The Good and the Bad of Trump’s UN Speech: “Totally Destroy” North Korea; Iran in Full Meltdown; Venezuela Calls Trump “Racist”

By Scott Greer. President Donald Trump delivered his first address to the United Nations General Assembly Tuesday.

The reviews of his speech were sharply divided.

Conservatives loved it, praising the president for taking a tough line against dictatorships and asserting American interests on the world stage. Several liberals saw the speech as dangerous saber-rattling that hurt America’s standing in the world and made our allies very nervous.

But how did the speech line up with the “America First” foreign policy Trump has articulated in the past?

On the positive side, there were many affirmations of the principle of national sovereignty and a commitment to the America’s interests rather than that of spreading democracy. (Read more from “The Good and the Bad of Trump’s UN Speech” HERE)


Trump: US May Have to “Totally Destroy North Korea”

By Ali Vitali. President Donald Trump, in his first address to the United Nations, derided Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s leader, as a “rocket man” on Tuesday as the president warned that he may be forced to “totally destroy” the rogue nation.

“If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph,” Trump said, as he detailed the horrors of what he called the “depraved” North Korean regime.

“Rocket man is on a suicide mission,” he said, using a nickname for Kim that refers to the North Korean leader’s recent missile tests.

“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.” (Read more from “Trump’s UN Speech: “Totally Destroy North Korea,” HERE)

Iran in “Full Meltdown Mode” Over Trump’s Speech

By Jordan Schachtel. The leaders of the terrorist regime in Iran are in full meltdown mode after President Trump’s Tuesday address to the delegates of the United Nations General Assembly.

The speech was lauded by conservatives and foreign policy hawks as a Reagan-esque, America-first speech in which Trump specifically called out the countries and groups that threaten global stability.

With the world watching, President Trump named and shamed the tyrannical leaders of the Iranian regime. Promising to hold them accountable, he called on Iran to “stop supporting terrorists” and “begin serving its own people.”

His public shaming of the regime – and recognition of the dignity of the people who live under it – has infuriated the mullahs in Tehran.

Comparable to the rantings of a campus social justice warrior, Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, decried the Trump address as “hate speech.”

Zarif later added in a statement on the state-run Fars News: “Trump’s shameless and ignorant remarks, in which he ignored Iran’s fight against terrorism, displays his lack of knowledge and unawareness.”

Recognition of Iran as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism crosses partisan lines and administrations. The regime in Tehran arms and aids terrorist groups across the globe, such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis in Yemen.

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Iranian parliament’s foreign policy body, also lashed out at Trump after the U.N. address. “No negotiations will be held for a change in the nuclear deal and the US is required to implement it,” Boroujerdi demanded, seemingly unaware of how the American republic functions. He called Trump’s demand for a renegotiation “illegal, unacceptable and illogical.”

“The Islamic Republic of Iran will not renegotiate the nuclear deal at all,” added Ali Akbar Velayati, the top aide to Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei.

Trump has threatened to back away from the Iran nuclear deal, which he has repeatedly called an “embarrassment” and the “worst deal ever” negotiated.

In an interview with CNN Monday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the U.S. would pay a “high cost” for leaving the nuclear accord.

Though there is plentiful evidence that Iran is cheating the nuclear deal, European leaders are attempting to salvage the accord.

European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, a fierce proponent of the deal, along with the leaders of the rest of the P5+1 world powers (Russia, France, China, Germany, UK, France), continue to back the agreement.

President Trump has until Oct. 15 to decide whether to certify Iran’s compliance in the agreement for another 90 days or, instead, to end Obama’s mistake for good. (See more from the author of Iran in Full Meltdown Over Trump’s UN Speech HERE)


Trump Channels Reagan, Venezuela Calls it “Racist”

By Chris Pandolfo. One of the more awesome moments of President Trump’s excellent speech before the U.N. General Assembly Tuesday came when he forthrightly confronted the evils of socialism.

“The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented,” President Trump said. “From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure.”

Venezuela foreign minister Jorge Arreaza accused President Trump of racism and attempted to paint him as unnecessarily antagonistic, comparing him to … Ronald Reagan.

“This racist and supremacist theory which he’s espousing, this return to the Cold [War] world — for a moment we didn’t know if we were listening to President Reagan in 1982 or to President Trump in 2017,” Arreaza said.

“He returns to the ideological conflicts that are surpassed already in the world,” he said.

This is hilarious, because Arreaza (and the socialist regime he speaks for) believes the Reagan comparison is an insult. In reality, this demonstrates why Trump’s speech was a major success.

