Tag: NYT

Bad week for the Democrat circus

First, let’s talk about the circus at the Kavanaugh hearing.  Nothing is going to stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation.  So the question was whether Democrats would act civilly like a bunch of elected US Senators, or if they would go off the rails into crazy town.  They chose the latter.  In fact, Democrats in the committee mirrored the paid protesters in the crowd in their level of crazy.

Corey Booker took the cake with his “I am Spartacus” moment.  Booker tried everything he could to throw his Senate career away as a martyr for the cause.  But surprisingly, he failed.  Booker, in a moment of epic grandstanding, promised to release confidential emails even though he knew the consequences were expulsion from the Senate.  He then released 12 pages of emails that did absolutely nothing but show Kavanaugh as an impartial observer who focuses on complete accuracy.  So did Booker succeed in getting himself crucified?  Not quite.  The emails were already cleared to be released.

The next clown to get out of the car was Kamala Harris.  Senator Harris hit Kavanaugh with a line of questioning that amounted to “have you ever talked to anyone about anything”.  When Kavanaugh tried to clarify the question, she mocked him saying “I just asked it a minute ago, I can’t believe you forgot already.”  When he tried to answer by pointing out that he used to work with Bob Mueller and that Russia is on the news every day so of course he has talked to fellow judges about it, Harris gave up in frustration and said “I’ll move on, clearly you aren’t going to answer the question”

She asked Kavanaugh if he had a conversation, but wouldn’t say with who.  She implied he knew who.  Why wouldn’t she just say the name?  Because she didn’t have one.  Kamala Harris was fishing.

Skip to 5:45 in the video to to get to the idiocy of her questioning.

Kamala Harris asks Kavanaugh if he’s had a conversation with you know who

The anonymous Op-Ed in the New York Times is continuing to make fools out of Democrats.  In fact it has had the opposite effect.  Trump senior officials have been quick to not only deny that they wrote the Op-Ed, but to strongly support the President and point to the successes of his administration.  In fact, the Op-Ed has been such an abject failure that some have speculated that Trump wrote  or had it written to have the opportunity to demonstrate the strong support he has in his administration.

What is clear is that if the anonymous author had any hopes of invoking the 25th amendment to have Trump removed from office as incapable of carrying out his duties, that effort has miserably failed.  The author would have had better luck naming himself and calling for a vote.  But I suppose if he did that, then he would completely destroy the credibility of the Russian investigation, which is his only other hope of getting Trump toppled.  Because it’s Rod Rosenstein.

Trump officials come out in support of the President in response to “gutless” Op-Ed

And right on cue, out comes another Democrat clown.  On Thursday, Democratic Socialist Elizabeth Warren was asked if the President should be toppled with the 25th amendment based on the anonymous Op-Ed.  Warren said yes.  She is actually suggesting that the cabinet, along with the Senate and the House, remove the President from office and put Mike Pence in charge because somebody wrote an anonymous Op-Ed.

Do people realize how dangerous this is?  Our constitutional democracy has survived based on the peaceful transfer of power and the vote of the people.  If Democratic Socialists want to cheat to topple a Capitalist President, then the voters will rise up to restore our democracy.  I think Warren perhaps underestimates the voters in her coup attempt.  But socialists toppling free governments and turning them into banana republics is nothing new.

She might want to consider which side all the second amendment supporters are on before starting a civil war.

Elizabeth Warren calls for coup based on anonymous NYT Op-Ed

 

Advertisements

NYT Op-Ed Source Revealed!

Despite our aversion to anonymous sources, sometimes you just need to get a job done.  That is the position we found ourselves in when we reached out to our anonymous source at the New York Times and they revealed that he, yes he, is a member of the Deep State and is leading the resistance movement from within the administration.  So when we saw some of the key markers in the writing and the substance of what was said, we had a pretty good idea.  Our unnamed source confirmed it.  Fearful of losing her job with the New York Times, she asked that we don’t reveal her name and we agreed.

