The elite media has been largely dishonest in reporting on this issue in order to attack President Trump.
1 – The elite media says that family separation and incarceration of illegal migrant minors started under President Trump because of his zero tolerance policy. This is not the case and they well know it. For example, the Washington Post March 11, 2015 under Obama, wrote about this very issue:
2 – The truth about family separation. The elite media leaves out all of the important details which bring clarity to this issue. The vast majority of Central American children who show up at the border are unaccompanied by their parents. The Border Patrol says that up to 85%, nearly 207,000 children from 2007 -2015 were unaccompanied when apprehended at the border; meaning that that an overwhelming number show up already separated from their family.
Parents can be detained until trial, but children can only be detained for 20 days because of the 1997 court ruling Flores v. Reno, at which time children are moved to a non-detention like facility or placed with any relatives that can be found in the United States, hence they are “separated from their parents”. Such has been the case long before Trump was President.
3 – Media reports of Trump backing down on “family separation” are wildly misleading. What they are not telling you is that Trump’s executive order states that the few minor border crossers who enter with parents must stay with their parents for as long as it takes, thus ending the separation, however, an executive order cannot supersede current law so this executive order will almost certainly be overturned by the courts.
4 – The conditions in which many illegal migrant children were held were much worse under Obama while Democrats and the elite media kept it quiet. The main reason for this is that more suitable and luxurious dorm like accommodations were not built up yet as they are today.
If you want to see some of the conditions that these children were held while Obama was president you can see for yourself HERE.
5 – President Obama said the same thing when he was in office that Trump is saying today. He also prosecuted many illegal border crossers:
Wow. Obama really did agree with @realDonaldTrump on Immigration.
Good journalism is important especially when there is so little of it. While the networks have digressed into reporting mostly corrupted news tabloid infotainment, formerly respected news sources such as The Hill and Forbes have been falling into the same unethical trap in hopes of generating “conflict” and “red meat” for certain groups of readers in hopes of keeping circulation and click rates up.
While Forbes still does some good reporting, their employee, Dan Alexander, continues to post dishonest hit piece after hit piece. He uses the same technique that many other corrupted journalists do, instead of just making things up he delivers partial facts from an incomplete context and combines that with a false narrative.
The article, starts by insulting those who attend the Eric Trump Foundation (ETF) charity event at Trump National Golf Club. After giving Eric Trump the obligatory pat on the head for raising money for St. Judes Children’s Hospital, the article goes on to explain to the reader how the Eric Trump Foundation is some kind of criminal front to launder charity money right back into their own pockets. The article however, omits key facts.
The Trump’s allow the use of the their golf course for free. The article paints that out to be a lie because the golf course billed ETF for expenses, quite deliberately blurring a very important distinction:
Say I want to hold a charity awards dinner at your house and you offer up your home for free for the event. Does that also mean that you will supply the food, catering personnel, parking, lights, extra seating, PA system, music, security and cleanup at your dime? Of course not.
Not charging for the use of the golf course is one thing, but the course should be reimbursed for the employees it needs to have on hand at the event, parking, catering, top VIP level security, repairs to the course after the event, etc.
While acknowledging that the golf event raises millions, Eric Trump is blasted because the expenses for the event keep going up every year, the article all but straight up accuses the Trump’s of criminally skimming the charity for personal gain.
What the article omits is that as the Trump’s global fame has increased exponentially thanks to “The Apprentice” having been a number one rated show and their increased political status, so it also makes sense that the charity event grows bigger every year, with more people showing up, more VIP’s and celebrities, more television coverage, better entertainment, bigger awards, more security etc.
Also keeping things into perspective, why would the Trump’s risk their entire brand, lawsuits and all that goes along with it, just to skim say $20-50 thousand in charity funds per year when such an amount of money is literally a pittance to a Trump?
According to Dan Alexander, author of this hit piece so carefully worded to just avoid a
Dan Alexander
libel suit, he and his pals at Forbes could not conceivably need $320,000 to run (their words) “a golf tournament”, and they know because they asked the lead golf instructor at Trump National too.
