Category Archives: Tucker
UT Prof: Liberals actively trying to shut down education and debate on campus.
Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas Danial Bonevac says that political activists show up in his classroom and try to shut down discussion and debate.
Tucker Carlson vs. Professor who says Trump is WhitePowah…
Academics are taught about evidence, what it is and what it isn’t, and yet our universities have become so politically radicalized that all of that training is tossed out the window. For the far left, truth simply isn’t a value and as we have written about several times, they say as much in their own writings repeatedly.
This is the kind of person that your children are exposed to on campus every day. SUNY Geneseo Professor Tony Macula:
Tucker Carlson vs Jennifer Rubin on “RACISTS…” (video)
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.
EPIC: Tucker Carlson vs Vox on “Fake News”
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.
Tucker Carlson vs Congressional Candidate Erin Schrode (video)
This is priceless. Tucker Carlson destroys a leftist politician whose rhetoric simply could not stand up to basic cross examination.
This is something I have seen countless times by leftists on campus. They toss accusations like “white supremacist” and “Hitler” around more often then they say “french fries” and in the next breath lecture about civility.
To read about the lawsuits mentioned in the video go HERE.
Bill McMorris & Tucker Carlson destroy NYT over publishing fake news
All the news that’s fit to fake….
And indeed they were all on the same DNC talking points:
Here is the piece by Bill McMorris referred to in the interview with Tucker Carlson. This list needs to be everywhere.
Bill McMorris at the Washington Free Beacon:
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.
The answer could be found on social media. “Folks, subscribe to a paper. Democracy demands it,” one Times reporter wrote. Another added, “Or don’t. You’ll get what you pay for.”
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.’”
Times subscribers were told that reports of a Latino surge were backed up by the data: “The Hispanic Voter Surge Was a Myth in 2012. But Not This Time.”
“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.
As Times correspondents worried that Trump would echo the rhetoric “of dictators who seize power by force and firebrand populists who weaken democracy for personal gain,” The paper reported that “Trump’s Threat to Reject Election Outcome Alarms Scholars. Trump’s campaign also had “Experts Thinking of ‘Tin-Pot Dictators.’” Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani’s FBI connections were “giving Joseph McCarthy a run for his money.”
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.
They also learned of “Hillary Clinton’s strategic laughter” and why researchers want Americans to stop laughing at inappropriate and offensive comments. The Times campaign coverage peaked on Nov. 6, when a reporter observed that Clinton was exhibiting “an unfamiliar sense of abandon and joy.”
“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.
On Oct. 2, the Times reported that the stock market would nosedive following a Trump win, making “a Trump victory … a bit worse than 9/11.”
Following Trump’s victory, the stock market enjoyed its best week since 2011.
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.
Tucker Carlson Debates NYT Public Editor Liz Spayd Over Bias Allegations
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.