Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat

  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #76 

CNN's agenda-poll fails

John Dickerson (ConservativeTreehouse) is reporting that 2.6 million CNN visitors have responded to CNN's weekly poll that asks about the overall sentiment surrounding whether or not President Trump "should be investigated for obstruction?"

With more than 2.6 million responses so far, more than 70% say NO! Less than 30% say yes.


There is also a rather funny irony. The wording of the survey suggests CNN admits that an obstruction investigation doesn't exist, while breathlessly reporting 24/7 via their network that an investigation of obstruction is ongoing.

"The Mamet Principle"

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #77 

Here is how you are manipulated by the media


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #78 
Rush Limbaugh says the media is failing to weaken Trump -- it's only making him stronger

Truth Feed News has a video of Rush Limbaugh discussing the media's hatred for President Trump compared to how they viewed Obama as the perfect human.

However, Rush says that despite all of the media attacks, they are failing to weaken Trump.

By undoing Obama's policies and succeeding despite the media's hatred for him, Trump is only getting stronger.

Rush believes the media will end up making Trump "one of the most powerful presidents in modern times."


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #79 

#FakeNews outlet, CNN, claims only Democrats prayed before congressional baseball game

Pacific Pundit is reporting that on the day of the Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer shooting of Steve Scalise, CNN's Jim Acosta lied on Twitter claiming that Trump didn't visit Steve Scalise in the hospital.

That of course was proven false and there was no apology from Acosta. Instead, Acosta blamed a "press pool report."

After last night's congressional baseball game that raises money for charity both teams prayed before the game for Steve Scalise and others affected by the left-wing extremist's terrorist shooting. CNN lied and tweeted that only Democrats prayed before the game.


The tweet is now deleted.

Democrats are largely godless terrorists who will hunt you down if you pray in school. So the tweet should have been thought through, but of course, this is CNN.

CNN isn't a news channel anymore. They are a Democrat propaganada mill.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #80 

Huffington Post pulls article calling for execution of Trump

The Huffington Post pulled a piece calling for the "execution" of President Donald Trump published Saturday by contributor Jason Fuller.


Fuller's piece contained rhetoric and imagery that seems tasteless, particularly after Wednesday's events. Fuller boldly declares in the title that "Trump must be prosecuted -- if convicted in a court of law -- executed." Fuller doesn't stop there, however, as he insists that "impeachment isn't enough" to "drain the swamp," and to do so means doling out the "ultimate punishment [execution]" in order to fully restore the moral compass of the U.S.

Fuller's "ultimate punishment" is not only reserved for the president, but also for "everyone assisting in his agenda," including Republican Reps. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and White House strategist Steve Bannon. Fuller claims that "all must face justice" by being tried, convicted and ultimately executed for treason.

This tone comes from a man who self-describes as "critical" of "bullying and extremism." Fuller uses the term "execution" twice and "ultimate punishment" twice more thereafter as a euphemism for execution, in a piece claiming that those he disagrees with committed "treason."

This is why the Left is having such an orgy with the "Caesar" play in New York, and earlier had orgasms over the Snoop Dogg video of shooting a Trump like character.

When it comes to terrorism, it's no longer just Islamists. Left wing extremists are now just as dangerous as ISIS.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #81 

CNN Fake News -- Jim Acosta lies about Trump hospital visit of Scalise

Pacific Pundit says the very pathetic CNN and their leftist hack Jim Acosta actually tried to lie about Donald Trump not visiting Steve Scalise in the hospital last night. Acosta tweeted and deleted this last night:


This, despite pictures of Trump and wife Melania leaving Scalise’s hospital room as soon on video last night and earlier today.


And here is the tweet after CNN’s Jim Acosta was caught in a bald face lie:


In fact, not only did Trump visit Rep. Scalise, he also visited Capitol Police officer Crystal Griner. Some reports even say that Griner is the one who shot and killed the left-wing terrorist Hodgkinson.

Even on a day like yesterday, CNN still can not get get over their Trump Derangement Syndrome and has to bash him with #FakeNews. There has no been no apology from Acosta or CNN for his #FakeNews tweet bashing Trump for not visiting Rep. Scalise even though he did.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #82 

The "Resistance" goes live-fire


Ann Coulter (FrontPage) says the media are orchestrating a bloodless coup, but they're perfectly content to have their shock troops pursue a bloody coup.

The explosion of violence against conservatives across the country is being intentionally ginned up by Democrats, reporters, TV hosts, late-night comedians and celebrities, who compete with one another to come up with the most vile epithets for Trump and his supporters.

They go right up to the line, trying not to cross it, by, for example, vamping with a realistic photo of a decapitated Trump or calling the president a "piece of s---" while hosting a show on CNN.

The media are orchestrating a bloodless coup, but they're perfectly content to have their low-IQ shock troops pursue a bloody coup.

This week, one of the left's foot soldiers gunned down Republican members of Congress and their staff while they were playing baseball in Virginia. Democratic Socialist James Hodgkinson was prevented from committing a mass murder only by the happenstance of a member of the Republican leadership being there, along with his 24-hour Capitol Police protection.

Remember when it was frightening for the losing party not to accept the results of an election? During the third debate, Trump refused to preemptively agree to the election results, saying he'd "look at it at the time."

