The National Pulse is today publishing a full list of news outlets said to have granted the Chinese Communist Party and its propaganda outlets “favorable coverage” or “positive messages” following an investigation into the China-United States Exchange Foundation and ‘BLJ Worldwide’.
The full list follows a National Pulse exposé on the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF), founded by the Vice-Chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), which has been identified by the U.S.-China Security and Economic Review Commission as a key component of the Chinese Communist Party’s United Work Front.T
The effort, according to the U.S. government report, aims to “to co-opt and neutralize sources of potential opposition to the policies and authority of its ruling Chinese Communist Party” and “influence overseas Chinese communities, foreign governments, and other actors to take actions or adopt positions supportive of Beijing’s preferred policies.”
Evidenced through the Department of Justice’s Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) filings, a relationship spanning over a decade between establishment media outlets and CUSEF can be discerned.
With the assistance of BLJ, CUSEF has sponsored trips to China for the following outlets with the explicit goal of “effectively disseminat[ing] positive messages to the media, key influencers, and opinion leaders, and the general public” according to FARA filings.
Dubbed “familiarization trips,” the criteria for participants included “effectiveness and opportunities for favorable coverage” in order to secure “favorable” coverage”
In order to develop favorable coverage in key national media, BLJ will continue to organize and staff “familiarization trips” to China. This includes recruiting top journalists to travel to China, selected for effectiveness and opportunities for favorable coverage.
In addition to CUSEF-sponsored travel, outlets also met with CUSEF officials and the BLJ CEO in various U.S. cities including New York, Washington, D.C., and Chicago. Often times, the meetings were described as “private dinners” in FARA filings.
December 3, 2020
(updated December 4, 2020)
Published by LeeF
President Trump provides an update on the “constitutional election process.”
Trump described his speech as “the most important” he’s ever made, providing an “update” on the campaign’s “ongoing efforts to expose the tremendous voter fraud that took place during the ridiculously long November 3rd elections.”
The President noted that:
“Lots of bad things happened during this ridiculous period of time, especially when you have to prove almost nothing.”
Trump summarized a number of allegations raised by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and other campaign lawyers. He claimed that “many people in the media, and even judges so far, have refused to accept it.”
“They know it’s true. They know it’s there. They know who won the election but they refuse to say ‘you’re right,’” he continued.
“Our country needs somebody to say you’re right.”
“As president, I have no higher duty than to defend the laws and the Constitution of the United States,” which – along with the election system – is under “coordinated assault and siege,”
(Natural News) If you think it was all about Trump communicating to the people, think again. This speech was really about Trump communicating with Chris Miller and the DoD about foreign interference in the U.S. election while laying out the key national security justifications that are necessary to invoke what I’m calling the “national security option” for defending the United States against an attempted cyber warfare coup.
In this article, I present details from 10 USC, Section 394. Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 19, “Authorities concerning military cyber operations” as well as National Security Presidential Memoranda (NSPM) #13, covering “offensive cyber operations.” See below.
In today’s Situation Update (Dec. 3rd), I lay out all the details of how Trump just invoked the legal framework — and national security provisions — necessary to allow the Secretary of Defense (Chris Miller) to activate military processes that lead to a tactical takedown of domestic enemies and active traitors.
Here’s the full podcast for Dec. 3rd. Tomorrow’s podcast (Dec. 4th) will provide even more details on the NSPM and other efforts put in place by Trump’s DOD intelligence team to trap the Democrats in acts of treason and warfare against America.
Decoding President Trump’s Dec. 2nd speech
Consider what Trump said in yesterday’s speech. You can watch the full speech here, but if you don’t know what to listen for, you’ll miss all the important language. About 95% of this speech was filler. Only 5% really matters, as I detail below:
First, he lays out that he has a sworn oath to defend the United States Constitution against the wartime “siege” that’s under way:
As President I have no higher duty than to defend the laws and the constitution of the United States. That is why I am determined to protect our election system, which is now under coordinated assault and siege.
