hard to believe

I was totally surprised and extremely pleased with CNN's action of firing Kathy Griffin in response to her obscenely disgusting display of a 'beheaded' Trump image in what she considered to be a 'funny' skit. Kathy Griffin has a despicable history of actions and words which can only be described as lower than 'crude' and 'filthy'. Since it was obviously intended to demean President Trump, and I know that CNN is the worst of the 'Trump Haters', I had assumed that CNN would rush to defend Kathy Griffin. Of course, I think that it was a 'one-time' aberration from the typical CNN gossip and lies, but even so, I do want to commend whoever it was at CNN who had the guts to take this action. Well done!!!

more left-wing deceit

How long can the deceitful left-wing media continue to scream ‘Wolf, Wolf’ before even the left-wing radicals finally start to see that it is all smoke and mirrors? They tried to claim that Rosenstein threatened to quit over the Comey issue. It was a lie. They tried to claim that Comey stated that Trump tried to force him to drop the ongoing investigation. It was a lie. The so-called journalists in the media have studiously ignored reporting anything about the positive events in President Trump’s first trip to other countries. Most of the news about the trip is very positive, but you will not see anything positive in the ‘liberal media’ (read that as lying press).

When the latest terrorist attack occurred in the U.K., CNN (read that as ‘Corrupted Nasty News’) could not even take a small break from broadcasting negative Trump stories long enough to even mention the terrorist attack!!! The latest idiotic story revolves around Trump’s son-in-law. The ‘liberal’ media is having hysterics because they claim that he may have ‘actually talked to a Russian’. Give me a break! If you actually believed the ‘liberal, deceitful’ media, you would think that there has never been any communication between America and Russia and, according to the idiots in the liberal media, our state department within the Trump administration has no right to actually do their job. Will the liberal idiocy ever end?

An article by Christopher Ruddy

The Washington Post reported Monday that President Trump revealed "highly classified" intelligence to Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during their recent meeting at the White House.

But the Post forgot to mention that the President’s conversation with Lavrov is itself among the most secret and classified matters our government holds – and the leak of key parts of that conversation is likely a crime.

This is now the third time in a short period that the president's most secret and private discussions with a world leader have been leaked to The Washington Post.

During his first week in office, the full transcripts of President Trump's phone conversations with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto were quickly leaked to the Post.

Such leaks are a serious and illegal attack on the presidency. They undermine the country, trust in the president and his ability to maintain global leadership.

There is a lot more of the onion to peel with this Washington Post story.

If you are watching CNN and MSNBC you may think the president committed a crime or even a horrific act of treason by sharing with the Russians secret intel and even super-secret sources.

But when we continue to peel this noxious onion we discover the facts just don't measure up to the allegations.

The Post headlines that the president revealed "highly classified" information, suggesting this was perhaps either illegal, improper, or both.

Forgive me, but the last I checked the president is commander-in-chief.

He can decide what is a classified secret. He decides what can be shared with allies, adversaries, or even the public. That's his decision – not some bureaucrat's!

So, what was that intel the president shared that was so secret?

If the Post story is believed, Trump told Lavrov the U.S. had intelligence of an ISIS terror plot.

Although the Russians are not allies, we do share a similar goal to wipe out ISIS. Trump has publicly expressed the hope we can work together on this goal.

Even if Trump shared this about ISIS, the likelihood of the Russians tipping off their enemies in ISIS seems quite small.

But thanks to an illegal leak made to The Washington Post, this information is now public and certainly known to ISIS.

Is anyone concerned about this?

Having been a student of American history, I have little doubt that U.S. presidents have shared "highly classified" intelligence with friends and foes in their private discussions.

But The Washington Post makes another unfair and unsubstantiated allegation: that President Trump himself revealed the actual source of U.S. intelligence.

This is a grave allegation.

Here's the key line from the Post: "Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State's territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat."

Citing unnamed sources, the Post claimed Trump has "jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State."

But Trump's National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said Monday, "At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly."

Still, the Post continued its attack: "The identification of the location was seen as particularly problematic, officials said, because Russia could use that detail to help identify the U.S. ally or intelligence capability involved."

It’s a very big stretch to suggest that just by revealing the city of an ISIS threat to the Russians, they or anyone else could identify the source of this intelligence.

It’s not a stretch to me – or anyone with a thinking cap on – to realize when U.S. officials leak the president’s most secret conversations they are putting our national security at serious risk.

Christopher Ruddy, a noted journalist and entrepreneur, is CEO and president of Newsmax Media Inc., one of the nation's leading news media companies.

In 1998, Ruddy founded Newsmax, a multimedia publishing company that publishes online and offline content in the fields of news, politics, health and finance. Newsmax.com ranks consistently as one of the country's most trafficked news Web sites.

As a journalist, Ruddy previously worked at the New York Post and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

A Newsweek cover story named him as one of America's top 20 most influential news media personalities. He also studied as a Media Fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

Ruddy sits on the Board of Directors of the Financial Publishers Association, the industry organization representing investment publications that reach 25 million Americans monthly.

He holds a B.A. summa cum laude in history from St. John's University in New York and a master's in Public Policy from the London School of Economics.

regarding sanctuay cities

The courts have consistently upheld the concept that setting and enforcing immigration law is the uncontested right of the federal government. There is NO legal argument which can be used to claim that states, counties, cities or any other local municipality has any power to override federal laws concerning immigration. That being said, it is clearly necessary for the federal lawmakers to put some enforcement policies in place to install punishment for any 'local' municipality that does not comply with federal immigration laws. Clearly, the unlawful and anarchist activities of 'sanctuary cities' must be curbed by enacting new federal laws to impose consequences on lawbreakers. The house and senate MUST act, and I would like to suggest that they look at the new 'sanctuary city' law enacted in Texas (HB12) as an example for federal penalties needed. In addition to defining defiance of federal immigration laws as felonies, it seems to me that there should also be specific laws enabling individuals to sue ‘local municipalities’ in civil court for real and punitive damages resulting from their non-compliance with federal immigration laws. Lastly, there have been several ‘sanctuary city’ officials who are claiming that ICE detainment ‘requests’ can be ignored because they are simply requests. If that is the case, then a new ‘legal instrument’, call it a detainment demand, must be instituted to make the compliance with federal law unarguable.