Last we checked, neither Dan Alexander, nor the lead golf instructor, have any experience running huge media celebrity charity events.
Alexander’s Twitter feed is typical Trump-hate fare complete with Russian conspiracy theories. Why Forbes employs someone like this can baffle anyone who took J-School ethics seriously.
The other big scandal mentioned in Alexander’s hit piece is that some of the money raised by ETF is given to other charities so all of it does not go to St. Judes. How nefarious. What Alexander omits is that this is not unusual among charities in the least. One needs to look no further than to the Red Cross, who shares a portion of its donations with various charity partners around the world.
By libeling the Eric Trump Foundation, Forbes is not likely to damage President Trump, but it is likely to impact the donations coming ETF, which only serves to hurt the children served by St. Judes.
President Trump is going to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord tomorrow.
The elite media culture is going to completely lose their minds. International corporations who have invested in “climate change” regulations as a tool to lock out cheaper competition and innovators will display a phony panic.
UPDATE – For example, here is Apple CEO Jim Cook on the Paris Accord:
Decision to withdraw from the #ParisAgreeement was wrong for our planet. Apple is committed to fight climate change and we will never waver.
Apple products are made in China—which as part of the Paris Accord is conveniently exempt from carbon limits.
There are a few facts that you need to know.
1 – If everyone who wanted the Paris Accord actually agreed to it the result, in theory based on computer models that have never accurately predicted temperatures in real life, might affect the temperature by a tiny fraction of a degree over hundreds of years.
2 – But in reality the Paris Accord is based on junk science which is why Global Warming Alarmists have simply given up on debates with real scientists and climate realists as they always lose.
3 – Europe is already in deep violation of the Paris Accord as their CO2 production levels keep rising.
4 – But no one cares about Europe. The Paris Accord is about sticking it to the United States.
5 – Most of the world is not signed on anyways (or simply signed on and ignored it like China) so by complying with it all we are doing is hobbling our economy while others sit back and laugh at us.
6 – The Paris Accord would have required the United States to pay less productive countries direct payments because they produce less than us. The United States would be forced to subsidize third world dictators and tyrannical regimes like Venezuela who would use that money to murder political opposition etc. We are $20 trillion in debt.
7 – No matter what the media says, CO2 is not a poison or pollution. It is vital for life. Plants use it for food.
How much does the Obama Administration care about cyber security?
Answer: The Obama appointees outsourced administration of the Office of Personnel Management to a Chinese IT firm who promptly handed full administrative access to the Chinese Government – this includes full information on every federal employee past and present and almost everyone with a security clearance.
Talk about disappointments. The US government’s much-anticipated analysis of Russian-sponsored hacking operations provides almost none of the promised evidence linking them to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
The 13-page report, which was jointly published Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, billed itself as an indictment of sorts that would finally lay out the intelligence community’s case that Russian government operatives carried out hacks on the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Clinton Campaign Chief John Podesta and leaked much of the resulting material. While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks.
Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers’ “tradecraft and techniques” and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups.
Very few superstar celebrities from entertainment actually take the time to do serious homework and can quote real evidence and arguments with the very best of them. Chuck Woolery is such a person, as are James Woods, Dwight Schultz, Dirk Benedict, Adam Baldwin, Kevin and Sam Sorbo.
Others worth mentioning are David Mamet and the late Ron Silver, who after they had made their fame and fortune, took the time to dig deep into the issues and completely abandoned the leftist orthodoxy.
I am sure that I am missing a few that are worth mentioning but no insult is intended.
Getting back to Chuck Woolery, not only does he do his homework, but he is very clever. Enjoy the following:
Woolery has his own podcast called Blunt Force Truth which can be listened to on Tunein, itunes and Stitcher.
Somethings are dumb, but sometimes the stupid is so over the top that it becomes corruption and when it comes to media corruption no one had more of it than our friends at CNN.
We are going to cover more about so called “Russian hacking” over the next few days, but the bottom line is this.