When you think about it, the Op-Ed writer identity makes sense.  He writes that they have worked to curb Trump’s agenda.  But Trump’s agenda marches on with tax cuts, portions of the border wall already under construction, zero tolerance on illegal immigration, tariffs, wins with North Korea, and a tougher stance with allies who haven’t paid their fair share.  Obamacare has been dismantled without the mandate, and pages of crippling regulations have been tossed in the trash.  Trump has successfully placed 24 judges, including one to the Supreme Court and one pending.  There is only one area where his agenda has been thwarted, and that aroused our now confirmed suspicion.

The anonymous Op-Ed came from the office of Rod Rosenstein.  Whether he wrote it himself or a staffer claimed his name is unclear.

Trump has failed to “lock her up”, referring to Hillary Clinton and her illegal email server and destruction of evidence.  Trump has not fired Rosenstein, Sessions, Ohr, Mueller, or several others potentially involved in the “Deep State” movement to protect Clinton.  The agents who have been fired have been as a result of internal DOJ investigations with overwhelming evidence of bias.  Rosenstein in fact attempted at one point to create an Obstruction of Justice charge against Trump by recommending he fire Comey and then refusing to clear the record when people speculated that Comey was fired to stop the Russian investigation.

Rosenstein also set up the special counsel investigation with Mueller and has prevented Mueller from being fired.  Meanwhile, he has not set up a second special counsel investigation to look into how the Clinton email investigation was handled.  Many observers, including Trump, have been tearing their hair out trying to figure out why the Clinton email investigation continues to go under the radar.  It is clear now that Rosenstein considers this part of his resistance duties, to steer Trump away from what he believes are Trump’s worst inclinations.

Rosenstein himself at one point faced impeachment proceedings from Congress for failing to produce evidence, refusing to remove unnecessary redaction from reports, and refusing to set up a second special counsel to look into the FBI’s handling of the Clinton investigation.

Chuck Schumer himself said that intel officials have a way to “strike back” if someone speaks badly about them.  Rod Rosenstein wrote the New York Times Op-Ed because he believes he has a duty to stop Trump.  That idea has been articulated throughout the FBI higher ups in texts on record, and through DOJ employee Bruce Ohr who continued to feed fake dirt on Trump to the FBI from Christopher Steele even after the FBI fired Steele.  Rosenstein also knows his time is running out.  As soon as the Russia investigation is over, which should be very soon, or right after the election Rosenstein and Sessions will be looking for jobs.  For Rosenstein it was now or never.  He knew he would eventually be discovered, but he is the most expendable.

Our report likely won’t be picked up.  That’s Ok.  Unbiased observers have already seen this move to invoke the 25th amendment by the Deep State and take it for what it is.  It is the Birther Movement part II.  No one who matters takes it seriously.  The New York Times doesn’t have the credibility it used to.  The story, like Russian meddling, won’t affect a single vote.  But the source will be discovered by the media in time and face the consequences that come with trying to stage an internal coup against the President of the United States.  Until then, President Trump will continue to implement the portions of his agenda that don’t run through Rod Rosenstein’s office.

Need to Know 8/6/18

While CNN’s Jim Acosta continues to suffer PTSD from being yelled at at a Trump rally, Carlos Bayon was just arrested in New York for threatening the families of Republican Representatives Steve Scalise and Cathy McMorris Rogers.  Bayon was apparently responding to the fake news reports detailing Obama’s era of putting illegal immigrant kids in cages as Trump era policy.  Bayon said in his threatening phonecalls that he would “feed them lead” referring to Scalise and McMorris Rogers’ families.  “Ojo por ojo, diente por diente. [“An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth.”] That is our law and we are the majority. Have a good day.”  This comes as CNN commentators continue to fear that Trump calling fake media reports fake news will lead to violence against the press.

The threats from the anti-immigration enforcement terrorist come just over a year after Steve Scalise was shot at a Congressional soft ball game practice.  And only weeks after the Left led by Maxine Waters and Ocasio-Cortez began calling for ICE to be abolished.

Leftist terrorist threatens families of Republican lawmakers over immigration 

David Hogg was at it again.  Hogg showed up at the NRA headquarters to protest, among other things, America.  One one side he had Therese Okuomo, who he calls one of his biggest inspirations.  Okuomo is known for getting protesters together and chanting about America being fascist and horrible.  On the other side, Hogg ironically had armed guards.