The media responded in their usual laid-back style:

A 'HORRIFYING' REPUDIATION OF DEMOCRACY -- The Washington Post, Oct. 20, 2016

DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY -- Daily News (New York), Oct. 20, 2016 DANGER TO DEMOCRACY -- The Dallas Morning News, Oct. 20, 2016

ONE SCARY MOMENT; IT ALL BOILED DOWN TO ... DEMOCRACY -- Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Oct. 21, 2016

"(Shock) spiked down the nation's spinal column last night and today when the Republican nominee threatened that this little election thing you got there, this little democratic process you've got here, it's nice, it's fine, but he doesn't necessarily plan on abiding by its decision when it comes to the presidency." -- Rachel Maddow, Oct. 20, 2016

"Trump's answer on accepting the outcome of the vote is the most disgraceful statement by a presidential candidate in 160 years." -- Bret Stephens, then-deputy editorial page editor at The Wall Street Journal

"I guess we're all going to have to wait until Nov. 9 to find out if we still have a country -- if Donald Trump is in the mood for a peaceful transfer of power. Or if he's going to wipe his fat a-- with the Constitution." -- CBS's Stephen Colbert, Oct. 19, 2016

"It's unprecedented for a nominee of a major party to themselves signal that they would not accept -- you know, respect the results of an election. We've never had that happen before. ... This really presents a potentially difficult problem for governing ..." -- MSNBC'S Joy Reid, Oct. 22, 2016

"This is very dangerous stuff ... would seriously impair our functioning as a democracy. ... This is about as serious as it gets in the United States." -- CNN's Peter Beinart, Oct. 20, 2016

"Obviously, it's despicable for him to pretend that there's any chance that he would not accept the results of this election; it would be -- in 240 years you've never had anybody do it. ..." -- CNN's Van Jones, Oct. 20, 2016

Then Trump won, and these very same hysterics refused to accept the results of the election.

Recently, Hillary announced her steadfast opposition to the winning candidate using a military term, saying she'd joined the "Resistance."

Imagine if Trump lost and then announced that he'd joined the "RESISTANCE." He'd be accused of trying to activate right-wing militias. Every dyspeptic glance at an immigrant would be reported as fascistic violence.

But the media seem blithely unaware that the anti-Trump "Resistance" has been accompanied by nonstop militaristic violence from liberals.

When Trump ripped up our Constitution and jumped all over it by failing to concede the election three weeks in advance, CNN ran a segment on a single tweet from a random Trump supporter that mentioned the Second Amendment.

Carol Costello: "Still to come in the 'Newsroom,' some Trump supporters say they will refuse to accept a loss on Election Day, with one offering a threat of violence. We'll talk about that next."

In CNN's most fevered dreams about a violent uprising of Trump supporters, they never could have conceived of the level of actual violence being perpetrated by Americans who refuse to accept Trump's win. (See Hate Map.)

It began with Trump's inauguration, when a leftist group plotted to pump a debilitating gas into one Trump inaugural ball, military families were assaulted upon leaving the Veterans' Inaugural Ball, and attendees of other balls had water thrown on them.

Since then, masked, armed liberals around the country have formed military-style organizations to beat up conservatives. In liberal towns, the police are regularly ordered to stand down to allow the assaults to proceed unimpeded.

The media only declared a crisis when conservatives fought back, smashing the black-clad beta males. ("Battle for Berkeley!")

There is more media coverage for conservatives' "microaggressions" toward powerful minorities -– such as using the wrong pronoun -- than there is for liberals' physical attacks on conservatives, including macings, concussions and hospitalizations.

And now some nut Bernie Sanders-supporter confirms that it's Republicans standing on a baseball field, before opening fire.

In the media's strategic reporting of the attempted slaughter, we were quickly told that the mass shooter was white, male and had used a gun. We were even told his name. (Because it was not "Mohammed.")

But the fact that Hodgkinson's Facebook page featured a banner of Sanders and the words "Democratic Socialism explained in 3 words: 'We the People' Since 1776" apparently called for hours of meticulous fact-checking by our media.

Did reporters think they could keep that information from us forever?

The fake news insists that Trump's White House is in "chaos." No, the country is in chaos. But just like Kathy Griffin and her Trump decapitation performance art -- the perpetrators turn around in doe-eyed innocence and blame Trump. 

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #83 

Washington Post brags about its anti-Trump bias


S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that the Washington Post is one of the #FakeNews fact checkers for social media and google. They also have a media watchdog columnist named Margaret Sullivan. This weekend she wrote that the media is correct inbeing biased against Trump.

The former public editor at the New York Times, who guards against bias, says it's okay if it's against Trump. After using her column to review the negative coverage of Trump and mocking him for playing the victim card, she asks rhetorically, "Isn't that terribly unfair?"

Then she answers, "Here's my carefully nuanced answer: Hell, no."

We mustn't "consider negative vs. positive coverage of an elected official, we're asking the wrong question," she wrote illogically.

"The president's supporters often say his accomplishments get short shrift. But let's face it: Politicians have no right to expect equally balanced positive and negative coverage, or anything close to it. If a president is doing a rotten job, it's the duty of the press to report how and why he's doing a rotten job."

Further condemning balance in reporting, she writes:

"The idea of balance is suspect on its face. Should positive coverage be provided, as if it were a birthright, to a president who consistently lies, who has spilled classified information to an adversary, and who fired the FBI director who was investigating his administration?"

"Certainly not. That's why efforts like a New York Times op-ed's pitch to 'say something nice about Donald Trump' is so absurd, even if it was meant as tongue-in-cheek."

The media has determined that he's a liar and they have no obligation to report anything positive that he does. Of course, they never noticed Obama's constant lying and constitutional violations.