What we know:
1 – John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, The State Department under Hillary, and the DNC did not take cyber security seriously. Their flouting of even the most basic security rules amounted to violations of law.
2 – They did not keep software updates, antivirus and anti-malware security updated.
3 – Podesta himself had responded to one of those fake “send us your password” fishing emails that people with a brain simply delete. Some news outlets are reporting that Podesta, who was Hillary’s Campaign Chairman, even use the word “password” as his password for some accounts.
4 – The DNC prevented the FBI from reviewing their computers so they have no idea what happened there.
5 – The “US Intelligence Community” under Obama, who has been caught politicizing intelligence before, put out a report with “High Confidence” that it was the Russians who hack Hillary’s Campaign emails, but gives next to no supporting evidence which is unusual.
6 – Said report also shows that Podesta had an 18 month old malware program on his PC which could have sent his passwords out over the internet, but such software is unsophisticated, leaves an evidence trail, something any UPDATED anti-malware scanning program would have found, and in short is not something a state actor would use.
7 – Democrats and their allies in the elite media are desperate to create a narrative to delegitimize Trump’s electoral victory.
Getting back to CNN. Here is the story as it looks today, after they scrubbed it and cleaned it up, after being called out. Here is what it looked like on December 30th (Hat tip BGR):
The screen shot is obviously from the video game Fallout 3 or Fallout 4 as you can see from this Fallout 3 screenshot below:
Everything that Reince Priebus says in here is absolutely true. What CIA assessment? Two newspapers who have been caught lying and spreading fake news against Donald Trump now say that there is an unnamed source in the CIA that says that there is an assessment that falsely claims that the RNC was hacked by the Russians and that the Russians were the cause of Trump winning the election because the Clinton Campaign and the DNC emails were released.
WikiLeaks says that they did not get the email from the Russians and the so called “17 agencies” mentioned by Chuck Todd said that their results were inconclusive but that some of the the hacking attempts detected were consistent with methods used by some Russian hackers. Of course, if the Clinton’s were not contemptuous of digital security protocols in the first place……
Keep in mind that the crimes, dirty tricks and corruption revealed in those emails were true. There was no serious attempt at refutation of them as many of the emails were DKIM authenticated making the spoofing of them near impossible.
That said, the CIA has engaged in partisan hit jobs before such as the faux Valerie Plame scandal and the infamous Iran Memo when President Bush was in office.
Legendary under cover journalist James O’Keefe exposed on video the Clinton Campaign hiring of thugs to create violence at Trump events, mass vote fraud, bussing in of people to claim they are citizens in order to vote for them etc.
O’Keefe spoke at David Horowitz’ “Restoration Weekend” and this is very much worth your time:
Religious people and many who tend to skip elections turned out huge for Donald Trump, a non-denominational Christian with three divorces under his belt. Why?
Prof. Bernstien argues that the Democrats own arguments in front of the Supreme Court energized churches and talk radio like never before.
Aside from Hobby Lobby and the gay marriage arguments mentioned by Prof. Bernstein. I would also add the arguments Democrats made in Citizens United v. FEC.
In Citizens United, President Obama’s Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, said in oral arguments that any book, movie, film, video, on paper, digital or otherwise covering politics could be banned by the government if a corporation was involved in its production or distribution.
Think about that for a moment, all book stores are corporations as are most internet providers. Want to post to Facebook or your blog – sorry a corporation. Banks who provide loans are corporations, companies who provide paper are corporations. In short, the Obama Administration argued for the virtual repeal of part of the 1st Amendment by judicial fiat.
So upset were Democrats when the Supreme Court ruled against the government that President Obama dressed down the Supreme Court during a State of the Union speech and Democrats in the Senate even voted unanimously for a constitutional amendment resolution repealing many of the political speech protections of the 1st Amendment.