David Hogg inspiration calls America a fascist KKK nation.

Twitter is in hot water after suspending the account of Candace Owens, a conservative commentator with Turning Point USA.  Owens crime was taking one of New York Times editorial writer Sarah Jeong’s many violent, racist tweets and replacing the word “white” with “Jew” and “black”.  While Jeong was left alone by Twitter when her attacks were towards white people, Owens was blocked despite the rest of the verbiage of the tweet being the same.  Twitter has since unblocked her account after the uproar and apologized.

Twitter thinks Sarah Jeong’s tweets were racist.  But only when someone else says it.

Need to Know 8/4/18

CNN has stepped up it’s nasty rhetoric towards American voters.  Jim Acosta, who was verbally assaulted by elderly Trump supporters at a rally, said things about those voters he would never say about Antifa crowds throwing urine and rocks at police officers.  David Gergen stated that if something happens to someone in the media the blood will be on Trump’s hands.  That’s interesting, I suppose he’s sort of admitting that Steve Scalise’s blood is on CNN’s hands.  It took until August 17, 2018 before a mainstream media outlet would actually call out Antifa as a violent group, even though they constantly physically confronted media members at their mob rallies.

Jim Acosta still crying about being insulted at a Trump rally

Speaking of media “whipping up violence”, the NYT’s new editorial board member Sarah Jeong had quite the opinion about cops.  In addition to calling for killing all men, Jeong also said equality and fairness would require homeless people to be able to murder cops with no repercussions.  In fact, Jeong didn’t just fantasize about violence against cops, but actually called for it on a couple occasions too.  I wonder if Jim Acosta has ever met Sarah Jeong?  I wonder if that would change his thoughts about how it’s conservative media ginning up violence because they occasionally use the phrase “fake news”?

New York Times editorial board member calls for killing all men and violence against cops

Another liberal judge, DC District Court Judge John Bates, has ruled that Obama’s DACA executive order cannot be repealed.  While he granted the administration time to come up with alternatives, this sets a very dangerous precedent.  The idea that executive orders could be made the eternal law of the land through judicial fiat removes the constitutional form of government that the United States was built on.  People who are afraid of Trump being a tyrant or dictator should have more fear of the precedent set here.  What protects us from tyranny is laws being written in Congress.  If Congress doesn’t want to replace the DACA executive order with a real law, the courts cannot just step in and make the DACA executive order the irreversible law of the land.   Both sides of the aisle should be upset about this ruling.  Or at least anyone who opposes tyranny and supports our constitutional form of government.

Newsflash 8/2/18

The New York Times has a new editorial board member.  Turns out, the new NYT editorial board member Sarah Jeong is a vile racist.  She’s pretty open about it too.  Her Twitter includes tweets saying things like how white people are “only fit to live underground like groveling goblins”.  Another gem states “white men are bullshit”, and she also used the hashtag #cancelwhitepeople.

It’s funny to me that the New York Times might feel it’s appropriate to add anti-white racists to their editorial board to expand their diversity of opinion, but have a hard time finding conservatives to add.

New York Times adds vile racist to their editorial board

Faithless Elector Calls on Fellow Electors to Abandon Trump

A Trump elector wrote a New York Times Op-ed today vowing to not cast a vote for Trump. Christopher Suprun is one of Trump’s 306 electors, chosen by Texas to represent the people of Texas in casting a vote for Trump on the 19th.  Despite being pledged to Trump by the voters, he has decided that he knows better than the voters who selected him. Some have estimated as many as 7 faithless electors this year who will choose an alternative to Trump.
 
This is nothing new. There have been some 157 faithless electors over the years. In 2004, an elector reportedly made an error when he wrote John Edwards rather than John Kerry. In 1872, 63 electors chose not to vote for Horace Greeley, who died after election day. In every election Nixon ran in, two wins and one loss, at least one elector defected.  
 
7 electors only represents about a sixth of the margin that put Trump over 270. Unless there is a major shift, Trump will still receive the 270 electoral votes needed to win. If there is a major shift, Congress will choose between Trump, Clinton, and anyone else who gets electoral votes.
 