Funnier still is WaPo's in-house conservative Jennifer Rubin who recently said she's not a republican. She announced she was a conservative when she was hired by the Post. Never before had she been taken for one. Actually, she isn't now either.

Sean Davis of The Federalist wrote of one of her "conservative" comments:

On Wednesday, following the publication of several news reports indicating that President Donald Trump planned to withdraw the U.S. from the toothless 2015 Paris global warming deal, Rubin declared that Trump's move was a disaster, proof that he hated science, and ironclad evidence that he was far too stupid to be president.

Her Twitter feed is anti-Trump, anti-Republican, pro-Leftist.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #84 

More on CNN's phony "Muslims against terrorism" demonstration

At the risk of belaboring the point, CNN’s crude staging of a Muslim rally against Islamic terrorism in the aftermath of the London Bridge attack was truly appalling. The story is worth dwelling on because it underscores two alarming truths:

(1)  The establishment media, or at the very least CNN, is willing to use taqiyya to promote Islam.

(2)  The propaganda that liberals disseminate as “news” is distorted, contrived, and even staged for the sake of getting us to think what they want us to think.

More video has come to light, demonstrating just how phony this Muslims-against-terrorism spectacle really was:

The #FakeNews media, especially CNN, has gotten so bad, they don't even care that they are exposed as propagandists on a weekly basis.

They have adopted the practices of Hitler's propagandist, Joseph Goebbels:

"Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth."

Among psychologists, this "law of propaganda" is known as the "illusion of truth."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #85 

Donald Trump puts the NY Times in the last row -- CNN in Siberia


S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that Donald Trump roasted the media today during his joint presser with the Romanian President Klaus Ioannis. In response to their constant and most recent barrage of attacks. He also had some interesting seating arrangements set up.

The fact is that CNN, ABC, NBC, the NY Times, WaPo are using anonymous sources to push a vicious narrative to bring down the President. How can you blame Trump for responding?

On Thursday, Comey confirmed that the fake news media exists if you believe him.

The former FBI Director testified that a February NY Times story, which alleged numerous contacts between Trump associates and Russia, was "almost entirely wrong".

Senator Cotton asked Comey about it:

"On February 14 the New York Times published a story, the headline of which was "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."

You were asked earlier whether that was an inaccurate statement and you said you said ‘in the main.'  Would it be fair to characterize the story as ‘almost entirely wrong?'"

Comey:  "Yes."

The front page of the NY Times today and yesterday was very disturbing and conveyed a completely dishonest recounting of the Comey testimony.

President Trump responded to the media abuse by putting the NY Times at the back during today's joint presser. He called some of the media "killer networks" and asked if he should call on one of the fakes news outlets.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #86 

NSA, ODNI, FBI and DoJ tell Democrat hitman, John Warner, there was no interference by President Trump

Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) says the #FakeNews media attempts to construct a narrative about President Trump interfering with intelligence agencies and investigative agencies took a big hit today as Mike Rogers (NSA), Dan Coats (ODNI), Andrew McCabe (FBI) and Rod Rosenstein (DoJ) each took turns telling the Senate Intelligence Committee that President Trump never attempted to interfere with their efforts.

The entire construct of the "impeding with an investigation" narrative, part of the "muh vast Russian Conspiracy" begins to collapse.

Senator Warner relies on "press reports" from the #FakeNews media that have proven to be false or from "anonymous sources" to build his case.

He's on very thin ice.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #87 

Anderson Cooper thanked Reality Winner with signed picture

The FireAndreaMitchell blog is reporting that Anderson Cooper was apparently buddy-buddy with classified information leaker Reality Winner. He even signed a picture for Winner, thanking her "for her service." It turns out that "service" be the leaking of classified information. If Cooper was referring to her military ‘service,' that only includes being a linguist in the US Air Force. Winner spoke Muslim languages like Pashto, Farsi and Dari.


I'd sure like to know more about how close Anderson Cooper and Reality Winner are. I also wonder what other kind of classified information that Winner passed on to Anderson Cooper. Maybe she taught him to speak Farsi (Iranian). There is more to this story than just Reality Winner illegally leaking classified information. I'd like to know more about Reality Winner and Anderson Cooper's special relationship.

So, who is Reality Winner?

The Intercept published the top secret intelligence documents stolen by the 25-year old liberal, anti-Trumper, Reality Leigh Winner. Her Twitter and Facebook feeds are very left and very anti-Trump. Like most Millennials today, she has been indoctrinated and much of her mutterings on social media are ridiculous.

The stolen documents continue the Russian hacking narrative. If Putin is hacking elections, that is very serious, however, consider how the story is being used and the possible political motivations as well as the quality of the document(s).

Actually, does it matter? Our own people are leaking all our intel and threatening national security.

The Intercept story based on her leaked document, titled, TOP-SECRET NSA REPORT DETAILS RUSSIAN HACKING EFFORT DAYS BEFORE 2016 ELECTION, claims the documents show Russian military intelligence have engaged -- possibly successful -- in more extensive hacking efforts than we've previously been told.

The authors of the article admit, however: A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive.

The article assures the reader the report: states unequivocally in its summary statement that it was Russian military intelligence, specifically the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, that conducted the cyber attacks described in the document.

However, the word "likely" appears in the summary [emboldened by Sentinel]:

Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors … executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions. … The actors likely used data obtained from that operation to … launch a voter registration-themed spear-phishing campaign targeting U.S. local government organizations.

The NSA document that they uploaded and which appears to be legitimate is still unverified and, while it comes from an NSA agent, it is also hypothetical.

