Max Boot is Giddy About the Fact that Whites Will be a Minority in the Next Few Decades

By Jose Nino

Political commentator Max Boot is celebrating the prospect of a majority-minority America in the next few decades.

Boot, a fierce critic of the President, was aghast at Trump telling a “group of congresswomen of color to “go back” to where they came from” and calling his majority-minority district “a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess,” where “no human being would want to live.”

Boot also criticized Trump for calling Al Sharpton a “con man” who “Hates Whites & Cops,” which, in his view, is a “white-nationalist device of labeling those who oppose racism as antiwhite racists.”

The fierce Never Trumper argues that “racism sells in America.”

However, Boot believes that “the political advantage from these attacks might be negated — and Trump might be deterred from launching more of them in the future” if the Republic Party “would call him out.”

Boot ultimately believes that “the Trump era will be seen as a sad last gasp of white resistance.”

He expanded:

A few decades from now, when the entire country is majority-miinority, the Trump era will be seen as a sad last gasp of white resistance — a reprehensible episode that will be recounted alongside the McCarthy era, the internment of citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent during World War II, and the Palmer Raids. No one will remember or care who backed a corporate tax cut. When their grandchildren ask today’s Republicans what they did to oppose Trump’s racism, what will they say? “No comment”?

Boot has been a DC mainstay for the past few decades and established himself as one of the fiercest proponents of the failed Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts.

Since Trump got elected in 2016, Boot has become an irate critic of the Trump administration.

The election of Trump was a rejection of Boot’s regime change fanaticism and has invalidated many of the policies he championed during the Bush years.

For that reason, Boot continues to harp on Trump.

Boot does raise a good point about demographic shift, however.

The majority of this has been caused by mass migration, which benefits Democrats at the polls.

For that reason, immigration reform is crucial, which will have to entail repealing birthright citizenship, anchor baby policies, chain migration, and tightening up pathways to citizenship.

The Left and its fellow travelers openly cheer about the demographic shift that Boot mentions because they know it will electorally benefit them.

However, for America, mass migration could cause a social calamity given the nature of America’s bloated welfare state and the strain mass migration could bring upon it.

REMINDER: EVERY BOGUS 2016 FISA REQUEST to Spy on Trump was Signed by Obama’s AG Loretta Lynch


By Joe Hoft

Last night on the Laura Ingraham Angle on FOX News, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John Yoo, noted that Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed off on most all the FISA warrants during Obama’s last couple years in office (emphasis added) –

As somebody who’s worked on FISA applications, I can tell you how high it could go because under the FISA law itself the Attorney General has to approve the FISA application.  So if the Steele dossier, which we now know was completely made up, was used as a basis for the FISA application, then you have somebody that was high up in the FBI that had to approve that.  Somebody high up in the Justice Department had to approve that.  Ultimately the Attorney General [Loretta Lynch] has to approve that.

And then a second thing we haven’t touched on yet is that appears that the FBI attempted to send undercover informants and agents to infiltrate the Trump campaign.  There’s a whole other set of laws that are called the Attorney General guidelines which are supposed to only allow that in very, very rare circumstances.  So I assume the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General and maybe FBI Director Comey all had to sit in on that decision and approve it…

Here’s a reminder of what we reported on February 3rd, 2018, more than a year ago –>>

On March 7th, 2017, the Gateway Pundit reported – Only 1 in 10,000 FISA Requests Was Denied in 6 Years — Obama’s First Request to Wiretap Trump Denied in 2016.

We now know that the FISA requests to spy on Carter Page were based on the discredited and bogus fake Trump dossier created by Fusion GPS and that the dossier’s origin was not reported to the court.

We also know that all of these requests were signed off on by the Obama Administration’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch and that the first request to spy on Trump was denied by the FISA Court.

In March 2017 we reported that President Trump tweeted that former President Obama had petitioned a court [at least] twice in order to wire tap current President Trump when he was running for office.

In his first tweet President Trump tweeted:

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!


The President next tweeted:

Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!


We also reported that according to ABC News:

More than a thousand applications for electronic surveillance, all signed by the attorney general, are submitted each year, and the vast majority are approved. From 2009 to 2015, for example, more than 10,700 applications for electronic surveillance were submitted, and only one was denied in its entirety, according to annual reports sent to Congress. Another one was denied in part, and 17 were withdrawn by the government.