He then explains that the vote was criminally rigged with “fraud” (which is a crime) and that it’s now time to overturn the election results and correct them:
Millions of votes were cast illegally in the swing states alone, and if that’s the case, the results of the individual swing states must be overturned, and overturned immediately.
Then he explains that China was part of this entire plan from the very beginning, via their engineering and launching of the coronavirus, which Democrats used to justify mass mail-in ballots which were used to steal the election. This statement specifically invoked national security elements of our defense protocols:
The Democrats has this election rigged right from the beginning. They used the pandemic as an excuse to mail out tens of millions of ballots, which led to a big part of the fraud… and there is no one happier than China.
Trump then calls for a “full forensic audit,” which can obviously only take place under military authority, since the local elections officials are corrupt, fraudulent criminals. He explains this himself:
Dramatically eroding the integrity of our elections was the Democrats’ number one priority. For a simple reason: They wanted to steal the 2020 presidential election. All of the Democrat efforts to expand mail-in balloting laid the groundwork for the systematic and pervasive fraud that occurred in this election.
Then, about 30 minutes into the speech, he invokes legal language that clearly references Trump’s Sep. 12, 2018 executive order which describes remedies for foreign interference in U.S. elections. Here’s what Trump says:
The only conceivable reason why you would block commonsense measures to verify legal eligibility for voting, is you are trying to encourage, enable, solicit or carry out fraud. It is important for Americans to understand that these destructive changes to our election laws were NOT a necessary response to the pandemic. The pandemic simply gave the Democrats an excuse to do what they were trying to do with many many years.
Note carefully the phrase, “…trying to encourage, enable, solicit or carry out fraud.”
Where have we heard something very similar before? In the 2018 EO, which describes who will be subjected to having all their assets seized by the United States government — and note that this applies to corporations, individuals, partnerships and even non-profits: (emphasis added)
Sec. 2. a (ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity described in subsection (a)(i)
Sec. 2. a (i) to have directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign interference in a United States election;
Thus, Trump just invoked the 2018 EO and sent an undeniable signal to Chris Miller at the DoD (as well as many other groups) that the Democrats, the treasonous media and the complicit Big Tech giants have all engaged in concealing, advocating or supporting “foreign interference” in the U.S. election.
Treason, rendition flights and military tribunals
What is the remedy for such actions of treason against the United States?
Under existing U.S. law, it’s a felony crime to try to rig votes. Under military law during a time of war, it’s treason. And under the 2018 EO, each of the entities engaging in this behavior will have all their assets seized by the U.S. Treasury.
Translated into plain language, this means that Twitter, Facebook, CNN, the Washington Post, Google, MSNBC, etc., are all now able to be completely seized, shut down or taken over by the Trump administration, as they all engaged in the defined behaviors outlined in the 2018 EO, which Trump just cited.
Consider that as I list all the evidence that Trump’s attorneys and DoD “white hat” team members now possess, much of which will surely be presented to SCOTUS, most likely by Sidney Powell, once one of her cases reaches that level of the judicial system:
CIA director Gina Haspel admitting to election interference in a full confession which has now been acquired. (This is covered in the Dec. 3rd Situation Update podcast, above.)
Dominion executives confessing to engineering backdoors into the systems, which has also been acquired.
Packet analysis results from “white hats” who intercepted all the real-time vote rigging traffic, which includes the specific instructions from CIA servers to add the hundreds of thousands of votes in real time to Dominion tabulation machines in swing states. This is now publicly confirmed by Col. Phil Waldron.
Log files and software evidence from the seized CIA servers in Frankfurt, which provides physical and intellectual proof that the CIA inserted hundreds of thousands of votes into the Dominion tabulation machines.
All this evidence exists right now. Trump has it all. His speech lays the official groundwork that can now be cited by other officials (namely, in the DoD and Treasury, which runs the US Secret Service), in order to justify their own initiation of orders for further arrests, rendition flights and wartime activities necessary to defend the United States of America against foreign enemies who are waging cyber warfare against the United States.