The Russian military -- ostensibly -- stole credentials and spearphished to breach the VR systems, a Florida-based vendor of electronic voting services and equipment whose products are used in eight states.

Popular Technology editor and computer analyst Andrew K forwarded the following in an email and it has merit but you decide:

Look at the graphic on the last page of the released NSA document and it says in the legend… "Yellow Line = Analyst Judgement"

The graphic with no verifiable evidence claims that the hackers (operators) were…"Probably within <- (Yellow Line) -> Russian GRU"

The rest of the document is filled with more hypothetical language that would be considered worthless by any competent cyber-security professional. The following is copied word for word from the document…

"…likely used data obtained from the operation to…"
"…potentially used to…"
"…presumably to…"
"…presumably with the purpose of…"
"…appeared to be designed to…"
"…probably trying to obtain…"
"It is unknown whether the aforementioned spear-fishing deployment successfully compromised all the intended victims, and what potential data from the victim could be exfiltrated."
"…it was likely that…"
"It[s] possible that…"
"This likely indicates…"
"…was not confirmed."
"…it was likely that…"
"It is unknown whether…"
"…an unknown payload…"
"…probably running…"
"The unknown payload very likely installs…"
"…it is unknown if there was…"
"…it was likely intended for…"
"…sent what appeared to be…"
"It appeared the threat actors intent was…"
"…presumably with the purpose of…"

Following is the graphic or view it here.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #88 

CNN -- the choreographed news network

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #89 

MSNBC host twice suggests Trump is trying to provoke a terrorist attack

Cristina Laila (GatewayPundit) is reporting that on two occasions, MSNBC crank, Thomas Roberts, said that POTUS Trump is trying to provoke a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in order to "prove himself right" about Islamic terrorism. One instance was during an interview with Atlanta mayor Kasim Reed and the second with former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.

In the first interview, Thomas Roberts said:

"The president doesn't want us to be politically correct, right? So let's not be PC about this. Is the president trying to provoke a domestic terrorist attack with this Twitter rant, because only to prove himself right?"

In his second interview with Howard Dean, Thomas Roberts said:

"I asked this of Mayor Reed, but it seems like the president is trying to provoke something that he can politicize more for his own gain in America. Do you feel that way?"

Howard Dean seemed a little uncomfortable as he laughed and responded, "I think he's incompetent."

It's a mystery as to what has caused the last 1400 years of Islamic terrorism. I'm sure tweets made the "prophet" Mohammed form a totalitarian death cult that called for the annihilation of non-believers. Yes, that's it!

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #90 

NBC lies!

The FireAndreaMitchell blog is reporting that NBC flat out lied in an earlier tweet promoting Megyn Kelly's interview with Vladimir Putin.

The now deleted tweet from NBC read:


The only problem is, Putin never said he has compromising information on President Trump.

In fact, he said the opposite. Putin denies having any information on Trump and called NBC and Megyn Kelly nonsense. So is this how NBC is planning to promote arrogant Megyn Kelly?

By flat out lying.


Did it get lost in the translation NBC? It seems as if NBC is competing with CNN for most dishonest news propaganda.

Megyn Kelly is a perfect fit for the liars at NBC.

Putin mocked the Democrats and the #FakeNewsMedia -- "Have you all lost your senses over there?"

Amy Moreno (TruthFeed) is reporting that Putin, like most of the world, is laughing at the nutty Democrats and lying liberal media who are feverishly pushing this phony "Trump-Russia" conspiracy theory to the point of absurdity.

After 8 long months of intense investigation, not one shred of evidence has been uncovered to cooperate the Democrats claims that President Trump concluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton.

During an interview with former Fox News diva, Megyn Kelly, Russian President Vladimir Putin mocked the Democrats and fake news media, asking "Have you all lost your senses over there?"

Well, not ALL of us -- From Breitbart:

In the interview, marking the inaugural episode of NBC News’ Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly, Putin faced a barrage of questions covering every aspect of the various allegations that Democrats and the media have made.

He dismissed any notion that he had a close relationship with former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, and mocked the idea that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, had nefarious dealings through the Russian ambassador:

For me, this is just amazing. You created a sensation out of nothing. And out of this sensation, you turned it into a weapon of war against the current president. Well, this is, you know, you’re just, you people are so creative over there. Good job. Your lives must be boring.

Later, the mockery became more intense:

Kelly: There have been questions in America about Donald Trump’s finances. He hasn’t released his tax returns. There have been questions about this secret Russian dossier, which he says is fake, but which purports to have blackmail information in it generated by the Russians. There have been questions about the communications between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign. All of which has Americans asking, "Do you have something damaging on our president?"

Putin: Well, this is just another load of nonsense. Where would we get this information from? Why, did we have some special relationship with him? We didn’t have any relationship at all. There was a time when he used to come to Moscow. But you know, I never met with him. We have a lot of Americans who visit us. Right now, I think we have representatives from a hundred American companies that have come to Russia. Do you think we’re gathering compromising information on all of them right now or something? Are you all, have you all lost your senses over there?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #91 

New York Times sets up top CIA agent for assassination


S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that The New York Times published the name of a top CIA operative handling Iranian operations on Friday. The information was leaked by CIA agents who know he is still undercover and who said they were speaking under the condition of anonymity.

Together, they set this man up for execution, possibly considering that collateral damage.

We've chosen not to name the agent.

