Monday, July 24, 2017

New York Times

by -
Don Jr
Quick! There is no time for Stalin, when everybody's Russian...

Former President George W. Bush’s ethics lawyer, Richard Painter, talking MSNBC on Sunday, slammed Donald Trump Jr. for meeting a Russian lawyer who offered to provide damaging information on Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, during the 2016 US presidential elections. He went as far as to claim that Trump Jr.’s act “borders on treason.”

“This was an effort to get opposition research on an opponent in an American political campaign from the Russians, who were known to be engaged in spying inside the United States,” Richard Painter said.

“We do not get our opposition research from spies, we do not collaborate with Russian spies, unless we want to be accused of treason.”

Painter further elaborated that the Bush administration could have never considered such a meeting. The meeting with Russian lawyer Natalya Veselnitskaya was also attended by Trump’s campaign chairman at the time, Paul Manafort, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

“If this story is true, we’d have one of them if not both of them in custody by now, and we’d be asking them a lot of questions,” he said. “This is unacceptable. This borders on treason, if it is not itself treason.”

Painter’s remarks come after The New York Times published a report on Sunday, claiming that Donald Trump Jr. met with Russian lawyer Natalya Veselnitskaya after being promised compromising information on Donald Trump’s arch rival in the US elections, Hillary Clinton.

The report from the Times further claimed that Trump Jr. attended the meeting at Trump Tower with hopes that the lawyer had information on Clinton that help the Trump campaign.

In his statement to the newspaper on Sunday, Trump Jr. seemed to be justifying his connection to the lawyer, saying he had only met her at the request of a colleague. He also denied receiving any information regarding Clinton from Veselnitskaya.

“After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton,” he said. “Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”

“It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting,” Trump Jr. said.

by -
Wait! Someone in the government did something illegal?

At least half of the information contained within the infamous Comey memos may well have been classified, according to a bombshell new report citing intelligence officials.

The former FBI head has been the subject of growing controversy and accusations of partisanship since his May ousting by the Trump administration. And it now seems that charges levied against Comey, on the mishandling of the Clinton investigation, may be well in line with a track record of failures in properly administering his duty.

Four of seven memos brought before congress are now said to have been marked “secret” or “confidential”, this flies in the face of Comey’s testimony where, when questioned as to the nature of his very public revelations, he stated.

“I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the president. As a private citizen, I thought it important to get it out.”

He then went on to detail how quickly he moved to capitalize on private conversations he held with the president saying,

“I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership…”

 “My view was that the content of those unclassified, memorialization of those conversations was my recollection recorded.”

After making sure to make a personal record of these documents, he then saw fit to share at least one through close friend and Colombia professor Donald Richman with the explicit intention of leaking them to the New York Times. Rather coincidentally, this attempt at smearing the President came shortly after Comey’s firing.

The casual improprieties and arrogant refusals to adhere to strict government regulations were eerily echoed in the Clinton server scandal which had been Comey’s earlier undoing. In fact, in a statement he had released about that investigation Comey had said,

“There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

It seems that Comey played fast and loose with those same restrictions when it came to getting his side of the story in the public eye. Not that it did much good, though the hopes of Russia conspiracy theorists had been pinned on the testimony. The biggest revelation that came out of the intense congressional panel was the grudging admission that President Trump had not now, nor ever been the subject of an FBI investigation.

Is this another falling domino in the loopy conspiracy liberals have put together to try and force through an impossible impeachment? With heavy hitters falling left and right, whose credibility will they put on the line next? While Trump’s resolve has yet to waver it seems his accusers find themselves on increasingly shaky ground.


by -
Trump Twitter
A lack of filter can be good, unless we are talking about covfefe, er, coffee...

Jonah Goldberg and Mollie Hemingway, got into a heated argument, all because of one tweet from President Donald Trump.

During Thursday’s airing of the show, the two panelists got into a very heated debated.

Discussing a tweet from Trump, “With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea…” and “…whether there are “tapes” or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings.”

“It was, it was a bad idea,” Goldberg responded, “and it got him in a lot of trouble. And he’s still trying to back out of it. I gotta say, I don’t really care about the tapes, I always thought it was a bluff, to me it is perfect example of how he tries to run his presidency like a reality show, like wait for the big reveal at the big mid-season break kinda thing.”

“What does bother me about that tweet is his insinuation that it’s entirely plausible that members of the ‘deep state’ or the intelligence community, or law enforcement are bugging the Oval Office without his awareness,” he continued. “And that is a pretty provocative charge to make. I’m sure he’s making it, you know, if he ever gets pushback on it, he’ll say he was just speaking tongue-in-cheek, but I thought that was the more offensive part of it.”