To what can we attribute Trump’s success? The most logical answer is that religious traditionalists felt that their religious liberty was under assault from liberals, and they therefore had to hold their noses and vote for Trump. As Sean Trende of RealClear Politics noted, since 2012:
Democrats and liberals have: booed the inclusion of God in their platform at the 2012 convention (this is disputed, but it is the perception); endorsed a regulation that would allow transgendered students to use the bathroom and locker room corresponding to their identity; attempted to force small businesses to cover drugs they believe induce abortions; attempted to force nuns to provide contraceptive coverage; forced Brendan Eich to step down as chief executive officer of Mozilla due to his opposition to marriage equality; fined a small Christian bakery over $140,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding; vigorously opposed a law in Indiana that would provide protections against similar regulations – despite having overwhelmingly supported similar laws when they protected Native American religious rights – and then scoured the Indiana countryside trying to find a business that would be affected by the law before settling upon a small pizza place in the middle of nowhere and harassing the owners. In 2015, the United States solicitor general suggested that churches might lose their tax exempt status if they refused to perform same-sex marriages. In 2016, the Democratic nominee endorsed repealing the Hyde Amendment, thereby endorsing federal funding for elective abortions.
Megan McArdle of Bloomberg similarly pointed out, “Over the last few years, as controversies have erupted over the rights of cake bakers and pizza places to refuse to cater gay weddings, the rights of nuns to refuse to provide insurance that covers birth control, the rights of Catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions, and the rights of Christian schools to teach (and require students and teachers to practice) traditional Christian morality, some Christians have begun to feel that their communities are under existential threat.”
….
In short, many religious Christians of a traditionalist bent believed that liberals not only reduce their deeply held beliefs to bigotry, but want to run them out of their jobs, close down their stores and undermine their institutions. When I first posted about this on Facebook, I wrote that I hope liberals really enjoyed running Brendan Eich out of his job and closing down the Sweet Cakes bakery, because it cost them the Supreme Court. I’ll add now that I hope Verrilli enjoyed putting the fear of government into the God-fearing because it cost his party the election.
UPDATE: As co-blogger Todd Zywicki wrote to me on Facebook, “When you find yourself in the Supreme Court adverse to the Little Sisters of the Poor you might consider whether maybe you have pushed a little too far.”
Former and current black employees on Tuesday filed a class action lawsuit against Atlanta-based CNN, Turner Broadcasting and New York based parent company Time Warner for racial discrimination.
“As a result of the current discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of DeWayne Walker vs. CNN, Time Warner & Turner, we have uncovered stories involving abuse of power, nepotism, revenge, retaliation and discrimination,” said Daniel Meachum said in a press release.
The press release provided a photo of DeWayne Walker, a CNN producer who sued CNN individually in January for $50 million for racial discrimination and retaliation for filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He accused CNN of not promoting him over 13 years because he is black, skipped over frequently for promotions in favor of white employees.
Walker is not actually a plaintiff in this particular case but is a client of Meachum’s and his individual lawsuit is still active. Celeslie Henley, a former executive administrative assistant at CNN, and Ernest Colbert Jr., a senior manager at TBS, are the only named plaintiffs though Meachum said 20 to 30 other unnamed current and former Turner employees helped him out with information about their experiences.
“This discrimination represents a company-wide pattern and practice,” the lawsuit asserts, “rather than a series of isolated incidents.” He said the company has been discriminating against blacks for more than 20 years.
The elite media is a bubble as we have seen by this past election. A previous example is when the New York Times’ lone “conservative columnist” announced that he was voting for Bill Clinton. To be fair, Safire did come back around to a degree.
The modern version, albeit worse, is the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin whose column is wrongfully named “Right Turn”. Rubin has been on a hate screed against any Republican bucking the corrupt status quo for years. You do not have to take our word for it, just browse her columns and start reading what she has to say about Republican reformers just since 2009. Rubin is indeed the far left’s favorite “”””Republican”””.
There is an important distinction between having a problem with excessive and unwise immigration policy and having a problem with an immigrant simply because he or she happens to be an immigrant. One position is perfectly reasonable, the other is much less so. Imagine how easy it is to word an immigration question to get the desired result of “Trump voters don’t like immigrants.”