As The Federalist's Bre Payton wrote:

...the paper's real reason for outing **** who was depicted as a character known only as "The Wolf" in the film "Zero Dark Thirty," is that he's an Iran hawk likely to oppose the previous administration's attempts to normalize the nation by giving it billions of dollars, trading it terrorists for hostages, and blessing its nuclear program.

The Times doesn't want President Trump to reverse what their beloved former president has set up.

Known as the Dark Prince, the Undertaker or Ayatollah Mike, he also led the drone program and oversaw the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

According to the Times they said they had the right to out the agent since they did so two years ago along with other news outlets -- but then he wasn't in the position he's in now.

This outed agent is obviously an agent who would be a prime target for assassination by those who hate us -- Iranians and others -- yet The New York Times posted his name anyway.

After posting the agent's name, they wrote he has a new job in charge of "the C.I.A.'s Iran operations, according to current and former intelligence officials, an appointment that is the first major sign that the Trump administration is invoking the hard line the president took against Iran during his campaign".

The Times wrote that the CIA and the CIA lawyer wouldn't even name him. The way the article is written, it appears they are trying to set him up for execution.

The article describes the more "muscular" approach the Trump administration is using against Iran and suggests we might be looking to "strike militants".

The article continues:

...a chain-smoking convert to Islam, who comes with an outsize reputation and the track record to back it up: Perhaps no single C.I.A. official is more responsible for weakening Al Qaeda.

Throughout the article, they mention his name over-and-over, and give details about who he is:

He grew up in Northern Virginia in a family whose ties to the C.I.A. span two generations. He met his wife, who is Muslim, on a C.I.A. posting overseas, and converted to Islam to marry her, though he is not known to be particularly observant.

As if the article didn't do enough to set the agent up for execution, they added that he set up the 9/11 interrogation program and "tortured prisoners," which was condemned in a Senate report in 2014 as "inhumane and ineffective".

They added that Imad Mugniyah, the international operations chief for Hezbollah, was killed. under his direction. As if The Times hadn't collected enough of the agent's enemies, they said he ramped up the "drone program inside Pakistan" and in Yemen, throwing in for good measure that the role he took impaired Al Qaeda.

The Times made him a target of any number of terrorists.

The CIA has been leaking to The Times and The Washington Post non-stop. What people should know is that The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos who also owns Amazon.

Amazon never made much of a profit until they illicitly won the CIA contract to set up their cloud computing in 2012.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #92 

CNN produces #FakeNews in London -- stages anti-ISIS Muslim protesters

Carter (GatewayPundit) is reporting that a video released a day after the Islamic terror attacks in London show a CNN crew staging a scene with Muslims holding signs saying "ISIS will lose."

The following is a screenshot of the signs:


The same crowd was used for the following AP post it appears -- note the man with green around his neck in both pictures. This is how fake news spreads.


CNN’s Abu Dhabi Managing Editor, Becky Anderson’s original video was posted to her official Twitter account where she called the London terrorists a "handful of twisted fools hell-bent on taking lives."

Below is a video of the behind-the-scenes work CNN did to stage the photo-op with Muslims holding up signs that read, "ISIS WILL LOSE."

The original post came from Mark Antro, a Londoner who captured the video:

Can you believe anything you see on CNN?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #93 

#FakeNews media spin -- what to look out for


Ryan Mauro (ClarionProject) says in the days immediately following the Manchester bombing, the perpetrator's family and mosque began trying to spin the media in a direction favorable to the Islamist narrative. There were three types of spins that are worth pointing out, as they are continually used by the Islamists and their apologists whenever they and their ideology come under scrutiny. We can assume we will be seeing these familiar spins in the coming days after the latest terror attack in London.

1.  Cry "Islamophobia" and claim anti-Muslim persecution

Islamists often honestly see "Islamophobia" and bigotry in the West everywhere, as they view the West as inherently anti-Islamic and hostile towards them. It's the best political example of projection if there ever was one.

At other times, Islamists simply lie and use false accusations of bigotry to defame their opponents and deter future ones.

This mindset was apparent in Salman Abedi from a young age. When he was a teenager, he and his friends filed a complaint against their teacher for being "Islamophobic." As the story goes (and we don't have the full story), the teacher asked the Arabic-speaking boys their opinion on suicide bombers.

Ironically enough, Abedi did express support for suicide bombers years later in college and then became one. We don't know how the conversation began in the classroom or what prompted the teacher to ask the question. It could very well have been an innocent attempt by the teacher to use the boys as an example that most Muslims don't support suicide bombings, or perhaps she was responding to their own initial raising of the topic.

Whatever the case may be, this is an important anecdote: A future suicide bomber, with a father linked to Libyan jihadists and a family that attends a radical mosque, said that questions about his opinions on suicide bombing are "Islamophobic."

In all likelihood, he knew this was the best way to shut down a conversation he didn't want to take place -- for his sake and the sake of others like him.

His father, Ramadan, likewise responded with this spin immediately after his former home in Manchester was raided. He started chastising British security personnel for being aggressive and scaring the neighbors. He claimed that the "security forces [are] doing something against the Libyan community, especially the youth there."

He even accused the British police of spreading a false rumor that there were explosives inside the home, as if they just wanted to cause panic. The father took a very reasonable expectation on the part of the British police that explosives would be inside a terrorism-linked home and spun it to mean that the British were purposely hyping the threat, demonizing the innocent and unnecessarily damaging private property.

Ramadan also went to work to protect the broader Islamist ideology that he almost certainly shares with his son. He claimed that Salman Abedi did not express any radical ideas or belong to any organizations. In other words, if his son committed a suicide bombing, he was driven by factors other than ideology.