“No, that’s ridiculous,” Hemingway interrupted, “you’ve had nothing but months of leaks from intelligence agencies about people affiliated with the Trump campaign or otherwise, it’s not insane at all to think that there might be surveillance since we’ve seen so many again, unmasked…”

“What allegations that Donald Trump has been surreptitiously recorded without his approval?” Goldberg said.

“What, I mean, the issue with that original tweet is that James Comey had already been leaking to the New York Times,” Hemingway responded, “and he’d been presenting stories as if he was some hero of the conversations he had had with Trump. That tweet actually got James Comey to admit that he did three times tell Donald Trump that he wasn’t under investigation. It got him to admit that he did say Mike Flynn was a good guy when he was asked about it by the president. And it did get him to admit also that he pledged his honest loyalty to Donald Trump which is contrary to what he had said to the New York Times the day before that.”

“It also got him a special prosecutor,” Goldberg responded.

“I think it’s naive to think that that would have not happened otherwise,” Hemingway said. “James Comey was clearly laying a groundwork in a campaign through his leaking and it’s kind of rewriting history.”

“That’s possible,” Goldberg allowed. “That’s possible, but my point still stands. There’s no evidence whatsoever that anyone was bugging or wiretapping the Oval Office or the President of the United States without his awareness.”

‘There was a lot of leaking…” Hemingway intervened.

“Leaking is not bugging!” Goldberg shot back.

“…of taped conversations,” Hemingway continued, “for a group of people that are not doing a lot of surveillance.”

by -
Guarding Republicans
As if being under attack by the Liberal Media wasn't enough!

Over the weekend, the New York Times was slammed for running a piece where the news outlet apparently tried to cover up the motives of the man, James T. Hodgkinson, who attacked GOP congressmen playing baseball at Alexandria, Virginia, last week.

Because Hodgkinson was shot dead on the scene of the massacre, the motive behind the attack will most probably never be known, however, most people, including experts, believe that the harsh rhetoric between the two parties is to blame. This is also because Hodgkinson only attacked Republicans. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was shot near the hip and continues to fight for his life in the MedStar Washington Hospital Center.

Following the authorities’ confirmation that Hodgkinson was the only shooter in the attack, officials began scrutinizing the 66-year-old’s social media accounts and it wasn’t very hard to figure out the motives behind the attack: James Hodgkinson appears to have been a staunch supporter of socialist politics and had deep-rooted hatred for Republicans and President Donald Trump.

However, despite the ocean of evidence proving Hodgkinson’s hatred for the Repblicans, the New York Times tried to paint a very different picture of the motives. They tried to get the perspective out there that Hodgkinson’s attack on the congressmen was due to his unstable mental conditions and it had nothing to do partisan hatred or politics.

The story’s headline emphasizes that idea: “Before the Gunfire in Virginia, a Volatile Home Life in Illinois.”

The story said:

“No one can truly know what motivates a man to drive halfway across the country, live out of his car — as Mr. Hodgkinson apparently did — and attempt a mass killing of members of Congress. In the days since the shooting, much has been made of Mr. Hodgkinson’s strong political views — he was an ardent supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders’s bid for the 2016 presidential nomination, and he railed against President Trump and Republicans in Washington on his Facebook page and in letters to the editor of the local newspaper.

But another aspect of his personality may have also presaged the shooting: his troubled home life.”

Furthermore, the story described how Hodgkinson was likely suffering from some kind of mental illness and his political ideology had “little” or nothing to do with his attempt to kill only Republicans. The article even went on to quote a Democratic staffer who denied claims that Hodgkinson was known to be a volunteer for them during the 2016 presidential campaign.

by -

The New York Times decided to publish a hit piece on Donald Trump, but at least one of the women interviewed for the article was completely misquoted.

It is no surprise that Donald Trump has taken a lashing in the media, but it is the constant misquoting that is changing the narrative on Trump. Fortunately, he fights back hard.

Normally it is Trump that is misquoted, but now the media is even misquoting people who know Donald to make sure the spin stays negative.

Here is an interview on Fox News with Rowanne Brewer Lane as she exposed the New York Times‘ bias against Donald Trump and how she was unfairly portrayed.

The way that Donald Trump has been treated in the national media is a disgrace and it makes it so hard for Americans to make an informed decision when they vote.

Do you think that the media has treated Donald Trump unfairly? Let us know in the comments.

by -

In public, Ted Cruz seems to be a big fan of Donald Trump. But in private, he’s singing a different tune.