10 USC 394: Authorities concerning military cyber operations
In case you’re wondering whether the U.S. military under Trump really has the authorization to respond to acts of cyber warfare with coordinated conventional military actions, read 10 USC, Section 394. Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 19, which is available via uscode.house.gov:
(I’m bolding the especially important sections):
§394. Authorities concerning military cyber operations
(a) In General.-The Secretary of Defense shall develop, prepare, and coordinate; make ready all armed forces for purposes of; and, when appropriately authorized to do so, conduct, military cyber activities or operations in cyberspace, including clandestine military activities or operations in cyberspace, to defend the United States and its allies, including in response to malicious cyber activity carried out against the United States or a United States person by a foreign power.
(b) Affirmation of Authority.- Congress affirms that the activities or operations referred to in subsection (a), when appropriately authorized, include the conduct of military activities or operations in cyberspace short of hostilities (as such term is used in the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93–148; 50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.)) or in areas in which hostilities are not occurring, including for the purpose of preparation of the environment, information operations, force protection, and deterrence of hostilities, or counterterrorism operations involving the Armed Forces of the United States.
(c) Clandestine Activities or Operations.- A clandestine military activity or operation in cyberspace shall be considered a traditional military activity for the purposes of section 503(e)(2) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3093(e)(2)).
f) Definitions.-In this section:
(1) The term “clandestine military activity or operation in cyberspace” means a military activity or military operation carried out in cyberspace, or associated preparatory actions, authorized by the President or the Secretary that-
(A) is marked by, held in, or conducted with secrecy, where the intent is that the activity or operation will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly; and
(B) is to be carried out-
(i) as part of a military operation plan approved by the President or the Secretary in anticipation of hostilities or as directed by the President or the Secretary;
(ii) to deter, safeguard, or defend against attacks or malicious cyber activities against the United States or Department of Defense information, networks, systems, installations, facilities, or other assets; or
(iii) in support of information related capabilities.
Trump announced “offensive cyber operations” just one week after signing his Sep 12, 2018 Executive Order
As you ponder all the implications of that, note carefully that just 8 days after President Trump signed his September 12, 2018 executive order, the Trump administration announced the launch of “offensive cyber operations” against foreign enemies. This was reported by the Washington Post, which explained, “The strategy incorporates a new classified presidential directive that replaced one from the Obama administration… It allows the military and other agencies to undertake cyber operations intended to protect their systems and the nation’s critical networks.”
What would be considered “offensive cyber operations?” Kraken, of course. The 305th military intelligence battalion.
Of course, just 8 days earlier, President Trump had designated elections infrastructure as “critical infrastructure.” So now the pieces fit. The circle is complete. The election theft was cyber warfare against critical U.S. infrastructure. This authorizes all kinds of national security activities, such as using U.S. Army Special Forces units to raid the CIA server farm in Frankfurt, which took place shortly after the election.
Also in 2018, President Trump had authorized the National Security Presidential Memoranda (NSPM) #13, covering “offensive cyber operations.” Here’s a list of all the NSPMs, but notably, “offensive cyber operations” is a secret and is not publicly shown.
In fact, the Trump administration fought to keep this document hidden from Congress, given that in 2018, the House was run by Pelosi and other treasonous actors who had just pulled off the 2018 cyber attack on the U.S. elections infrastructure, stealing dozens of House seats in order to “win” a majority in the House, from which Adam Schiff could launch his impeachment scheme to try to remove Trump from power.
“On a bipartisan basis some of us sent a letter to the Trump administration demanding that they share with, at least some of the leadership on the Armed Services Committees, the rules of engagement for certain cyber contingencies,” Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said at the time. “The Obama folks did give us that information, the Trump people changed it, but then they were reluctant to show us.”
What we now know is that Trump was planning the 2020 election sting / cyber warfare “trap” in 2018, and that these cyber warfare response protocols were intentionally kept from Congress for as long as possible while plans were put in place to catch the Democrats stealing the next election (the 2020 election).
Rest assured, what we now know with absolute certainty is that Trump, Miller, Cohen-Watnick and other key players put the cyber warfare infrastructure in place in 2018 that would allow them to unleash a domestic military response to arrest, detain and prosecute all those who were complicit in the attack on America.