As president, Ronald Reagan expressed his distaste for the Soviet Union’s system in bold, uncertain terms, referring to it as an “evil empire.” The Soviets hated Reagan for attacking their doomed ideology.

Likewise, the Venezuelan government hates President Trump’s brutally honest words about the oppressive, failed ideology of socialism.

Jose Arreaza is absolutely right; President Trump did sound like Reagan at the United Nations. Every American should hope that Trump continues to not only sound like Reagan, but act like him, too. (Read more from the author of this article HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Common Household Item is Now Considered ‘Racist’

By Chelsea Schilling. Who knew! Those fluffy white cotton balls on display in your favorite floral arrangement or in your bathroom cabinet?

They just might be r-a-a-a-c-i-s-t!

At least some people in Texas and Tennessee apparently think so.

On Sept. 14, Daniell Rider, a black woman from Killeen, Texas, ripped into the Hobby Lobby craft chain when she spotted raw cotton on its shelves.

“This decor is WRONG on SO many levels,” Rider said in a post on Hobby Lobby’s Facebook page. “There is nothing decorative about raw cotton … A commodity which was gained at the expense of African-American slaves.” (Read more from “Common Household Item Is Now Considered ‘Racist'” HERE)


Texas Woman Claims Hobby Lobby’s Cotton Stalks Are Racist, Defenders Push Back

By Fernando Alfonso III. [Daniell] Rider’s comment, and photo of the cotton, inspired thousands of comments on other Hobby Lobby Facebook posts, many of which were from people defending the store.

“People are too sensitive,” Pam Asbridge Reeder commented Saturday afternoon. “My mother picked cotton in Alabama as a young child. We are white as rice !! Get over yourself Daniell Rider. If it wasn’t for that cotton, you might just be stuck in Africa without the opportunities or privileges you have as an American. Did you EVER think about that? Not all slave owners were bad just as not all whites are bad. Some slave owners actually deeded land and homes to slaves and their families.”

Hobby Lobby is still selling the cotton stems on its website, where they have been marked down from 29.99 to $15. (Read more from “Texas Woman Claims Hobby Lobby’s Cotton Stalks Are Racist, Facebook Post Goes Viral” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Roger Stone Says Russia Related Legal Fees Will Cost at Least $500K

Trump confidant Roger Stone told The Daily Caller Tuesday that a lawsuit and congressional inquires will likely cost him at least $500,000 in legal fees.

Stone has set up a legal defense fund at to help offset the costs.

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has also set up a website to help pay off his legal fees as the financial burden of Russia election interference probes grows for Trump associates.

“They couldn’t beat us in an election so now they try to beat us financially,” Stone told TheDC. Stone is being sued by Project Democracy, which is ran by former Obama administration lawyers, for allegedly being involved in the release of emails from Democratic Party officials. (Read more from “Roger Stone Says Russia Related Legal Fees Will Cost at Least $500K” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

McCarthy: Something Fishy About Obama Officials’ Manafort Wiretapping Denials

After months of current and former federal officials insisting there was no merit to allegations the government conducted surveillance on Donald Trump or his campaign during the 2016 cycle, there are now reports that former campaign manager Paul Manafort was being wiretapped.

After Trump tweeted his frustration at the Obama administration for green-lighting the alleged wiretapping, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper rejected the assertion.

“For the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president-elect as a candidate or against his campaign,” said Clapper on NBC’s “Meet the Press” back in March.

But CNN’s revelation that the government did procure a FISA warrant against Manafort and conduct surveillance on him in 2016 and 2017 brings such denials under the spotlight once again. Most importantly, did they lie?

Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy told WND and Radio America the way Clapper and others carefully worded their denials earlier this year probably leaves them some wiggle room. (Read more from “McCarthy: Something Fishy About Obama Officials’ Manafort Wiretapping Denials” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Two Dem Congressman Arrested Outside Trump Tower

Two Democrats in Congress were arrested Tuesday while sitting on the street outside of Trump Tower in Manhattan.

Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., were on the scene as part of yet another protest against President Trump.

The issue for this event apparently was the president’s plan to discontinue the special protections for illegal aliens provided under Barack Obama’s amnesty program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

According to the Washington Examiner, the two were among a number of members of Congress there and were arrested outside Trump Tower.