A very disturbing fact about the wire tapping request of President Trump is that the FISA Court turned down President Obama’s Administration’s first request to wire tap President Trump that was evidently signed off on by Attorney General Lynch. With only two known applications denied out of 10,700 from 2009 through 2015, the fact that the Obama Administration’s application was denied by the FISA Court is very disturbing. The odds of this happening were 0.02%.

Now we know that Carter Page was spied on by the Obama Administration and the information provided to the Court to spy on him was bogus.

We now have additional evidence that the Obama Administration, its AG, FBI and DOJ were all corrupt and doing all they could, including obtaining warrants to spy on President Trump based on bogus information, to take him down before the 2016 election.

The amazing thing is … Trump still won!

(CENSORSHIP) – Poynter Wants 515 Outlets Blacklisted, Including Breitbart Leaves Out All Corporate Media Behind Dangerous Hoaxes… …Vast Majority of Blacklist Compiled by One Assistant Prof

Screen Shot 2019-05-01 at 10.13.07 AM

By John Nolte

Poynter Institute claims on its About page that “it champions freedom of expression.” And yet, on another page, Poynter published a list of 515 media sites, including Breitbart News, that it wants blacklisted and shut down.

Poynter calls this list an “index of unreliable news sites” and is openly calling for advertisers to stop sponsoring these sites, to pull their sponsorship, to put these sites out of business.

If that’s not a blacklist, tell me what is [emphasis added]:

Advertisers don’t want to support publishers that might tar their brand with hate speech, falsehoods or some kinds of political messaging — but too often, they have little choice in the matter.

Most ad-tech dashboards make it hard for businesses to prevent their ads from appearing on (and funding) disreputable sites. Marketers can create blacklists, but many of those lists have been out-of-date or incomplete.

Aside from journalists, researchers and news consumers, we hope that the UnNews index will be useful for advertisers that want to stop funding misinformation.

This is straight-up McCarthyism. This is nothing less than the return of the 1950s’ blacklisting crusade against those who hold inappropriate, unacceptable, and unapproved opinions.

And what’s more, the lion’s share of the list cites a single source — “OpenSources,” a list curated by a single Assistant Professor from Merrimack College, Melissa Zimdars (pictured). She is the author of academic papers such as “Watching Our Weights: The Consequences and Contradictions of Televising Fatness in the ‘Obesity Epidemic’” and “Having It Both Ways: ‘Two and a Half Men,’ ‘Entourage’ and the Televising of Juvenile Postfeminist Masculinity.”

What is Zimdars’s methodology? Can’t say, exactly, as the OpenSources official site is totally blank. About two years ago, she gave an interview where she said that one of her criteria for blacklisting a site is “hate” — that is, she still believes the far-left SPLC is a credible organization whose “hate” labels should get you kicked out of public discourse.

Those of you who suddenly approve of blacklisting will argue, “Hey, this is how democracy works! A private company has the right to do or not do business with whoever they want!”

Well, how the hell do you think the 1950s’ blacklist worked? That was nothing more than private companies (movie studios, advertising sponsors) and private individuals (studio heads, producers) deciding all on their own whom they did and did not want to do business with.

Nevertheless, we rightly look back on this dark era with disgust, as an un-American era where people were persecuted and silenced (by private corporations and private individuals) for holding ideas and opinions the powerful establishment did not want shared or discussed.

And now, the 1950s’ blacklist has returned with a vengeance because the establishment media are fighting for advertising dollars and have lost their moral authority and ability to influence public opinion due to outlets like this one and the Media Research Center, Pajamas Media, Washington Examiner, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, Red State, Project Veritas, Newsmax, Zero Hedge, LifeSite, Judicial Watch, Frontpage, The Washington Free Beacon, The Daily Caller, and the Drudge Report — all of which are on Poynter’s blacklist — exposing their lies and biases, and…

Just as the blacklisters did during the McCarthy era, they are trying to silence us by targeting our advertising sponsors.