It's hard to believe the father's claim since friends and community members reported his son to the authorities because he openly expressed support for terrorism and suicide bombing. Salmon Abedi wasn't exactly tight-lipped about his aspirations.

And we now know that the bomber's cousin made repeated postings on social media that expressed hostility towards the U.K., anti-Semitism and even a wish that Hitler were alive today so "these Jews would be burnt in chambers." This cousin posted pictures of himself with Salman. (The cousin is now under arrest.)

Ramadan, once the leader of the call to prayer at their mosque in Dinsbury, surely would have known about the time his son confronted their imam in front of an audience, accusing him of talking "bullocks" after the imam condemned ISIS and the Al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia in Libya. If that story is true and wasn't spread by the mosque's spinners, then it was a well-known incident and Ramadan lied.

There are reports that Ramadan was so concerned that his son might travel to join a terrorist group, that he took away Salman's passport. Salman got it back from his mother by saying he wanted to go to Saudi Arabia for the hajj, the pilgrimage required of Muslims. If the story is true and is not a tale from anonymous sources seeking to defend the parents' reputation, then Ramadan definitely lied.

Keep in mind, Salman died in the suicide bombing. Ramadan wasn't being a protective father trying to save a son from prosecution or shame. He is dead, along with the 22 innocents he murdered. Ramadan was just doing as Islamists do.

2.  It's always the fault of the West.

This is the common theme of Islamists. They may condemn ISIS and Al-Qaeda and terrorism of the sort we saw in Manchester, but the Islamist point-of-view (as well as that of many non-Muslim Westerners) is that it is our fault for triggering them. And so, without endorsing an attack, the Islamists and their apologists use such attacks to vindicate their political talking points and then use those points to excuse their ideology from carrying the bulk of the responsibility.

If you are an Islamist who believes in sharia governance and craves a caliphate, then you'll believe the root of the conflict is the West and its man-made, un-Islamic systems and societies that are inherently unjust and inevitably oppressive of Muslims.

Therefore, everything -- even actions you condemn like suicide bombings -- are simply an overreaction to the West's oppression, rather than a byproduct of the holy ideology that you believe reflects Allah's will.

From this perspective, if assigning responsibility to those radical beliefs is unavoidable, then cite those radical beliefs as evidence against the West and not against Islamism.

This is where conspiracy theories come in. Ramadan, the father of the Manchester bomber, immediately began asserting that a "hidden hand" orchestrated the bombing. That's a subtler way of pointing the finger at a global Zionist conspiracy against Islam.

The bomber's sister, Jomana, reflexively responded to the identifying of her brother by suggesting that he was triggered because he saw Muslim children "dying everywhere." She said she believed "he saw the explosives that America drops on children in Syria and he wanted revenge;" a depiction of the U.S. as the "Great Satan" that she did not distance herself from.

Note that she didn't even claim that he said this. She was being asked about whether anything she experienced with her brother might explain his rationale. She could have left it at "no" and stopped. Instead, she used the opportunity to become an activist and influence the media to print a report that would make readers blame the West as the root cause.

This is what Islamists always do when atrocities are committed against the West -- they paint them as misguided freedom fighters struggling for liberation from Western imperialism. They just leave out those uncomfortable parts about believing that dying in jihad is the guaranteed ticket to paradise and that they believe Muslims must wage jihad for the sake of theocratic sharia law until global conquest is achieved.

But what about the West's gross mistreatment of Muslims in non-Muslim democracies?

A 2016 poll of British Muslims debunks that line of spin. British-Muslims have a higher-than-average sense of belonging to their local area and Britain as a country. British-Muslims are also more likely to feel that their local MP represents their interests and that they can impact the decision-making process.

About 94% say they feel they can freely practice their religion and 88% say that Britain is a good place for Muslims to believe.

Yet, despite this widespread acknowledgement from British-Muslims that the U.K. treats them very well, only one-third would report a Muslim suspected of involvement with terrorists in Syria. Nearly a quarter support having sharia Law replace British law.

A little more than half want to outlaw homosexuality. About one-third won't condemn those who violently retaliate against those who mock their prophet. Only about five percent admitted having some sympathy for suicide bombers and terrorists, but those terms are relative and many jihadists disagree with the tactic of suicide bombing.

To sum things up, don't buy the Islamist spin that the root cause of jihad-driven atrocities is Western imperialism overseas or anti-Muslim persecution at home.

3.  The jihadists' mosque is part of the solution, not the problem.

Salman Abedi, his family and at least two other ISIS recruits worshipped at the Dinsbury Mosque, also known as the Manchester Islamic Center. As I discussed in my article about five lessons to learn from the Manchester bombing, the mosque has a long history of extremism.

The mosque brought in guest speakers widely known for advocating many of the horrid things that ISIS and Al-Qaeda do and believe in. It was recently found that the mosque's YouTube channel still hosts videos from these guest speakers' lectures.

And new information has also come out about the bomber's father -- who led for the call to prayer for years– associating with a radical Libyan cleric, Sadiq Al-Ghariani.

Almost instantaneously, anonymous sources told the media that the imam's supposed moderation had drawn the ire of Abedi. The imam confirmed the account, saying he saw Abedi's "face of hate" and how much the future bomber disliked him.

It's worth pointing out here that the imam's account directly contradicts the account of Abedi's father, who said his son never expressed extremism. Someone is lying. The Islamist spin machine wasn't on the same page.

