through Russia, so perhaps it’s not such a terrible idea that Trump and Putin get along.

 

The Russia Complex

There’s an inherent danger in making accusations, without providing evidence. In the political sense, it can lead to immediate conflict and even start wars.

Senior US Republican senator Lindsey Graham has said his campaign email account was hacked by Russians.

Early this morning, Graham told CNN that he believed “the Russians” hacked into the Democratic National Committee, and accused them of trying to “destabilise democracy all over the world”.

Russian officials have repeatedly denied the claims.

The irony here, is that the US government has been involved in influencing a number of elections throughout history. We’ve seen it in Guatemala, and most recently in Haiti in 2010/2015, and Honduras as recently as 2009.

During Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, the Honduran military forced out democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. The United Nations condemned the act of a military style coup, and the Organization of American States suspended Honduras’ membership, calling for Zelaya to be reinstated.

“If the United States government declares a coup, you immediately have to shut off all aid, including humanitarian aid, the Agency for International Development aid, the support that we were providing at that time for a lot of very poor people,” Clinton had said in April of 2009.

It’s difficult to say the impact the US government has had on the people of Haiti, given the number of US sponsored coups and low voter turnout as recent as 2015 resulted in an 18 percent of registered voter turnout. Additionally, 23 percent of all votes were never counted, due to fraud and violence on Election Day.

But the meddling didn’t stop there. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon apologized earlier this week for the treatment of Haitian’s by the UN, after years of denial.

In regards to Russia, it’s an all too familiar scapegoat. An easy target.

Undemocratic States of America

 

Since it’s inception in 1787, the Electoral College has guarded against Democratic or Republican leaning states (traditionally California, New York and Texas, Florida, respectively) from influencing who is elected as President. In almost 130 years, only three times has someone with a larger number of total votes lost the Presidency. But suddenly, in an election where the democratic candidate lost, in this case one Hillary Clinton, the system is in need of eradication.

This article, is nothing more than an attempt to whip the American people into the same sort of rage their Purple Revolution attempted.

It’s unjust, and it’s undemocratic.

BBC, or the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, as I like to call it has long been a harbinger of democratic slanted news reports, despite being tax payer funded.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38254946?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

The Wisconsin Recall

Media Watch has learned that Hillary Clinton is behind the Wisconsin vote recall. Not Jill Stein.

Stein is merely being used as a front as to not alert suspicions. If you’ll remember, it was Hillary who had ridiculed Trump for questioning the vote tallies.

According to the podcast Abe Lincoln’s Tophat, a Green party insider named Robert Fitrakis had this to say: “I was on the inside of some of these decisions, first of all, Jill Stein had no inclination on earth to recount this election. It wasn’t her idea. She was contacted, and you’ll see some of this in news reports of this. John Bonafas, who worked as a Green attorney in 2004, who was then involved in elections, and a variety of social scientists who were obsessed with the numbers, their target was Hillary Clinton. Jill Stein was plan B.”

Republic of the United States of America

It is a common misconception, that the United States of America is a democratic state. It is not, in fact. It is instead a republic. This years election proved that point implicitly.

That a state like California, with it’s nearly 40 million people, 55 electoral votes and just shy of 2 million votes alone in the city of Los Angeles were registered for Hillary Clinton, shows a desperate need for voter reform. Or perhaps to that note, a total abolishment of the electoral voting process completely.

Further to that point, when a citizen of Wyoming’s vote counts for four times that of one in Michigan, or in Vermont, three times that of Missouri, the limitations on a true electoral voting system are highlighted rather boldly.

So while both systems elect politicians to represent their interests to form a government, in a republic, each vote is not in fact equal.

Eight Questions With… Part III

When researching individuals to take part in this segment, I try to choose people that not only have interesting perspectives, but also values I admire. I don’t necessarily agree with them 100%, but their core ideas and political ideals form a refreshing view and give a unique snapshot into a window that I wouldn’t normally see in my own day to day to life.

It is with this is mind, that I reached out yesterday afternoon to Ezra Levant, former Sun Media columnist, and in February 2015, he founded The Rebel Media, a social commentary website/media platform which posts original content on its Youtube page.

He has been quite vocal in the past during the Idle No More protests, and the human rights issues in relation to “the threat posed by radical Islam.”

I’m pleased to be joined this morning with Canadian media personality, Conservative political activist, writer and broadcaster, Ezra Levant.


Q: It’s been clear for a long time, that mainstream media very much wanted this election for Hillary, long before nominations were made. What are your thoughts on how the media has portrayed the two major candidates and how do you think this media bias will affect future elections?

Ezra Levant: You can already see that many in the mainstream media, after a week of being disoriented, have rededicated themselves to their partisan campaign against Donald Trump. I think this will continue to stimulate the growth of alternative media.