The Examiner reported Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., also was at the protest. (Read more from “Two Dem Congressman Arrested Outside Trump Tower” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bombshell: U.S. Wiretapped Trump Campaign Chairman During Election

By Evan Perez, Shimon Prokupecz and Pamela Brown. US investigators wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort under secret court orders before and after the election, sources tell CNN, an extraordinary step involving a high-ranking campaign official now at the center of the Russia meddling probe.

The government snooping continued into early this year, including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump.

Some of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns among investigators that Manafort had encouraged the Russians to help with the campaign, according to three sources familiar with the investigation. Two of these sources, however, cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, which is leading the investigation into Russia’s involvement in the election, has been provided details of these communications. (Read more from “U.S. Wiretapped Former Trump Campaign Chairman” HERE)


Trump’s Former Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort Was Wiretapped by U.S. Government

By Harriet Sinclair. Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was wiretapped by U.S. investigators prior to and following the 2016 presidential election, sources claim. The wiretapping of Manafort as part of the investigation into Russia’s alleged interference in the U.S. election came under court orders, sources with knowledge of the issue told CNN . . .

The investigation and surveillance of Manafort was subsequently dropped in 2016, the sources told CNN, but began once again under a new order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as part of the FBI’s investigation into possible links between Trump’s team and Russia in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, the sources added.

Manafort, who denied any wrongdoing in August 2016 after The New York Times revealed that he was due to receive a cash payment from Ukraine’s ruling party, was also present at the controversial meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, ahead of which Trump’s eldest son was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

Although surveillance of Manafort is believed to have taken place both during the campaign and after Trump assumed office, no recordings of the meeting with Veselnitskaya — which has now become a part of the greater Russia probe – have been found. However, the surveillance period could have included times when Manafort spoke with Trump after the latter took office. (Read more from “Trump’s Former Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort Was Wiretapped by U.S. Government” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Entire Volume of CIA Files on Lee Harvey Oswald, Set to Be Released in October, Has ‘Gone Missing’

Countless concerned individuals are still searching for answers surrounding the mysterious death of the 35th president of the United States, John F. Kennedy. The official narrative, that a lone former Marine named Harvey Oswald assassinated him, is widely disputed.

All available documents from all government entities are required by the Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 to be released on October 26th of 2017. But if history repeats itself, the Central Intelligence Agency may not release an entire volume of documents on Oswald, known as “volume 5.”

As Sputnik reports, the release in July of 3,810 CIA and FBI documents on the assassination by the Assassination Records Review Board threw up a number of revelations that JFK researchers have hungrily devoured and enthusiastically publicized. For instance, the mayor of Dallas at the time of Kennedy’s assassination, Earle Cabell, was a CIA asset in the 1950s, and his brother, Charles Cabell, a high-ranking CIA official until 1962.

The release in October has been highly anticipated by those seeking answers. However, thanks to a deliberate fudging or records, or a conveniently timed clerical error, an entire volume may never see the light of day.

Inside Langley Air Force Base’s CIA Headquarters is an office known as the Office of Security. The Office of Security maintains its own top-secret archives known as the Office of Security Archival Holdings and is a separate archive from the agency’s more frequently used facility located in Alexandria, VA known as the Agency Archival Record Center.

As late as 1977, the entire 7-volume collection of documents was intact, having been checked out by Russ Holmes in the Office of General Counsel and noted the 7-volume series was all together, not missing any volumes. But when the CIA was asked to turn over the volume of documents on Oswald, the hitman in the assassination, it seems the agency stonewalled a bit, like a shell game according to independent investigator Malcolm Blunt.

Blunt described the stonewalling:

This huge search by CIA did not surface Oswald’s security files and the Assassination Records Review Board (AARB) remained uninformed about their existence. Not until 1997 when an ARRB staffer stumbled across evidence that two previous congressional investigations had access to these files did CIA “discover” them.

The AARB eventually received the 7-volume set of documents on Oswald in 1998, but staffers quickly realized there was one volume missing—volume 5.

An agency explanation was offered that volume 5 could have been consolidated into Volume 4, or Volume 6 for example. Eventually, the agency concluded, according to Blunt, Volume 5 of Oswald’s Security file may never have existed.

So far, 2017 has been a year of anticipation for JFK conspiracy theorists as they await the release of all files surrounding the assassination of one of the country’s most beloved presidents. One group, known as the Citizens Against Political Assassinations, is chomping at the bits to get to volume 5 and others. They believe the official government narrative is full of holes and needs to be investigated.

Many of its members are lawyers, and as TFTP has reported, have desired to clear Oswald’s name of any wrongdoing if possible.