The 7 electors who have so far declared that they will not choose Trump have indicated they will vote for John Kasich. Calling themselves the Hamilton Electors, if they can sway another 30 electors it could create an unprecedented situation.  Congress would then choose one of the top three candidates who received electoral votes.  It would be possible in that situation for Congress to choose John Kasich, making him the next President instead of Trump.
The chances of this happening are slim to none.  Even if enough faithless electors banded together to stop Trump, it’s highly unlikely that the Republican Party would either split their vote allowing Hillary Clinton an opening or go against the will of their own voters. Kasich’s own top adviser has poured cold water on the idea.
Faithless electors have never changed an election outcome.  29 states have laws against faithless electors, but the penalties are minimal fines and none have ever been enforced. What might make 2016 different is that Trump comes into the Presidency with historic unfavorable ratings, Christopher Suprun wrote about his dissenting vote in a New York Times Op-ed, making it very visible ahead of time, and some electors have received death threats. They have more to think about than they might in a normal election year.

Trump vs. The Media

On October 10 before a national debate with Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump pulled off the prank of the century on the media.  Dogged by an old video of Trump saying horrible, demeaning things about women, he invited the press to a meeting to discuss it and apologize.

When they arrived, Trump had a panel set up.  He was there with four women from the Clintons’ past.  Juanita Broaddrick was a woman Bill Clinton had raped, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones were two women Clinton had sexually harassed and assaulted, and Kathy Shelton was a lawyer who had represented a child rape victim in a case Hillary Clinton cheated to win for the defendant.  The war between Trump and the media was on, and Trump was up 1-0.

In a recent Washington Post article, they recognized Trump’s constant victories over the media and lamented how they really don’t know what to do about it.  Obama went as far as to blame Trump’s victory on bars and restaurants that play Fox News.  In fact, their recent attempt to marginalize competing news sources by labeling them as “fake” has become a parody itself as more information is released by Wikileaks showing how the mainstream media sent the Clinton campaign debate questions ahead of time, let them edit articles, and apologized if they thought an article was too harsh on her.

voting-boothWhile the Washington Post was calling out the “fake” right wing media for making claims that 3 million illegal aliens hacked the election by voting illegally, the New York Times was claiming that Putin and the Russians hacked the election by distributing fake news, hacking DNC emails, and possibly even interfering with the voting booths themselves. You can now identify which way a fake news source leans just by looking at who they think stole 2016.  This works for everyone from CNN and NYT to Fox News and Breitbart.

How do the mainstreams fix this and get back on the path to being trusted and having political influence?  It might help if they sought a truce.  The media has a very adversarial relationship with Trump.  On July 23, the Huffington Post put out a piece about how to defeat Trump. Disgraced, yet highly respected journalist Dan Rather said the media must do what he did to Bush and be more biased to beat Trump. The media that ignored Joe Biden for 8 years now has 24 hour surveillance on Trump’s Twitter account just waiting for a gaffe to jump on.

When Trump saved 1,000 jobs at Carrier, the media congratulated themselves for finding a silver lining in something Trump had done.  Then of course they predictably changed their minds on the deal labeling it an empty PR stunt that encourages crony capitalism.  It’s funny how Obama hasn’t even left office yet and suddenly stimulus, crony capitalism, and picking winners and losers is a bad thing again.

For the mainstream media to win again, it would help if they weren’t so obviously biased. They have become so predictable that we almost wonder if Trump says some of the more crazy things he says on purpose.  A prime example came this past week when Trump tweeted that flag burners should maybe get a year in jail.  Predictably, the media went crazy.  Typically blind NPR went running back to the 1980s to criticize Trump for making the same unconstitutional error that George HW Bush made.  In the process they skipped 2005 when Hillary Clinton co-sponsored a bill to put flag burners in jail for a year.  This of course has us all curious if Trump knew about Clinton’s bill, or if he just got extremely lucky.

If the media wants to beat Trump, they need to stop trying.  They need to go back to what they learned in journalism school and seek fact rather than substantiation of their truth. They need to ask questions again. Skepticism is a lost art.  A little balance wouldn’t hurt either.  CNN may be making a game changing move in their attempts to bring Megyn Kelly on board.

If they keep trying to be the propaganda wing of the Democrat party, Trump is going to keep beating them.