In this video Rubin cites “polls” who go unnamed that she says back up her claim. Rubin knew Carlson was going to ask her about this as that is almost all he has done on his show since the election and yet she provided no citation, nor did she cite a verifiable one in her column.
Our friend John Hawkins has a nice list of famous fake news by the elite media.
CNN running propaganda for Saddam Hussein is worthy on any list. Another worthy of mention is the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton blaming the Benghazi attack on a YouTube Video.
Hawkins’ list:
Newsweek’s Flushing the Koran story.
CBS forging National Guard documents to embarrass President Bush.
Selectively editing and lying about the George Zimmerman tape.
NBC’s exploding truck.
NYT Jason Blair scandal.
Rolling Stone rape story on the University of Virginia.
Keep in mind that Hillary said that she wants Congress to act when it comes to “fake news”. Ever since Citizens United the Democrats have wanted to take control of political speech up to and including Democrats in the Senate voting for a resolution to repeal the political speech protections in the 1st Amendment.
…and Tucker’s reign of terror against BS artists continues.
I will just say it up front that I am not a fan of Megyn Kelly’s “journalism.” She hypes conflict and controversializes subjects and people to benefit herself. Conflict bias and hype is one of the biggest problems in journalism today.
That said, when Kelly gets it right this writer will say so.
The idea that Ben Carson isn’t capable of stepping into a new policy area such as HUD is preposterous on it’s face. Why?
Carson was a top military ROTC student leader, he is perhaps the most innovative brain surgeon in the history of the world, he started the famed Carson Scholars Fund which helps disadvantaged children get a quality education, Hollywood did a movie about his life, in a short time he became an expert on various political philosophies and can quote and debate the most noted political philosophers with anyone. Carson has debated and lectured on economic policy, health care law, trade policy, foreign policy etc, all self taught.
Governor Huckabee rightly points out that Barack Obama had virtually no qualifying experience when he ran for president and those who pointed that out were called racists by the Democrats and their allies in the elite media.
The New York Times exposed the threat of fake news even before the election of Donald Trump two weeks ago, arguing that spreading faulty information is a threat to the Republic.
The paper highlighted alt-right conspiracy websites publishing outrageous lies masquerading as news in a piece headlined“Journalism’s Next Challenge: Overcoming the Threat of Fake News.” The Times interviewed journalists and “longtime critic of fake news” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) about how credulous Americans often fall for narratives that confirm their pre-existing biases without proper vetting from objective reporters.
“If you have a society where people can’t agree on basic facts, how do you have a functioning democracy?” asked one D.C. editor.
Times readers had the inside scoop that the nation was witnessing “Hispanics Surge to Polls,” which would serve as the mortar in Hillary Clinton’s blue wall. The surge would not have been possible without the Clinton campaign, which was “Looking to Expand Lead With Hispanics” through Spanish-language ads and get-out-the-vote operations, as the Times reported on Oct. 2.
The New York Times‘ report on “dangerously fake news” ran alongside a report that “Hispanic America has been mobilized like never before in the 2016 election, and is emerging as a formidable force with the power to elect a president.”
“Energized by anger at Mr. Trump and an aggressive Democratic campaign to get them to the polls, Latinos are turning out in record numbers and could make the difference in the outcome in several highly contested states,” the Times reported.
The Times did not just rely on shoe leather but on hard facts so often missing from fake news sites. Without data, those susceptible to fake news can be led astray, such as the Pennsylvania voters who insisted Trump would win the state—a belief shared only by those trapped in a “bubble of such devoted [Trump] followers.” If Trump supporters ventured outside of their bubble, they would have known that “Trump Can’t Count on Those ‘Missing White Voters.’”
“The surge is real, and it’s big. It could be enough to overcome Mr. Trump’s strength among white working-class voters in the swing states of Florida and Nevada. If it does, it will almost certainly win her the election,” the Times reported.