Sure, just as some of those people targeted in the 1950s were actual communists looking to do our country harm, there are some legitimate bad faith players on Poynter’s blacklist. But here’s where Poynter’s blacklist gets especially sinister…

There is no one on Poynter’s list of “unreliable news outlets” responsible for spreading the biggest, most irresponsible and dangerous lies of the last half-decade — lies that have caused race riots and destroyed innocent lives.

In other words, the outlets Poynter does not want blacklisted are every bit as revealing as those Poynter does want blacklisted.

There is simply no question that for over five years, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, ABC, CBS, PBS, NBC, MSNBC, Politico, BuzzFeed, etc., have relentlessly and deliberately misled the American people on the biggest stories of the day…

  • The Trayvon Martin Hoax

  • The Hands Up, Don’t Shoot Hoax

  • Donald Trump Can’t Win

  • The Russia Collusion Hoax

  • The Brett Kavanaugh Serial Rapist Hoax

  • The Covington High School Boys Hoax

And yet, every outlet I listed above that are part of Poynter’s blacklist either got these stories 100 percent correct, as Breitbart News did, or was at least skeptical of them.

But we are the ones these so-called “champions of free expression” are openly calling to be blacklisted, not those who have relentlessly and deliberately lied to the public for more than a half-decade.

Which proves this is not a blacklist targeting the unreliable, but a blacklist targeting those who hold ideas the un-American Poynter finds inappropriate and unacceptable.

How else to explain why Poynter wants the Media Research Center blacklisted for bias but not Media Matters?

The Poynter Institute is nothing less than a non-profit version of Joseph McCarthy, Father Coughlin, and Big Brother.

‘Death by algorithm’: Maddow inconsolable after YouTube recommends RT interview on Mueller report


Russiagate guru Rachel Maddow has caught wind of the latest Kremlin-linked outrage: YouTube recommended an RT video about the Mueller report! And now social media users have lined up to laugh at her.

The MSNBC host ascended her Twitter pulpit to share a shocking Washington Post article detailing how YouTube allegedly recommended an RT video “hundreds of thousands of times” to users seeking information about the recently released report by special counsel Robert Mueller.


“Death by algorithm,” a despondent Maddow commented.

The video in question – an episode of On Contact, which is hosted by Pulitzer prize-winning American journalist Chris Hedges – features an interview with Canadian journalist Aaron Mate. A fierce critic of the Trump-Russia collusion theory promoted by mainstream media, Mate recently received an Izzy Award for his contrarian reporting on Russiagate.

While Maddow was apparently horrified by the thought of impressionable Americans watching a video of two acclaimed journalists discussing current events, others were more perturbed by the MSNBC host’s melodramatic tweeting.

“This YouTube is so much better than the war mongering conspiracy lunacy that comes from you. You should be ashamed to smear good people & good content in such a base & McCarthyite way,” replied one disappointed Twitter user.


Others took issue with Maddow’s bizarre suggestion that YouTube’s algorithm could somehow bring about “death.”

“’Death?’ No one’s lives were threatened by a conversation between two award winning journalists about the massive disinformation campaign you’re waged on the minds of suggestible Democrats. But they are endangered by the Cold War you’ve helped to stir up,” Max Blumenthal, editor of the Grayzone Project, noted.


Mate himself joined the chorus of criticism directed at Maddow.

“I was interviewed on RT by the Pulitzer-winning journalist Chris Hedges about Russiagate. YouTube recommended it. How fitting then that the leading Russiagate conspiracy theorist calls this ‘death by algorithm’ – to a propagandist, dissent from orthodoxy is ‘death’ indeed,” he wrote.


Actually, the entire premise of Maddow’s outrage is highly suspect. The Washington Post report quietly notes that the RT video in question has accumulated “only about 55,000 views,” and that the interview was by far from the most recommended Mueller-related video. “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” was recommended more than five million times, WaPo reported, while other channels, such as Fox and PBS NewsHour, received hundreds of thousands of recommendations for their Russiagate videos.

To make matters even less scary, YouTube disputed the article’s core claims, which were originally made by media watchdog group AlgoTransparency. YouTube said it could not reproduce the group’s data allegedly showing that the RT video had been recommended hundreds of thousands of times by the site’s algorithm.

In fact, the Washington Post story was so shaky that it had to issue a clickbait-deflating correction: An earlier version of their report had erroneously claimed that YouTube had recommended RT’s take on the Mueller report more often than other networks’ programming.