At a closed-door fundraising event in New York City, Cruz had plenty to say both about Trump and about another one of his opponents, Dr. Ben Carson. Unfortunately for the Texas Senator, Cruz’s comments were caught on tape by an attendee and leaked to The New York Times.

“Both of them I like and respect,” said Mr. Cruz, about Trump and Carson. “I don’t believe either one of them is going to be our president.”

Which isn’t an unexpected statement, since obviously, Cruz is running against Carson and Trump–and no matter how nice he may be in public, he’s running to beat them.

But then Cruz went beyond mere election platitudes–when he quickly listed exactly why he though both Trump and Carson were uniquely unqualified to be President.

Cruz explained: “You look at Paris, you look at San Bernardino, it’s given a seriousness to this race, that people are looking for: Who is prepared to be a commander in chief? Who understands the threats we face?”

He added, “Who am I comfortable having their finger on the button? Now that’s a question of strength, but it’s also a question of judgment. And I think that is a question that is a challenging question for both of them.”

Cruz also hinted at why he’s playing nice with both candidates right now: it’s not because he actually likes them but, rather, because he’s planning on snatching up their adoring supporters when their campaigns fall apart.

“So my approach, much to the frustration of the media, has been to bear hug both of them, and smother them with love,” Cruz explained.

He added, “I believe gravity will bring both of those campaigns down” and “the lion’s share of their supporters come to us.”

After The New York Times released the controversial audio recording, Cruz was asked about his remarks after a speech in Washington. Cruz simply replied that he was “not going to comment on what I may or may not have said at a private fund-raiser.”

by -

The New York Times’ Bestseller List is synonymous with the top selling books in America–but, now, there’s one top-selling author whose book purposely won’t be on the list: Ted Cruz.

Cruz’s new memoir, “A Time for Truth,” was released on June 30 and sold 11,854 copies in its first week–which should place it at #3 on the Times’ list, since it has sold more than all but two of the other entries on the list.

But, curiously, Cruz’s name wasn’t included on the list–even though fellow Republican presidential candidates, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, made the cut, despite selling fewer books. When his publisher, HarperCollins, wrote a letter to ask why Cruz hadn’t been included, the New York Times came back with a long explanation–that, curiously, said just about nothing.

“We have uniform standards that we apply to our best seller list, which includes an analysis of book sales that goes beyond simply the number of books sold,” Eileen Murphy, spokesperson for The New York Times, explained. “This book didn’t meet that standard this week.”

Fair enough. But, when asked what those exact standards were, that Ted Cruz violated (but other presidential candidates didn’t?), Murphy had

“Our goal is that the list reflect authentic best sellers, so we look at and analyze not just numbers, but patterns of sales for every book.”

Huh? It’s a best-selling list. If Cruz sold more copies than almost every other book in America, why wouldn’t he be included?

The New York Times has no answer–which makes it all the more clear that the mainstream media, including the newspaper that used to bill itself as including “all the news that’s fit to print,” would rather keep conservatives down than report the news as it appears.

by -

Earlier this week the New York Times published a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI made completely out of condoms.

The decision to publish Niki Johnsons “artwork” called “Eggs Benedict” stands in sharp contrast to the Mohammad cartoons that ran in the French magazine Charlie Hebdo – an act of Free Speech and Free Press that two Muslim terrorists used as an excuse to storm the magazine’s Paris headquarters and kill 10 of its employees.

In making their “editorial decision” the New York Times didn’t pause to consider if the image would be offensive to Catholics or Christians at large… or that its’ publication might provoke violence because that’s not what Christians do.

Radical Muslims on the other hand promise – and deliver – lethal violence against those who “offend the prophet” by first drawing and then publishing the result in their daily pages. That’s probably why the NYT did not republish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons because they were deemed “too offensive” to print.

NYT’s act of journalistic self-censorship proves that America’s self-appointed cultural elites know they can sell newspapers by insulting Christianity and defaming its’ leaders without fear of reprisal because doing so does not violate Sharia Law.

According to Johnson, her portrait was “not hate-based”. Rather, it was meant to “critique” Pope Benedict’s views on sex and contraception while “raising awareness about public health.”

“What I want to do is really destigmatize the condom, normalize it,” she told the newspaper. “I’ve watched kids and parents talk about condoms. It opens a door to talking about what those things are and what they do.”

Forget for a moment that “watching kids and parent talk about condoms” is what kids and parents are supposed to do in the privacy of their homes, at a time of their choosing and in a way that is sensitive to the innocence of youth.

Johnson on the other hand is impatient for the conversation to begin. Johnson believes it is her job to come between parent and child… to shake things up like a bull in a china shop… force a conversation on difficult issues like abortion and contraception… and insult Catholics worldwide if necessary to do it.

The Times’ decision to run an image of “Eggs Benedict” comes just five months after the paper announced that it would not show Charlie Hebdo’s infamously provocative artwork.

The newspaper’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, said in public statement at the time that the French satirical magazine’s cartoons were simply too offensive for publication.

“Was it hard to deny our readers these images? Absolutely. But we still have standards, and they involve not running offensive material,” Baquet told the Washington Examiner in January.”

“And they don’t meet our standards. They are provocative on purpose. They show religious figures in sexual positions. We do not show those.”

Without speaking to the accuracy of Baquet’s descriptions of the drawings, are we to believe that the Mohammed cartoons are provocative on purpose but that the “Egg Benedict” image of the Pope made out of condoms that they rushed into print is provocative by accident?

Does this line of reasoning justify the attack on Charlie Hebdo’s Paris offices that left 10 journalists dead – a just outcome for a magazine that repeatedly mocked Islam and Muhammad on purpose?

Pounding his chest in self-righteousness, Baquet points out in a statement to Politico:

“[L]et’s not forget the Muslim family in Brooklyn who read us and is offended by any depiction of what he sees as his prophet…” “I don’t give a damn about the head of [the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] but I do care about that family and it is arrogant to ignore them.”

Times’ associate managing editor for standards Phil Corbett goes further telling The Washington Examiner in defense of the newspaper’s decision to publish Johnson’s “artwork” that:

“There’s no simple, unwavering formula we can apply in’ situations like this. We really don’t want to gratuitously offend anyone’s deeply held beliefs. That said, it’s probably impossible to avoid ever offending anyone…”

“We have to make these judgments all the time. Reasonable people might disagree about any one of them,” he said.”

That said, Corbett went on – using the pages of his newspaper as a cudgel – to “gratuitously offend” 1.2 billion Catholics who don’t express their outrage by killing people with whom they disagree.

by -

The New York Times–one of the most storied news sources in the world, the newspaper that once bragged it contained “all the news that’s fit to print”–is now actively calling for “a new black radicalism.”

And yes, “black radicalism” is exactly what it sounds like.

In the wake of the Charleston church shooting–where Dylann Roof, a young white supremacist, killed nine African-American churchgoers–New York Times writer, Chris Lebron, decided that enough is enough.

He decided that, if Americans are going to stop white-on-black violence, white people are going to have to pay. He doesn’t rule out increased violence to get his point across.

It’s not just a ludicrous idea–advocating that one race rise up and “radically” go after another is actively dangerous. Especially when it’s printed and publicized by one of the largest newspapers in the country.

Lebron defines this so-called “black radicalism” as “…not merely rationally persuading white Americans, but to intentionally unsettle and dislodge them from the comforts of white privilege.”

And when he says he plans to accomplish that radically–well, he means radically.

He doesn’t mean sit-ins or peaceful protests, like America had in the 1960s.

In fact, he argues that “blacks should not desire [Martin Luther King, Jr.’s] second coming… It seems to me that the days of sitting at the lunch counter and enduring inhumane abuses must be left to history.”

Instead of the kind of peaceful protest that attracted people of all races, made King a national legend, and helped pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Lebron urges something “more appropriately radical for our present moment.”

He doesn’t explicitly say what that “appropriately radical” response is. But when he asks himself whether this black radicalism can be widespread violence, he admits, “Yes, it can be.”

In Lebron’s eyes, because one white person–like Dylann Roof–was a white supremacist, the entire black community needs to rise up and break down societal convention.

No matter that African-Americans are more likely to kill African-Americans than they are to be killed by whites. And no matter that–because of the Left’s policies that have gutted black families, encouraged single-parent households, and discouraged work–African-Americans are economically falling farther and farther behind other races, even as racism continues to disappear.

Obviously, this is problematic. There’s no excuse for white supremacy–and there’s no excuse for shooting up a room of anyone, least of all Christians in a house of worship.

But, on the flip side of the coin, there’s similarly no excuse for “black radicalism” either.

America still has a long way to go to fix its societal problems, but exchanging violence against one race for violence against another? That wouldn’t do anything but lead to bloodshed, and widen the rift between whites and blacks. That seems like an obvious point–unless you’re Chris Lebron and The New York Times.


Environmental Disaster

The feds believe that spending $200,000 on a video game that focuses on the importance of clean water can be a total game changer...