Hispanics represented 11 percent of the electorate in 2016, the same as its 2012 share of the vote. Trump performed better with those voters than Mitt Romney did in 2012, according to exit polls. The election results were no better for the other groups that Times promised its readers would flock to Hillary and rebuke Trump: He won 8 percent of black voters, not the 4 percent that the Times saidhe would. Hillary also failed to garner the 20-point edge among women the Times suggested she would win, nabbing only 54 percent of the female vote.
The daunting poll numbers Trump faced led the Times to ask “Is This Election Over” on an Oct. 18 podcast, as Clinton’s chance of victory creeped up to 91 percent. The podcast came the same day the Times reported that the Clinton campaign aimed to turn a sure-fire victory into a blow-out with “its most ambitious push yet into traditionally right-leaning states.”
The GOP was in danger of losing statehouses across the country, while Clinton hoped a mandate and coattails would give Democrats control of the House and Senate. North Carolina was in play. So was Texas. Democrats were instructed “don’t gloat,” while reporters wondered how Republicans would address the “crucial and onerous decisions” to stonewall or negotiate with Clinton because “Mrs. Clinton is also viewed as someone capable of breaking the ice with congressional Republican leaders.”
With the race already decided, the Times turned its focus to the biggest storyline of the last two weeks of the election: Trump supporters rioting in the streets prompted by the billionaire’s insistence that the vote was rigged.
No one felt the threat of Trump’s looming fascism as acutely as the news media.
“Partisan Crowds at Trump Rallies Menace and Frighten News Media,” the paper reported on Oct. 15. Two days later the tone went from menacing to “sinister,” as news organizations began “providing security for staff members covering Trump rallies.” A child reporter from Scholastic was alarmed by the dangerous chorus of boos directed at the press by Trump. Meanwhile, “Hair Force One” was notorious for bumpy landings, “an apt metaphor for Donald J. Trump’s entire presidential run: chaotic, turbulent and skittering just on the edge of disaster.”
Times readers were also exposed to the human sides of each candidate. They learned how Trump was giving pre-school classes the opportunity to dialogue about bullying and fat shaming and toxic masculinity.
“She’s drenched now, her voice hoarse. The storm is mussing her hair. It’s time to leave the stage. But just before doing so, she turns and raises both arms, giving herself up to the storm and the moment—and the looming end of this adventure,” the Times reported.
The fake journalism that helped elect Donald Trump is now enemy number one for the fourth estate.
“The cure for fake journalism is an overwhelming dose of good journalism. And how well the news media gets through its post election hangover will have a lot to do with how the next chapter in the American political story is told,” one Times writer noted shortly before Trump’s massive victory.
Remember when CNN forged up the phony National Guard documents against President Bush? CNN was caught colluding with the Clinton Campaign and the DNC to generate false narratives to help Democrats win. Now CNN complains because Trump gives them the hand. Can anyone blame him?
Tucker Carlson takes on the New York Times Public Editor Liz Spayd over continued bias allegations.
They both handle themselves very well here. It is too bad that so many at the NYT do not have the same regard for journalistic ethics as Carlson and Spayd show here.
It is difficult for normal, good people with a moral center to internalize this, but as the left says in their books such as “Rules for Radicals” or their other countless writings from Marx, Lenin, Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, to them the truth is anything that advances their own political power, period.
Lying is simply a non issue for the left as we have learned with the Democrats, WikiLeaks and now their reaction to Fidel Castro’s death which is quite frankly a denial of reality as if they are from another planet.
We saw Canadian PM Justin Trudeau praise Castro as if he is some beloved leader and humanitarian rather than the terribly corrupt dictator who lined up tens of thousands of civilians and political opponents in front of a firing squad.
Trudeau is not alone in this Orwellian rewrite of history.
Jimmy Carter:
Rosalyn and I share our sympathies with the Castro family and the Cuban people on the death of Fidel Castro. We remember fondly our visits with him in Cuba and his love of his country.