As Blumenthal observed, the WaPo story appears to be yet another tired attempt to shame anyone who doesn’t regurgitate narratives promoted by US corporate media.


Facebook blocks pages with MILLIONS of subscribers after CNN reports ties with RT

See the source image

Facebook has suspended several accounts operated by Maffick Media without prior warning, right after CNN ran a report about the company’s perceived ties to the Kremlin.

In what seems to be a new step in the social media giant’s fight against perceived ‘Russian propaganda’, Facebook took down, without prior notice, several pages offering video content. The social media network said it would ask the administrators of SoapboxBack Then and Waste-Ed to disclose their “Russian affiliations.” Facebook also suspended another Maffick page, In the Now, which was originally a show aired by RT.

“People connecting with Pages shouldn’t be misled about who’s behind them. Just as we’ve stepped up our enforcement of coordinated inauthentic behavior and financially motivated spam over the past year, we’ll continue improving so people can get more information about the Pages they follow,” a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement.

However, no official requests were filed with Maffick Media, the German-based company operating all three pages. They were not notified before the fact, which prompted an angry response (posted on Maffick’s front page at the time of writing) in which they branded Facebook policies “new McCarthyism.” All three pages remained offline on Monday.


The accounts were suspended shortly after CNN aired a report with the catchy headline “Kremlin funds viral videos aimed at millennials,” in which it listed all three pages as part of the Kremlin’s “influence campaign” targeting unsuspecting young American adults. CNN stated that German-based Maffick Media is “mostly owned” by Ruptly video news agency – a subsidiary of RT – and is thus in the Kremlin’s back pocket.

An open secret

CNN also repeatedly accused Maffick of concealing its suspected ties to Russia to mislead its audience. While, indeed, none of the pages bore a glowing stamp that said “paid for by the Kremlin,” they were never told that they were required to do so. Besides, no special effort was made to hide the funding sources – as proved by the CNN reporters themselves, who used an online commercial registers database to acquire documents showing that Maffick is 51 percent (which CNN generalized as “mostly”) owned by Ruptly.

See the source image

The remaining near-half belongs to Maffick CEO Anissa Naouai, an American journalist of Tunisian descent. Before launching her independent project, Naouai founded the show In The Now, which was aired by RT International (and whose Facebook page was also suspended), and before that, worked as a reporter and presenter for RT. She says the company only fully employs people in Berlin and hires Americans as freelancers. Notably, In The Now had over 2.5 billion views on Facebook.

Incidentally, CNN’s own report was based on a tip from the German Marshall Fund, financed by the US, German, and other governments. Among the Fund’s other accomplishments is the questionable Hamilton 68 ‘Russian propaganda tracker’ – a website that labels Twitter accounts as ‘Russian influence’ operations and tracks their activities based on an undisclosed methodology that is impossible to verify – but is still embraced by multiple US mainstream media outlets as a reliable tool.

Unexplained ban

Facebook’s decision to shut down the pages run by Maffick has gone unexplained so far. The company did not break any of the social media network’s rules, which as of now do not demand that anyone post funding details on their Facebook pages. On top of that, numerous other media companies supported with government money – including NPR, PBS, BBC, DW, CBC, and AJ+ – never had to deal with similar treatment, Maffick notes.

Maffick was singled out for the sole reason that Russia is the supporting government, the company says.


Maffick Media says it is editorially independent – but, as per the CNN report, “much of [its] content seemed to be perfectly aligned with much of the propaganda coming out of the Kremlin” – that is to say, the content does not align with the mainstream view of American policies.

If I oppose a US war, does that automatically mean I am going to be accused of being aligned with the Kremlin? With this Russia hysteria we are experiencing now I feel like this is a very, very dangerous McCarthyist tactic to start saying that leftist views, anti-war views are just the Kremlin government’s talking points.

This is what Rania Khalek, the American host of Soapbox – one of the video shows Maffick ran on Facebook – told CNN when asked about her alleged connections to Moscow.

Each of the suspended pages had tens of thousands of followers on Facebook, while their videos were viewed “tens of millions of times,” according to CNN – a level of popularity which possibly spurred Facebook to take such drastic and swift measures to silence them.


Blog at

Up ↑