But it is attorney Lawrence Schnapf, Chair of the Environmental Law Section of the New York Bar Association, whose comments concerning the current president and his relationship with the Deep State (implied but not referred to as such) have the media ablaze with talk of yet another political assassination.

Schnapf is the co-chair of the CAPA legal committee. After a brief discussion of why JFK’s assassination is relevant today, Schnapf compared the early 1960s with 2017. He said the Warren Commission was the “original fake news” organization whose conclusions later became the official government narrative. Although the commission refused to pursue “exculpatory” information, which is now hidden behind “government secrecy,” he says he hopes will come out this year, in compliance with the JFK Assassination Records Act.

Turning attention again to the case of JFK, the group plans to use the shell casings found on the scene and 21st-century ballistics analyses to conclusively determine whether or not Oswald actually killed JFK.

He said they’re first going to conduct a mock trial in November, and later an official legal proceeding called a “Court of Inquiry,” an official court proceeding to definitely prove “Lee Oswald was not the shooter…that’s what we hope to prove.”

The group hopes to expunge Oswald’s name from the official narrative, clearing not only his, but also his daughter’s, to “expunge the stain of their father’s name from” theirs.

“Oswald was not convictable, much less indictable,” he concluded.

The reputable lawyer contends that the mainstream media often overlooks the real story —that the government is not transparent — and that the Department of Justice (which also includes the FBI) has been politicized. (For more from the author of “Entire Volume of CIA Files on Lee Harvey Oswald, Set to Be Released in October, Has ‘Gone Missing'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Had No Idea Why People Chanted ‘Lock Her Up’ During The Election

In a new interview, Hillary Clinton revealed that she had no idea why people chanted “lock her up” during the 2016 election.

Clinton told NPR that “the first time [I was] actually aware of hearing [Lock Her Up] was at the Republican convention. I think it went on before that. I didn’t pay a lot of attention to it. I thought, ‘OK, fine. He is whipping up his crowds. He is throwing them red meat, and I’m Exhibit A of that.’”

“But when they brought it inside to their convention, so that it became, in effect, part of the historic record of the general election, I was stunned,” She continued. “I thought, What are they talking about and why are they saying this?”

Clinton also added that it was “not only wrong — because obviously there was no basis for it — but it was politics at a very high level being affected by the most dangerous partisan hyperbole.” (Read more from “Hillary Had No Idea Why People Chanted ‘Lock Her Up’ During The Election” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ex-Secret Service Warns: Trump ‘in Genuine Danger’

Dan Bongino is best known to American conservatives today as a former congressional candidate, talk-show host and fiery commentator.

But the position he says he will always be proudest of is that of “Special Agent, United States Secret Service.”

And the man who once guarded the commander in chief has a terrifying warning in his new book “Protecting The President” – Donald Trump is in jeopardy unless there is reform.

“The president of the United States is in genuine danger if the Secret Service doesn’t change course soon and evolve with the rapidly changing threat environment,” Bongino writes. “The threats to the White House and the president are swiftly evolving in this new era of weaponized drones, micro-sized video surveillance technology, vehicle attacks on civilians, small arms tactical assaults, and technologically advanced and difficult-to-detect explosives. And if the decision makers in the Secret Introduction Service refuse to evolve with this series of threats, then, tragically, we may suffer the first loss of a president since John F. Kennedy.”

Bongino describes the agency as suffering an “existential” crisis and reeling from recent scandals. And the former agent has provided a sober, detailed look at how one of America’s elite law enforcement agencies has sabotaged itself. (Read more from “Ex-Secret Service Warns: Trump ‘in Genuine Danger'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Considers Challenging Legitimacy of Trump Win

Hillary Clinton on Monday would not rule out the possibility of challenging the results of the 2016 presidential election, saying it’s clear the Russians influenced the outcome and that the legitimacy of President Trump’s victory could be called into question as congressional and independent probes into Russian involvement move forward.

In an interview with NPR, the former secretary of state — who will speak in Washington on Monday evening as part of her nationwide book tour — would not rule out formally contesting the results of the election.

“I wouldn’t rule it out,” she said, though she quickly admitted there’s virtually no legal path forward, and that challenging election results at this point would be unprecedented.

“There are scholars, academics, who have arguments that it would be [possible], but I don’t think they’re on strong ground. But people are making those arguments. I just don’t think we have a mechanism,” Mrs. Clinton said. (Read more from “Hillary Considers Challenging Legitimacy of Trump Win” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.