In many ways, after 1959, the oppressed the world over joined Castro's cause of fighting for freedom & liberation-he changed the world. RIP pic.twitter.com/ReOLnMCxE7
President Obama issued a statement that is so milk-toast that it essentially said nothing.
The usual cadre of dishonest far left “journalists” who willingly serve as mouthpieces for the DNC issued similar fawning rewrites of history for this brutal murderer. Newsbusters is amassing a collection of it HERE.
In the mean time actual Cubans are cheering as if it was the death of Emperor Palpatine:
Cuban American members of the Senate had something to say.
President Obama issued a pathetic statement on death of dictator #FidelCastro with no mention of thousands he killed & imprisoned. #Cuba
A dictator is dead. But his dark, repressive legacy will not automatically follow him to the grave. Change can come to Cuba, but only if America learns from history and prevents Fidel’s successor from playing the same old tricks.
Senator Cruz also penned “The Truth About Fidel and Raul” – HERE. Be sure you read it.
Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades. Fidel Castro’s legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights.
While Cuba remains a totalitarian island, it is my hope that today marks a move away from the horrors endured for too long, and toward a future in which the wonderful Cuban people finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve.
Though the tragedies, deaths and pain caused by Fidel Castro cannot be erased, our administration will do all it can to ensure the Cuban people can finally begin their journey toward prosperity and liberty. I join the many Cuban Americans who supported me so greatly in the presidential campaign, including the Brigade 2506 Veterans Association that endorsed me, with the hope of one day soon seeing a free Cuba.
Democrats in the elite media have been scream every “ist” word they can think of as Donald Trump’s transition is under way, so what better time to go back in time and take our Democrat friends on a little stroll through sexist memory lane!
Here is just a residue of the evidence for a candid world to review.
Democrats repeatedly accused South Carolina Governor Candidate Nikki Haley of having multiple affairs, but never offered proof to support it.
More Sexist Attacks from Left: Lefty blogs start rumor that Palin has implants and elite media runs with it. Tennessee Democrat, “You have to lift their skirts to find out if they are women”
Fox TV in Boston actually asked people on the streets if they thought Palin had gotten implants. [Editor’s Note – to see the video of what Fox25 did just follow the NewsBusters link; it is truly disgraceful. Honestly if that reporter had come up to me and started enquiring about any politicians boobs I would have thrown my drink in her face. That reporter is demeaning the profession. When I learned journalistic ethics the questions asked are: Does the story really matter. Does the story do more harm than good. Is it relevant? Is it true, if so can we prove it?]
Of course JWF has the evidence to show that they are NOT fake – LINK
The first stage of Conservative Female Abuse by the Left is infantilization. Right-wing women can’t possibly believe what they believe about the sanctity of life, self-defense, free markets, or foreign policy. They must be submissive little dolls of the White Male Hierarchy. Or, as a far Left (is there any other kind of Left in San Francisco?) San Francisco Chronicle columnist wrote of First Lady Laura Bush, they must be put in their place as “docile doormats” with no brains of their own.
The second stage of CFA is sexualization. A conservative woman is not merely a sellout. She is an intellectual prostitute. Unable or unwilling to argue with them on the merits, detractors resort to mocking the physical appearance of their ideological opponents in skirts and denigrating them with vulgar epithets. MSNBC hosts insulted former GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson’s accomplished wife and mother of two, Jeri Thompson, as working the stripper pole. Newspaper cartoonists Ted Rall, Pat Oliphant, and Jeff Danziger caricatured Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a mammy, thick-lipped parrot, and Bush “House Nigga” armed with “hair straightener.” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd derided former GOP Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris for applying “her makeup with a trowel.”
True to form, Dowd was first out of the box to snicker at Gov. Palin’s beauty pageant past, ridicule her “beehive and sexy shoes,” and compare her path to the vice presidential nomination as a “hokey chick flick.” Joe Biden backhandedly praised her as “good looking.” And left-wing bloggers worked overtime on lurid photoshops of Palin as a bikini model and porn star. At the Democratic Underground, a highly trafficked liberal website raising money for Barack Obama, members held a contest to come up with nicknames and posters to slime GOP Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. [Editor’s Note – the names they came up with are not safe for work. One of the nicer ones was VPILTF (VP I’d like to F**K)].