Q: How do you feel Bernie Sanders would’ve faired against Trump, had he been the democratic nominee?

EL: I think he would have done well, with young people and blue collar people worried about jobs. He might have won Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan — thus closing the door to Trump.

Q: In 2015, you founded Rebel Media. How have you found the process of subscription based viewing, and what are the differences between video/print media, and which do you prefer?

EL: Most of our videos are available for free on YouTube. Only 10% of our work is behind the paywall (only accessible via paid subscription) , but it is a premium product that is a commercial success. I come from print, but video is better in that you can show clips of video, audio, documents, etc. — things you had to describe in words. So you can tell a story more effectively. Video seems to be more viral as well.

Q: How do you think the recent incidents in Europe with refugees influenced the way Americans voted, and do you feel it’ll breathe life into right leaning fringe parties?

EL: I think that mass Muslim migration was an issue in the American election — but one that was added to the pre-existing issue of mass illegal Mexican immigration. I don’t think that parties that win can be called fringe parties; I think parties that believe in mass, unlimited, culturally alien immigration are the fringe ones.

Q: What do you think of the rumours that Milo Yiannopoulos, or Ann Coulter could be named press secretary in Trumps newly formed government?

EL: I like both of those people. But the rumours are surely not true.

Q: What are your thoughts on the Clinton/George Soros lead Purple Revolution, and their desire to reunite the country by turning their collective backs on president elect Trump?

EL: If you’re referring to the street protests, they are political violence — which is a basic definition of terrorism. If there is evidence that they are funded or organized by someone, those people should be prosecuted.

Q: By now, you’ve likely heard of the backlash over Donald Trump not allowing the press to follow him into a restaurant with his family. Do you think this outrage is justified, or do they need to set restrictions on how much access the government press is allowed?

EL: It’s a temper tantrum by the press. They hate Trump, and they hate the fact that he hates them back. Most Republicans respond to the media’s hate by trying to appease the media; Trump doesn’t.

Q: Finally, how did Vice Co-Founder Gavin McInnes become involved with Rebel Media, and what sort of projects are you working on?

EL: I invited him to make videos for us. We are working on expanding our journalism with more people and more beats.

 

Purple Revolution

Many people wondered (myself included) during Hillary Clinton’s concession speech, why her and Bill had decided to both wear purple. Was it coincidence, perhaps to show unity for Donald Trump (blue for the Democratic Party, and red for the Republicans), or perhaps it’s just one of her favourite colours.

Reuters/Carlos Barria

Well, wonder no more. The Purple Revolution has announced that it’s planning their first event, the Million Women March. A tad sexist, perhaps, but no one else seems to mind.

It came as no surprise to me, to find that the initiative is being funded by the Clintons and their campaign contributing friend George Soros, of the Black Lives Matter movement. There goal, is to unite the country (against Trump), which isn’t very democratic, and isn’t very grassroots either.

The revolution is aimed to help “Americans to Come Together in Hundreds Peaceful Gatherings of Solidarity, Resistance, and Resolve Following Election Results

Hundreds of Americans, dozens of organizations to gather peacefully outside the White House and in cities and towns nationwide to take a continued stand against misogyny, racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia.

Tonight, thousands of Americans will come together at hundreds of peaceful gatherings in cities and towns across the nation, including outside the White House, following the results of Tuesday’s presidential election.

The gatherings – organized by MoveOn.org and allies – will affirm a continued rejection of Donald Trump’s bigotry, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and misogyny and demonstrate our resolve to fight together for the America we still believe is possible.

Within two hours of the call-to-action, MoveOn members had created more than 200 gatherings nationwide, with the number continuing to grow on Wednesday afternoon.”

But through the eyes of us here at Media Watch, it just seems to be another ploy to divide the country. The goal here, is to foment the country and overthrow the Trump era government.

We’ll be keeping close attention to these protests in the coming days, weeks, months and reporting on things from an unbiased perspective.

Eight Questions With… Part II

I was planning to hold off on this post until Friday, but the election has become such a hot topic, I honestly couldn’t wait. With anti-Trump protests across the country, I wanted to get the perspective of one of the first bloggers to appear on my radar.

Back in 2005/06, he made a regular appearances on Matthew Good‘s political blog. He is by all accounts, one of the earliest bloggers of my recollection and still maintains posts on his Busblog site. He’s also a lifelong Cubs fan, so I already liked him a lot.

Last night, on a whim, I decided to reach out and see if he’d join me in a Q and A session. Thankfully, he obliged.

His answers are warm, candid and as always, refreshingly entertaining. 

I’m incredibly excited to welcome, Tony Pierce.