It is claimed that a small number of attendees at the imam's speech against ISIS and Ansar al-Sharia were so upset that they signed a petition against the lecture. That would be a list of admitted supporters of ISIS and Ansar al-Sharia. That is critical, hard-to-come-by intelligence for the authorities. The mosque and none of these anonymous sources ever even alleged that the list was reported.

Then some media reports escalated the story to say that Abedi was banned from the mosque -- something you'd assume that the imam and mosque would have immediately disclosed to exonerate themselves.

And then media reports emerged that the mosque reported Abedi's extremism to the authorities. Again, something you'd assume the mosque leadership would have immediately said.

The Telegraph then reported, "A well-placed source at Didsbury Mosque confirmed it had contacted" the authorities about Abedi. It turns out that these mosque sources were lying. Flat-out lying.

The mosque just confirmed that they did not report him to the authorities.

A 2016 poll of British Muslims found that only 34% would report a Muslim they thought was getting involved with terrorists in Syria. The mosque's non-reporting of Abedi is enraging to most of us -- but it's the popular position in the British Muslim community, as per the poll results.

So where did these reports come from? Spinners with an agenda that they felt was more important than the truth.

Mosque trustee Fawzi Haffar admitted, "We have a lot to learn, have to be more conscious." He claimed that three attendees were reported two years ago and that the mosque would implement "proper policies" against extremism.

It's the year 2017. If you aren't proactive against extremism by now, then you simply don't desire to be. There's been enough bloodshed that any lack of action can only be accurately interpreted as indifference.

If you think that analysis is too harsh, consider this: This same mosque trustee, appearing so humble and ashamed and committed to a stronger fight against extremism, has sent out anti-Semitic tweets. Those were found shortly after he boasted of his mosque's "interfaith dialogues."

The bomber's father did his part, as well. He told the media, "We do not believe in killing innocents. This is not us." He was using the typical Islamist wordsmithing when asked about terrorism. Yet no jihadist considers his victims to be "innocent."

The statement implies that Ramadan Abedi views those who died at the Manchester Arena as innocent and perhaps that is so -- but that is not a rejection of violent jihad against the enemies of his ideology. After all, he is an open supporter of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, so he obviously doesn't consider their targets to be innocent.

The Islamists are practiced in the art of media spin. And there is much to spin.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #94 

NBC refuses to show Trump's tweets


The FireAndreaMitchell blog is reporting that NBC has announced on Twitter that they will not show any information or condolences sent by POTUS Donald Trump because they are a Left wing hack propaganda, not news organization.

NBC will not show you this tweet from Trump (or others):


We always help out countries that suffer from Islamic terrorist attack like what happened in London tonight. But NBC doesn’t want you to know that. That would kill NBC’s bogus Russian conspiracy theories.

Even after a major terrorist attack like what happened in London, NBC and their arrogance can’t put politics aside for even one second. This is quite a difference from Brian Williams bowing to Obama.

And, of course CNN is on board.

Reza Aslan, ostensibly a "religious scholar" adds his two cents:


Some stable at CNN.

The other day CNN's Kathy Griffin encouraged the murder of President Trump and now CNN's "religious scholar" slurs our president with this ugly comment.

These are the people that are constantly accusing conservatives as haters.

The Left has a real problem with projection.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Joe Kidd

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 20
Reply with quote  #95 
Попа вызов
NRA Lifer

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
Thomas Jefferson

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #96 

NBC’s Megyn Kelly dresses like cheap hooker for Putin interview

Kristinn Taylor (GatewayPundit) is reporting that NBC News starlet Megyn Kelly dressed like a cheap hooker for her interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin that is scheduled to air on Sunday.

A publicity photo shows Kelly interviewing Putin while wearing a low-cut, off the shoulder blue velvet dress that is slit to mid-thigh, accented by black open-toe shoes with stiletto heels.


Well, it's clear to me that Kelly wants to be a serious "journalist."


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #97 

What is the Washington Post hiding about its Jared Kushner story?


Richard Pollock (DailyCaller) is reporting that the Washington Post editors refuse to publicly release the smoking gun "anonymous letter" that serves as the foundation of their sensational charge that White House advisor Jared Kushner sought a secret, back-channel to Russian officials.

The "anonymous letter" was part of a front-page article claiming the president's son-in-law sought to set up a private communications channel to Russian officials during a discussion with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The piece was published Sunday and received high profile coverage throughout the long Memorial Day weekend.

"The Post was first alerted in mid-December to the meeting by an anonymous letter, which said, among other things, that Kushner had talked to Kislyak about setting up the communications channel," the article's three authors stated.

WaPo also claimed American intelligence agencies discovered the ploy through an intercepted open phone call by Kislyak to Moscow. Observers have noted that Kislyak, a seasoned spy, made the phone call on an "open line," and therefore knew it was likely to be intercepted.

To date, there has been no independent verification the letter is real or that WaPo's description of its contents is accurate. The Washington Post editors also never explain why they withheld the letter.

The Daily Caller News Foundation's Investigative Group contacted The Post's national desk over the weekend, seeking a copy of the letter and an explanation why their editors withheld it from the public. WaPo did not reply to either TheDCNF's email or phone inquiries.

The question is, what is The Washington Post hiding?

The story is weakened further since its reporters only cite unnamed government officials to confirm the anonymous letter's charges.

WaPo stated the letter's allegations were affirmed by unnamed officials "who reviewed the letter and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence."

As a general rule, TheDCNF does not post documents if it endangers genuine whistleblowers, ongoing law enforcement or military operations, human life, or public safety.