The third stage of CFA is demonization. When the Left tires of hurling whore insults, it turns conservative women in the public eye into nefarious creatures. Bill Maher called Laura Bush “Hitler’s dog.” George Carlin attacked Barbara Bush as “the Silver douchebag.” A Huffington Post website member wrote of Nancy Reagan: “Like her evil husband, she has lived far too long. Here’s hoping the hag suffers for several weeks, then croaks in the tub.” Another added: “I feel no pity for the bitch who took delight in watching thousands die of a horrible disease and watching the poor having to eat out of dumpsters because of her husband’s political beliefs.” True to form, rumors of Palin being a crypto-Nazi surfaced on the Internet and the fringe media. And liberal critics used her gun-rights record to smear her as bloodthirsty.
The final stage of CFA is dehumanization. Conservative women aren’t real women according to the liberal feminist establishment’s definition. Remember when Gloria Steinem called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator?” Or when curdled NOW leader Patricia Ireland instructed Democrats to vote only for “authentic” female political candidates? Or when Al Gore’s fashion consultant Naomi Wolf described the foreign-policy analysis of Jeane Kirkpatrick as being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body?”
Echoing the bottom-feeders in the liberal blogosphere, mainstream journalists and Obama water-carriers now question Palin’s commitment to motherhood and even challenged her pre-natal care decisions in an effort to destroy her.
More Media Bias to the Point of Laughable Stupidity – This one is amuzing as CNN and the Washington Post attacked Palin for saying her husband Todd is a close advisor. Umm how many male presidents and politicians have said that their wife is thier most trusted advisor?
[Note – We included these because one should compare how the coverage of Sarah Palin’s children is totally outrageous yet Joe Biden’s kids have all sorts of troubles and the elite media has next to no coverage.]
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]
John Edwards Gibson Didn’t Pound Edwards in 2004; Asked Him If GOP Attacks Made Him Mad:
GIBSON: You speak with such equanimity this morning. Didn’t they make you mad last night?
GIBSON: Did you get mad, though?
More – Look at the portions of the interview ABC edited out of the Palin interview. Much of what was edited out was substantive answers that showed she had mastery of the issues – LINK
When is this kind of Orwellian persecution going to end? Perhaps it is time to amend the civil rights laws.
Scarlett Fakhar seems like the typical local television news personality and in most ways she is, except one. She told some of her friends in a private Facebook post on her locked down private page that she was glad Donald Trump won. Somehow Fox26 was given access to her private account and they fired her the next day.
We could go on forever about the rise of antisemitism in the Democratic Party and the far left, but for the moment we are going to trust that you already understand that and move right to NPR, who is paid for by the taxpayers.
We are also going to trust that you know how NPR executives were caught on tape trying to take money from known terrorist organizations in order to fund programming smearing conservatives, TEA Party groups etc.
It is long passed time to cut NPR off. Their programming is something beyond biased, many of their featurettes are little more than dishonest smear jobs and some of their programming such as Code Switch, is overtly racialist in nature.
Joel Pollack is an orthodox Jewish American and is an editor at Breitbart News, which like good journalism used to, actually accepts columns and features from people they do not agree with at all, as they say that doing so is just simple journalism. The Democrat media establishment such as CNN is now throwing every one of those guest editorials in his face as if he wrote them or is somehow responsible for them.
National Public Radio ombudsman/public editor Elizabeth Jensen has recommended that the taxpayer-funded radio news service bar future live interviews of conservatives who may have controversial views, following an interview Nov. 16 with Breitbart News’ Joel B. Pollak.
To far left media outlets like NPR that are literally an extension of the Democratic Party any view other than their own is deemed “controversial.”
It is pretty hard to cut someone off and/or cut out the substantive parts of their answers when the interview is live.
“If you are not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” – Malcolm X
Political Arena 