The patriots, in other words, really are in charge. And they planned all this since 2018, putting in place the framework to trigger the appropriate national security resources once the Democrats took the bait and tried to steal the 2020 election.
GITMO must be getting close to full capacity at this point, with lots more detainees on their way. The mass arrests are coming. Trump is in charge, and the Dems who know what’s really happening are beyond terrified. They know they’ve been caught. Some will be charged with treason. Many will face military tribunals. A few will likely be executed after found guilty of treason.
Finally, lock and load, patriots, because Trump may still need a million armed patriots to show up in D.C. as the critical moments of all this are publicly announced. Stand by for further instructions from your Commander-In-Chief.
November 7, 2020
(updated December 6, 2020)
Published by LeeF
Corporate media outlets called the presidential election for former Vice President Joe Biden and his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA). CNN, MSNBC, and the Associated Press called the election for Biden at 11:28 a.m., just minutes before President Trump’s lawyers were expected to speak at a press conference about challenging votes in Pennsylvania.
Fox News ultimately followed suit at 11:40 a.m.
At the time of the decision, President Trump spent Saturday morning at his golf course in Sterling, Virginia, presumably to play golf on a sunny fall afternoon.
The president issued the following statement via his campaign:
We all know why Joe Biden is rushing to falsely pose as the winner, and why his media allies are trying so hard to help him: they don’t want the truth to be exposed. The simple fact is this election is far from over. Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor. In Pennsylvania, for example, our legal observers were not permitted meaningful access to watch the counting process. Legal votes decide who is president, not the news media.
Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated. The American People are entitled to an honest election: that means counting all legal ballots, and not counting any illegal ballots. This is the only way to ensure the public has full confidence in our election. It remains shocking that the Biden campaign refuses to agree with this basic principle and wants ballots counted even if they are fraudulent, manufactured, or cast by ineligible or deceased voters. Only a party engaged in wrongdoing would unlawfully keep observers out of the count room – and then fight in court to block their access.
So what is Biden hiding? I will not rest until the American People have the honest vote count they deserve and that Democracy demands. – President Donald J. Trump
Fox News Neil Cavuto cuts away from a press conference held by White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany. He claimed that the network cannot continue to air her “false claims” in “good conscience.” TuckerCalls him Out.
October 5, 2020
(updated October 7, 2020)
Published by LeeF
NBC News featured a pair of “undecided” voters during a network town hall earlier this week who had previously declared their support for Democratic nominee Joe Biden on the network’s sister channel, MSNBC.
Lawyer Peter Gonzalez and marketing executive Ismael Llano posed questions to Biden during a town hall on Monday, when he appeared before what the network described as an “audience of undecided Florida voters.”
Both Gonzalez and Llano, however, were featured in an MSNBC segment in August to explain why they support Biden. “If we get four more years of Trump, good luck, and good luck with the future attracting younger voters,” Gonzalez said as an MSNBC chyron noted he was “voting for Biden.” Llano was also identified as “voting for Biden” and offered praise for the former vice president.
On Monday, NBC’s Lester Holt said that Llano “voted for Hillary Clinton four years ago but has voted Republican in the past.” Gonzalez, whose voting history went unmentioned, asked Biden to ease his family’s concerns that the Democrat is beholden to “the radical left.”
“Cuban American and Venezuelan voters here in South Florida are being targeted with messages by the Trump campaign claiming that a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for the radical left and socialism, and even communism,” Gonzalez said. “What can you tell people in my family, my friends—who are understandably concerned with that issue—that would make them feel comfortable voting for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris?”
It is not the first time that television networks have featured Trump opponents masquerading as undecided voters, who are difficult to find and often less publicly vocal about their political views. ABC News last month described several Trump critics as undecided voters, including one who had previously described Trump as a “f—ing moron,” “pathetic,” “pig,” “swine,” and a “punk ass” on social media.
Another “undecided” voter featured in NBC’s town hall, Mateo Gomez, told MSNBC on Sept. 30 that he was leaning toward voting Biden over Trump after watching the first debate.
NBC News did not respond to a request for comment.
Others at the town hall have displayed a clear preference for Biden on social media. Michelle Cruz Marrero, described as a former Republican, did not appear to be undecided: Several of her Facebook “cover photos” are either pro-Biden or anti-Trump.
Another voter at the town hall, Cassidy Brown, asked Biden how she would protect “women’s reproductive rights.” Biden subsequently tweeted the exchange and pledged to codify Roe v. Wade. But Brown’s social media use also suggests she is not an undecided voter. On Sept. 5, she retweeted an account—with a Biden-Harris logo for its avatar—that attacked Trump for allegedly making derogatory remarks about veterans. In 2017, she shared a HuffPost article on Facebook about Michelle Obama’s criticism of women who voted against Hillary Clinton.
Brown also shared an Instagram post from her sister after the town hall, where she boasted Brown asked the “future president” an “incredible question” about reproductive rights.
August 3, 2020
(updated August 4, 2020)
Published by LeeF
An MSNBC producer has quit the network, lamenting an editorial process that chases approval and ratings rather than presenting facts. When even employees label the MSM as a “cancer with no cure”, we should all be concerned.
If you were to ask your mother who Ariana Pekary is, more than likely she’s not going to know unless she’s already met her. That’s because Ariana was a producer at MSNBC. Although she wasn’t someone who’d be in front of the camera, she is definitely someone who’s an expert on what goes on behind it. But now she’s left the TV network and, on her exit, wrote an extremely scathing letter about the nature of its programming.
Although she described her colleagues as intelligent people with good intentions, she lamented the way the news has gone, blaming an overemphasis on the chase for ratings as opposed to straight reporting.
Specifically, she stated that it “forces skilled journalists to make bad decisions on a daily basis.” And she went so far as to reference an unnamed colleague who described what they were doing as “a cancer with no cure”. Pekary also admitted that fringe voices are constantly given airtime because it boosts those ratings, even if those guests’ views are divisive and offer little in the way of solutions.
And we’ve recently seen two other major figures cite similar problems within the news industry. On leaving the New York Times, Bari Weiss described a hostile work environment in which her colleagues would much rather ‘cancel’ her than allow her to express a different opinion. She even made the extraordinary claim that Twitter has become “the ultimate editor” of the New York Times. This would explain why so much of the Times’ content seems to cater for Twitter’s woke extremists.
Andrew Sullivan, formerly of New York Magazine, had a similar lament. He spoke of his endless frustration at the lack of diversity of thought: “If the mainstream media will not host a diversity of opinion, or puts the ‘moral clarity’ of some self-appointed saints before the goal of objectivity in reporting, if it treats writers as mere avatars for their race and gender or gender identity, rather than as unique individuals whose identity is largely irrelevant, then the non-mainstream needs to pick up the slack.”
Now, to anyone outside the news sphere, this may not come as a surprise. We’ve seen extreme voices dominate the airwaves for close to a decade. Often, the arguments presented are purely identitarian, or based on progressive ideology with zero pushback. It’s very rare to see a healthy debate, or for some networks to even give space to opposing sides. There’s an air of hyper-partisanship, no matter what network you tune into.
Granted, many news figures are very open about their biases. At the very least, they have that level of honesty. I can’t recall CNN’s Don Lemon denying he’s a progressive, for instance. However, some networks will merely try to make themselves appear fair and balanced in their reporting, when what the viewer sees is something completely different. MSNBC and CNN have accused the US leadership of racism over and over again, for example, with zero resistance from anyone on the network. It appears no middle ground is allowed.
It’s unlikely Pekary’s decision to leave marks the end of the story. We’ll doubtless see other media figures speak out, because the fact of the matter is that hyper-partisanship is tearing the US to pieces. The people who rely on these networks and publications to source their news are receiving so much editorializing that it may as well be propaganda. There is a complete lack of responsibility and ethics, and we need more journalists, on either side of the aisle, to step up.
Ultimately, the worst thing you can do is say nothing. It’s reassuring to see principled people standing up for something so simple as diversity of thought. Hopefully, in the near future, there’ll be others as outspoken as Ariana Pekary, Bari Weiss and Andrew Sullivan. The wellbeing of our media depends on it.