Photo credit, Tony’s mom (pictured here at legendary Cub announcer Harry Caray’s grave)

Q: Firstly, this election is obviously a hot button topic. I did a bit of research, and from your posts, I’m deducing you’re a fan of Obama’s style of politics. How do you think the government would’ve been shaped, had Hillary been elected last night?

Tony Pierce: I have no idea how the government would have been shaped if vote of the majority of the United States had been counted instead of this antiquated Electoral College nonsense. When longtime Senators like John McCain said that the GOP would have blocked anything that she sent to them, you take him at his word. So it may have been years of unprofessional gridlock, or perhaps she would have been able to figure out how to work with the Republicans. One reason I liked Obama, was because he had very (little) cooperation from the Right – unprecedented cockblocking – and yet his list of accomplishments are impressive.

Q: As a Canadian (I live in Ottawa, currently) we only get a small overview of things, how is the overall mood in California, a typically Democratic leaning state?

TP: I can’t speak for all of California – from what I understand there are as many people here as there are in all of Canada – but in my little circle, people were incredibly glum and judging from the protests in NYC, Chicago, Seattle, Portland and downtown LA, the feeling is mutual.

Q: How do you think Bernie Sanders would’ve faired in comparison to Hillary Clinton, had he been selected as the Democratic candidate instead?

TP: Bernie was a fascinating candidate. I gave him some money and there’s a cute poster of his image over my bed. So I am biased, probably, when I think he would have brought out more young people. Hillary has had haters ever since she said on 60 Minutes in 1992 that if Bill (Clinton) gets elected she wouldn’t be the type of first lady who sits around baking cookies and having tea parties. Bernie doesn’t have that sort of hate. But he is a Socialist and a Jew, which would have made other people uptight.

Q: What do you think the future (politically, or otherwise) holds for Hillary Clinton?

TP: I think Hillary will be a very popular public speaker where she will make a lot of money. Hopefully she will write a book about what it was like running against a game show host with no political experience. Although maybe she wants to just forget the whole nightmare.

Q: How can we rationalize the popular vote vs Electorals, when majority of people voted for Hillary, but based on key states (Florida, Ohio, Michigan, etc) Trump won? Is the election process flawed, in your opinion. And if so, what changes would you implement given the opportunity to improve the system.?

TP: I hate the Electoral College. People in California, for example, don’t feel the urgency to vote because the state overwhelmingly votes for Democrats, therefore the only thing you can say you really affected are local props and local politicians. The news refuses to instill this fascinating fact: 7 of the last GOP presidential candidates lost the popular vote. That includes our soon-to-be Commander in Chief. How is that a democracy? How does that inspire people to spend hours of their day to stand in line and cast a ballot. My vote here in Hollywood was far less powerful than someone’s in Florida or Ohio. How is that fair? It would be very easy to get rid of the Electoral College, the states just need to change their laws. If the majority do it, then all will be well. (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/)

Q: What do you think will be Barack Obama’s greatest achievement once he leaves office?

TP: There’s a lot to choose from. Killing (Osama) Bin Laden was pretty good. Obamacare was a great first step to health care reform. Normalizing Cuba was pretty key. Getting us out of a nasty Recession was something that the entire globe benefited from because all markets freaked out when the US market was tanking. But to me his biggest accomplishment was to show that a black man could do the job well and do it with class, dignity and intelligence. He is the Jackie Robinson of US Presidents and he was one of our all time best ones. And the FLOTUS is a Top 10 FLOTUS. Any one who considers themselves a minority can be inspired by the Obamas showing that not only could they do it as well as their white counterparts, but in many ways they did it better.

Q: Alternately, what was his biggest failure?

TP: Obama’s biggest failure was he waited too long to start campaigning for Hillary. He, Michelle, Beyonce and Springsteen should have been on a month-long tour getting out the vote. Now with early voting it’s somewhat worthless to have a huge concert a day before Election Day.

Q: And finally, a non political question. As a life long Detroit Tigers fan (my hometown, London, was the farm team while I was growing up), and having been too young to remember when they won their last World Series in 1984, what sort of wisdom/reassurance can you impart after seeing your Cubs finally win a World Series?

TP: The lesson of the Cubs winning the World Series is better told from the perspective of Cleveland. No one was talking about the Indians at the beginning of the season. Everyone was talking about Baltimore, NY and Toronto in the AL and Cleveland overcame injuries and picked up Andrew Miller and dominated in the playoffs. Then they took the Cubs to 7 games and extra innings. The Cubs were loaded with talent, the manager of the year, hot rookies, a Cy Young and an MVP. And still it took them extra innings and a rain delay to win it all. So to me, Detroit can rest assured knowing they don’t have to be America’s team to win it all, they just need a good manager, a few good pitchers and a(n) offence that can score 5 runs a game. Sadly the Cubs will be super dominant over the next 5 years so good luck getting past them in October. 🙂