Otherwise, TheDCNF emphasizes openness and transparency, which is especially important for original source documents related to its articles. And if it does not publicly link a document, it explicitly explains to readers the reasons why it has not released a key document.

The Post's secrecy has produced its doubters. Over the weekend, Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who serves on the Senate Committees on Armed Services and the Judiciary, said he believed The Post's account was bogus.

"I don't trust this story as far as I can throw it," the South Carolina Republican said on CNN's "State of the Union."

Graham, who served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence between 2007 to 2009, doubted the Russian Ambassador would transmit the Kushner proposal via an open line, saying it "made no sense" since Kislyak would know U.S. intelligence authorities were monitoring the communication.

"I don't know who leaked this information, but just think about it this way -- you've got the ambassador of Russia reporting back to Moscow on an open channel, 'Hey, Jared Kushner's going to move into the embassy,'" Graham said on CNN.

Former U.S. Attorney Joseph DiGenova told TheDCNF other unreleased parts of the letter could undermine the entire Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy.

"Here's the problem: we don't know what else is in the letter. The letter may be so outrageous in its claims that if we read it all, it would throw doubt onto this particular allegation. And it may very well be that the letter is so scurrilous and outrageous that they won't release it because it will make them look bad for relying on it at all," he told TheDCNF in an interview.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan government watchdog group dedicated to openness and transparency, said he thought there could be references that show the letter's author had a partisan agenda, which WaPo reporters wanted to hide.

"Are they coloring their documents in any way?" he asked during an interview with TheDCNF. "The way you figure that out is whether they disclose their politics or their agendas. We don't know if the characterization of the underlying documents is accurate or if it's being slanted."

Former Air Force Col. James Waurishuk, a senior intelligence and political-military affairs advisor who served on the National Security Council and worked with news organizations, told TheDCNF journalistic integrity has evaporated in Washington.

"We've been turning the corner for some time on journalistic integrity. I remember in my career a time when a press organization would not release anything to jeopardize a source, jeopardizing a military operation or some ongoing political dialogue. I think those days are gone," he told TheDCNF.

Another issue testing the credibility of mainstream news organizations is a May 16 New York Times article claiming a memo former FBI Director James Comey wrote revealed President Donald Trump asked him to drop his investigation of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

But The NYTimes never possessed the Comey memo. According to the newspaper, "The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey's associates read parts of it to a Times reporter."

Fitton faulted The Times on the Comey memos.

"I've released documents for decades," he said. "I could never get a reporter to write a story from a document that I'm reading to them without providing them with the full document."

Brant Houston, who for a decade was the executive editor of the nonprofit Investigative Reporters and Editors, told TheDCNF that in the end, it's up to readers to decide if anonymous sources or unseen documents appear credible.

"The great thing about journalism is it's out there for everybody to see. Readers, viewers and fellow journalists will make their own judgments as to whether uses of anonymity was the appropriate thing to do," he said.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #98 

Presidential historian Doug Wead provides perspective about past presidents who used back channels

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #99 

#FakeNews media's anti-Trump propaganda machine


TruthFeed says that how the fake news mainstream media operates to smear President Trump is not complicated.

Everyone with half a brain sees what is going on.

We see the agenda.

They spin every story to be negative and don't cover anything that contradicts their "Evil Trump" narrative.

Now, there are hard numbers to prove what we've all known all along.

From FederalistPapers

Robert Gehl reports that a new Harvard study confirms what we already knew: there is rampant anti-Trump bias in the media.

It's so bad, in fact, that at most major outlets, more than 90 percent of all the coverage is negative.

At CNN the coverage was 93 percent negative, at NBC it was 93 percent, and at CBS it was 91 percent.

The only thing close to "balanced" news was over at Fox News, and there, the coverage was still 52 percent negative.

The study -- called "News Coverage of Donald Trump's First 100 Days" -- was done by Harvard's Kennedy School Shroenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. To determine the percentages, the school obtained data from a group called Media Tenor, which codes media according to topic, source, and tone. They analyzed the top shows, like CNN's Situation Room, CBS Evening News, Fox's Special Report, and NBC Nightly News. It did not analyze the talk show coverage. They also covered newspapers.

The three major print media, the New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal, were slightly more balanced than their broadcast counterparts, The Daily Caller reports.

The Journal was the most balanced, but still had 70 percent negative coverage.

The topic that received the most balanced coverage was the economy at 54 percent negative. Terrorism received 70 percent negative coverage.

Another major part of Harvard's study compared Trump's coverage to that of the three previous presidents, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton.

Trump received 80 percent negative coverage, whereas Obama, Bush, and Clinton received 41 percent, 57 percent, and 60 percent, respectively.

"The media needs different narrative frames -- not just an antagonistic one," Nicco Mele, director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. "But it is important to realize this is not just about Trump. The media's overwhelmingly negative coverage of Trump speaks to a bias for negative coverage."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #100 

Liberal law-professor, Alan Dershowitz, says attacks on Trump administration "sound like Joseph Stalin"

S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that the iconic liberal law professor, Alan Dershowitz, lectured his former Harvard student Jeffrey Tobin:

"I don’t like investigations to start...hoping we’ll find something. It sounds like Lavrentiy Beria and Joseph Stalin."

There is no basis for a criminal investigation, he said.

Jeffrey Tobin and Carl Bernstein tried to say harmless talk during the campaign is a basis for a criminal fishing expedition.

Tobin thinks that because Trump said on the campaign trail that he thought Wikileaks was doing a good job, it suggests he's colluding with Russia.

Huh? What?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved