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
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 5      1   2   3   4   Next   »
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #1 

CNN's Zakaria says the U.S. is "becoming irrelevant" under Trump

pic443.jpg

Pam Key (Breitbart) is reporting that Sunday on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS," host Fareed Zakaria said that under the leadership of President Donald Trump, America was "becoming irrelevant" to the rest of the world.

He said, "The world has gone through bouts of anti-Americanism before. But this one feels very different. First, there is the sheer shock at what is going on, the bizarre candidacy of Donald Trump, which has been followed by an utterly chaotic presidency."

Citing a recent Pew study, he continued, "People around the world increasingly believe that they can make do without America. Trump's presidency has made the U.S. something worse than being feared or derided. It is becoming irrelevant."

He added, "In 2008, I wrote a book about the emerging 'Post-American World,' which, I noted at the start, was not about the decline of America, but rather about the rise of the rest. Amid the parochialism, ineptitude and sheer disarray of the Trump presidency, the post-American world is coming to fruition much faster than I ever expected."

Zakaria has it wrong.

It is he and CNN that have become irrelevant. His opinions are absurd and driven by his leftism, not reality.

It's almost like saying it's true will make it so.



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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #2 

Trump dossier creators worked with #FakeNews media outlets now giving Fusion GPS a pass

pic442.jpg

Peter Hasson (DailyCaller) is reporting that the opposition research firm behind the infamous Trump dossier, Fusion GPS, worked with several prominent media outlets to spread dirt on President Trump's alleged ties to Russia. Those same media outlets, which have enthusiastically pounced on every new detail regarding the Russia investigation, have been oddly disinterested in probing into the crucial role of Fusion GPS.

The British spy Fusion GPS hired to craft the dossier, Christopher Steele, leaned on anonymous Russian sources in crafting the dossier for Fusion GPS. Steele's lawyers revealed in court filings that, in September 2016, Steele briefed reporters from The New York Times, The Washington Post, Yahoo! News, The New Yorker and CNN on behalf of Fusion GPS. Steele later held another meeting with reporters from the NYT, WaPo and Yahoo. The lawyers said that Fusion GPS attended these meetings with reporters and Steele, as TheDC's Chuck Ross pointed out.

Fusion GPS, which is headed up by former Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn Simpson, was working for a Democratic ally of Hillary Clinton at that time, although that ally's name is not publicly known.

Those same media outlets that worked with Fusion GPS to receive information on the Republican nominee now appear to be helping Fusion GPS stay out of the public spotlight.

A British-American businessman previously targeted by Fusion GPS, Bill Browder, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday that "in the Spring and Summer of 2016 they [Fusion GPS] were receiving money indirectly from a senior Russian government official" for their work to undermine the Magnitsky Act, a human rights law fiercely opposed by Putin that sanctions Russian criminals. At the same time that Fusion GPS was crafting the dossier allegedly exposing the Trump campaign's collusion with the Russian government, they were also working to advance Russian interests, according to Browder's testimony.

Browder told the committee that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the same Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort at Trump Tower during the campaign, "hired Glenn Simpson of the firm Fusion GPS to conduct a smear campaign against me and Sergei Magnitsky in advance of congressional hearings on the Global Magnitsky Act." The law is named for Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who represented Browder before Russian authorities jailed and killed him after he exposed a massive fraud scheme.

Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel argued that Browder's testimony raises the question of whether Russian operatives could have purposefully misled Steele into publishing false allegations of Trump's Russia ties for the purpose of sowing discord into American politics. Strassel wrote:

"If the Russian intention was to sow chaos in the American political system, few things could have been more effective than that dossier, which ramped up an FBI investigation and sparked congressional probes and a special counsel, deeply wounding the president. This is all to Mr. Putin's benefit, and the question is whether Russia engineered it."

Strassel is one of the few establishment media sources willing to ask hard questions about Simpson and Fusion GPS.

The NYT, WaPo and CNN have all appeared disinterested in digging into Fusion GPS' shady ties. The three outlets have combined for zero articles mentioning Fusion GPS since Browder's testimony, despite the explosive allegations contained within it.

The only mention of Fusion GPS on CNN after Browder's testimony on Thursday (and in the days since) came from Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who went out of his way in an interview Thursday morning to stress the seriousness of the matter, despite CNN asking zero questions about Fusion GPS. Graham said:

"Fusion GPS was on the payroll, apparently, according to this guy of the Russian government. And I want to know what they did in terms of trying to compromise Donald Trump, who is now our president. So what should we learn from all of this? That the Russians were involved on both sides, they definitely tried to tip the scale against Clinton and for Trump. But the Fusion GPS organization that was trying to get the goods on Donald Trump was backed by the Russians."

CNN reporter Manu Raju tried to steer Graham back to talking about Trump, asking a question about Donald Trump Jr., but Graham returned to the subject to emphasize just how grave he believed the Fusion GPS situation to be. Graham said:

"The GPS, Fusion GPS situation, the guy's not coming. If we have to subpoena the people at Fusion GPS, we need to subpoena them. Because Mr. Browder has now accused them of -- working for the Russians -- and at the end of the day, if that's true, the Democratic Party is working with somebody who was working with the Russians, whether they knew it or not."

CNN's next question changed the topic to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.



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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #3 

The totalitarian media -- destroying the First Amendment

pic436.jpg

Daniel Greenfield (DirectorBlue) says once upon a time there was a liberal media. Like most left-leaning institutions it worked hard to prove its progressive premises. Democrats were good and Republicans bad. The police and the military were bad. Social welfare spending and diplomacy were good. Israel was bad and the PLO was good.

This was the thing we used to nostalgically call media bias.

We aren't dealing with a liberal media anymore, but an illiberal media. The liberal media was content to use its institutional power as a megaphone to broadcast its views. But you could debate those views. Actual conservatives were allowed to write columns, and not just as a strategic attack on some element of the GOP the way it is now, and appear on television to offer opinions, and not just as punching bags.

The liberal media was convinced it would win the argument because it was right.

The illiberal media isn't interested in winning an argument, but in silencing the opposition. It doesn't just want to shout louder than you. It wants to use its institutional power to shut you up.

This isn't just a media phenomenon. It's what happened across the social spectrum when the people we used to call liberals became illiberal leftists. It's why colleges censor controversial speakers and punish dissenting faculty. It's why the environmental debate went from scientific discussions to calls to punish, fine and even jail those who question the left's Luddite alarmism on Global Warming.

It's why the debate over gay marriage shifted to punishing Christian bakers and florists, the arguments about Israel tilted to preventing musicians from performing in Tel Aviv and civil rights turned into a call to create "safe spaces" that ban everyone else. Diversity is no longer dressed up as an expansion, but is now explicitly a contraction. Don't read books by white authors. Don't hire more men. Kick Jews out of the gay rights rally. Send the IRS after conservative groups. Punch a Trump supporter in the face.

Nearly every leftist cause these days is expressed by punishing someone. Arguments are won by force. The illiberal totalitarian lurking inside the liberal, as David Horowitz described it, is out of the closet.

It's a lot easier to spot illiberalism in the press and academia because they depend on the free exchange of ideas. It's hard to spot creeping totalitarianism at the DMV or in any government bureaucracy. But it's really easy to see the change on a college campus or in the pages of your local newspaper.

And that's where the iron curtain truly falls on the First Amendment.

The modern campus is mired in trigger warnings and safe spaces. Faculty and administrators are lynched, buildings are burned, students are assaulted and dissent is ruthlessly silenced.

After the election, the media launched a purge of conservative voices from social media and the internet under the guise of fighting "fake news". The meme quickly rebounded against it, but it succeeded in embedding partisan media "fact checkers" into Google and Facebook. Many of the pitched battles fought by the press corps against the White House were about closing access to conservative media.

The media was using its institutional power to impose a monopoly on the press even while wrapping its struggles with the White House in the tattered shreds of the First Amendment. The liberal media disdained conservative voices. The illiberal media had set out to silence them. Its pretext was that an unregulated press was a danger to democracy. Fake News was an emergency that justified censorship.

Stripped of all the niceties, the media responded to losing a democratic election by censoring the press. It launched this attack on the First Amendment under the guise of an institutional monopoly on the press. Only the media gets to decide who is a journalist. Or which outlets have the right to operate.

Within a few short years, leftist illiberalism had tossed out support for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. Freedom of Assembly came under fire from the Mayor of Portland who attempted to shut down a rally. The assault on Freedom of the Press knocks out the entire First Amendment.

The liberal media was biased. The illiberal media is totalitarian.

These days you can find a New York Times op-ed piece arguing that offensive speech is a form of violence and should be banned. Who decides what offensive speech is? The illiberal left.

The leftward tilt of the Democrats doesn't just mean policy differences like embracing socialized medicine and free college. The left is a totalitarian movement. And that means a whole new set of rules. The goal of leftist institutions is to consolidate authority and eliminate dissent. They will do so procedurally if they can and by force if they can't. If they can't ban it, they will beat it to death.

The media is no longer just in the messaging business. Instead its mission is to consolidate control over messaging by banning or eliminating sites that don't share its political agenda. Its larger agenda is to help the other arms of the left consolidate control over their arenas, whether it's politics, academia or corporate boards, by pushing the same totalitarian controls that would eliminate dissent.

The liberal media was an illegitimate institutional trust. It benefited from monopolistic power, but it was not actively trying to win the argument by destroying the opposition. Instead it assumed that it would gradually influence people and discredit its opponents. The illiberal media doesn't set out to argue, it denounces, it calls for urgent action and swift measures to resolve an endless series of crises. These crises, ranging from Islamophobia to the destruction of the planet, must be solved yesterday. Constitutional niceties, whether it be democracy or freedom of speech, can't be allowed to interfere.

This Reichstag fire political tone is ominously totalitarian. It justifies and advocates for tyranny. It ignores opposing points of view where it can and demands their criminalization where it can't. Its native tongue is xenophobic contempt. Its editorials demand the eradication of opposition to proper progressive goals.

The liberal media undermined freedom. The illiberal media is openly at war with it.

Trump's victory drove the left into a state of permanent emergency. This state of emergency has justified unconstitutional judicial coups, state secessionism, street violence and political censorship.

Free societies turn totalitarian when civic institutions seize power to protect certain values which become reducible to themselves. Federal judges usurp the President of the United States and claim that they are protecting the Constitution by flagrantly abusing it. Unelected institutions claiming to safeguard the country from the danger of free elections is a classic form of the totalitarian takeover.

But the media's insistence that it is the institution that embodies the First Amendment is even more dangerous. The media claims that any criticism of it endangers the First Amendment. This is a perverse reversal of the First Amendment which protects the freedom to criticize politicians and institutions.

The media treats the First Amendment as an exclusive institutional power whose role is not to open dialogue, but to close it. As the guardians of the First, the media has the authority to decide who should and should not be allowed to speak. And that way lies the end of the First Amendment.

The totalitarian left isn't protecting the First Amendment. It's destroying it.



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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #4 

CNN in turmoil -- Blizter calls out Gloria Borger bad sources

Pacific Pundit says watching one of the media’s favorite leakers get fired (Reince Priebus) has been entertaining. For instance, check out CNN in turmoil as Wolf Blitzer and Gloria Borger, two left wing #FakeNews hacks argue about "bad sources."

In liberal CNN land, there is no such thing as good sources or bad sources, only "anonymous" sources. One of their sources, Reince Priebus got fired today.

Joshua Caplan (GatewayPundit) says you’ve got to love it when CNN eats itself. Things became quite awkward Friday evening when CNN's Wolf Blitzer ripped Gloria Borger for having bad sources.

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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #5 

CNN producer admits the network doesn't allow opposing views

Christine Laila (GatewayPundit) is reporting that James O'Keefe has released several undercover videos from his "American Pravda" series with CNN. O'Keefe says his goal is to expose the real motivation behind the decision making process in our dominant media corporation.

Another undercover video was released Wednesday exposing CNN's bias when it comes to covering issues such as abortion and transgenders.

John Bonifield is the same CNN producer out of Atlanta, GA who was in the first video O'Keefe released in late June.

In the first bombshell video, John Bonifield admitted the Trump-Russia story is B.S. but they continue to push the false narrative for ‘ratings'.

In Wednesday's video, John Bonifield admits CNN does a poor job reaching out to people with different opinions on transgender bathrooms or abortion. Even worse, if they do have people on with a different opinion, Bonifield admits they are interrogated and demeaned.

"I think CNN to some degree does a poor job reaching out to those voices and giving them a fair crack at the whip." Bonifield said.

Following the news of President Trump banning transgenders from serving in the United States military, liberals took to Twitter to lash out at the announcement.

You'll notice not one individual provided any study or report supporting the idea that  transgenders serving in the armed forces contributes to its overall success.

Many Hollywood celebrities were still asleep when the news broke (or hung over), but have since taken to Twitter to blast the President.

All of these ultra liberal lunatics will get airtime expressing their anger towards President Trump's military transgender ban, yet the MSM will ignore actual combat vets who have differing opinions.

J.R. Salzman, an amputee Iraq War veteran, took to Twitter to defend the decision of President Trump's military transgender ban and the thread is going viral!

pic421.jpg

Read his full tweetstorm here.



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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #6 

This is how Democrats have weaponized #FakeNews

pic412.jpg

Truth Feed News says that by now, most Americans are acutely aware of the fact that the mainstream media, even media outlets geared towards conservatives, have been actively pushing and reporting "fake news," but the term has been thrown around so often lately that it's often seen as more of a joke than the serious threat that it really is.

The term #FakeNews has been around for a long time, but was widely introduced to most people after President Trump used it to describe the biased and agenda-driven tactics of the American mainstream media, who had been entrenched in an ongoing and relentless smear campaign against him.

Since being mentioned by President Trump, the concept which was initially met with a degree of mockery and eye rolling, has now become synonymous with the mainstream media, particularly the network CNN, after repeated examples of their fraudulent reporting and outright lying has come to light.

The media's involvement in lying to the public isn't a new thing by any means, but never before in modern history has the mainstream media been so blatantly biased against the President of the United States, nor have they been so brazen in their insulting lies to the American people. In fact, despite knowing that the average American distrusts them, they've made absolutely no attempt to regain any credibility, and have continued to double down on their unbelievable lies.

The sad truth is that the media is a tool, and although it leans left traditionally, it is more of a tool of the establishment elites who rule the country using shadowy tactics and a false "left/right" paradigm that has worked for decades, and their job is simple, to confuse the People, tell them what the elites want them to hear, and keep them in a state of brainwashed submission.

That tactic worked for quite a while, as people had gotten to the point of blind obedience, and never questioned what CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or any other media networks told them to think- unfortunately for them, Donald Trump completely exposed them to the average American for the liars they truly are, and it's been a downhill spiral ever since.

Despite being thoroughly exposed as the propagandists they are, the mainstream media had no intentions of stopping, and fully embraced their role, swearing vengeance on President Trump, and have relentlessly attacked him nonstop since before the results of the election were even in.

In fact, the media has become so desperate and pathetic, they're not even able to come up with believable propaganda and lies, and have instead relied on a debunked "Russian collusion" narrative, that Americans do not believe or even care about, in their efforts to portray President Trump as a foreign enemy, a Kremlin-puppet, and a usurper of the White House. Though their efforts have largely failed, they have managed to whip dejected Democrats and progressive liberals into an absolute conspiracy theory-driven frenzy, and with dangerous results.

Herein lies the real problem, which is far more sinister and dangerous than most have fully realized. The media has used fake news to actually urge and encourage violence against President Trump and his supporters, and their divisive and violent rhetoric has been behind numerous attacks on conservatives, including the politically motivated shooting of Republican lawmaker Steve Scalise.

Fake news is not just annoying or subversive, it's extremely dangerous, having lead to violence already, but although the media is acutely aware of this, they continue to use the tactic.  Clearly they are actively trying to achieve their desires of "removing" President Trump by any means necessary, and at this point, it is obvious that they would love nothing more than to actually get our America First president assassinated.

This goes far beyond a liberal bias, or spite, and it's not about "whose candidate won or lost," it's about the entirety of the "free" press in America actively engaging in a blatant attempt to dispose of the President of the United States by using lies and psychological tricks in order to turn people against him, or even have him killed.

Subtle things, like superimposing a Russian flag behind President Trump or his family, is all carefully thought out and designed to influence the hordes of unhinged liberals who are already extremely mentally disturbed, in hopes that one of them will "resist" a little more than the rest, and end up taking a page from John Wilkes Booth.



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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #7 

Jared Kushner rebuts #FakeNews accounts of his contacts with Russians

pic400.jpg

Joseph Klein (FrontPage) says innuendos and wild speculation passing as "objective" reporting, based on leaks from anonymous sources, have become the stock in trade of the fake media.  Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, has been one of the principal targets of the media campaign to discredit the Trump administration. Silent for months in the face of mounting speculation of his possible role in alleged collusion of the Trump campaign with Russia, Kushner has finally sought to set the record straight. This week he is meeting with congressional staffers and lawmakers to discuss in detail his activities during the campaign and transition periods, particularly his contacts with Russian officials.

In a statement issued ahead of his closed-door interview with Senate intelligence committee staffers, Kushner said, "I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government. I had no improper contacts. I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector." He provided details on several contacts he had with Russians during his father-in-law's campaign and transition, none of which he deemed to be improper.

Kushner's statement provides valuable context to the meetings in which he participated.  He pointed out that during the course of the campaign, he had contacts with people from approximately 15 countries, noting that he "must have received thousands of calls, letters and emails from people looking to talk or meet on a variety of issues and topics, including hundreds from outside the United States."  Russia was one of those countries.

Kushner recalled his first contact with Russia's ambassador to the United States as having occurred at the Washington, D.C. Mayflower Hotel in April 2016. His father-in-law, then-candidate Donald Trump, was giving a major foreign policy speech.

Some in the media have sought to portray Attorney General Jeff Sessions' own brief encounter with the Russian ambassador to the United States at the Mayflower Hotel as something more sinister than it really was. NBC breathlessly reported last month that Kushner too was involved in the encounter, along with then-candidate Donald Trump. Citing "multiple" anonymous sources, NBC said they were part of "a small gathering with Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak and other diplomats at Washington's Mayflower Hotel." NBC further characterized this gathering as "some sort of private encounter."

Kushner explained that he was overseeing the logistics for his father-in-law's Mayflower Hotel speech. He then stopped into a reception to thank the host of the event, who introduced Kushner to several guests, among them four ambassadors, including Russian Ambassador Kislyak. Kushner recalled that he shook hands with the ambassadors, including Ambassador Kislyak, and exchanged pleasantries. "Each exchange lasted less than a minute," Kushner said, adding that "some gave me their business cards and invited me to lunch at their embassies. I never took them up on any of these invitations and that was the extent of the interactions."

Kushner's account is backed by reporting in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the Mayflower event. NBC's effort to dredge up the encounter more than a year later and imply that it was possible evidence of collusion is yet another example of fake news.

The only other time that Kushner recalls meeting with Ambassador Kislyak occurred during the transition period following the election. The meeting took place in Trump Tower, and lasted between twenty and thirty minutes. Lt. General Michael Flynn (Ret.), who had been named President-elect Trump's National Security Advisor, also attended.

In May of this year, the Washington Post published an article, pounced on by CNN, which claimed that Kushner had proposed setting up a secret channel of communication with Russia during the transition. The report cited unidentified sources briefed on intelligence matters, including what were described as intercepts of conversations between Russia's ambassador and Moscow. To his credit, one of the Washington Postreporters acknowledged the obvious fact that Russians do sometimes exaggerate in their reports to their superiors. However, CNN cited its own unidentified source claiming that the "transition team was looking for ways to establish a back channel to Putin."

Jared Kushner explained in his statement that he had asked Russian Ambassador Kislyak to identify the best person with whom to have direct discussions and who had contact with President Vladimir Putin. According to Kushner, it was the ambassador who initiated a more specific discussion about whether a secure line could be set up in the transition office to enable Russian "generals" to convey information on matters of mutual concern, including Syria. As there was not any such secure line, Kushner asked the ambassador "if they had an existing communications channel at his embassy we could use where they would be comfortable transmitting the information they wanted to relay to General Flynn." The ambassador said that would not be possible, after which they all agreed to defer the matter until after the inauguration.

"Nothing else occurred," Kushner said. "I did not suggest a 'secret back channel.' I did not suggest an on-going secret form of communication for then or for when the administration took office. I did not raise the possibility of using the embassy or any other Russian facility for any purpose other than this one possible conversation in the transition period. We did not discuss sanctions."

Most importantly, this meeting at which the idea of a secure communications line was raised occurred after Donald Trump had already won the election. The discussion was aimed at figuring out how sensitive information of potential use to the incoming administration could be securely transmitted. That should be no surprise, as President Trump had talked about opening up possible opportunities for cooperation with Russia in fighting ISIS all during the campaign. Nevertheless, the Washington Post and CNN appeared to be trying to use a perfectly normal discussion between the Russian ambassador and the president-elect's senior advisor to support their overall conspiratorial narrative.

Kushner also pushed back at a Reuters story claiming that Kushner had two calls with Ambassador Kislyak at some time between April and November of 2016. Kushner referred in his statement to a comprehensive review he said was conducted of his telephone records from the relevant time period. The review did not reveal any such calls, according to Kushner's statement.

"Through my lawyer, I have asked Reuters to provide the dates on which the calls supposedly occurred or the phone number at which I supposedly reached, or was reached by, Ambassador Kislyak," Kushner added. "The journalist refused to provide any corroborating evidence that they occurred." Unless Reuters provides hard evidence backing up its story, it will serve as another example of media willing to publish fake news in order to undermine the Trump presidency.

Kushner also described his presence at the June 9, 2016 meeting with the infamous Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, also attended by Donald Trump Jr., then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and several other people. CNN in particular has been reporting on this meeting incessantly. It intimated a cover-up, citing Kushner's failure to originally disclose this meeting and other contacts he had with Russian officials in his initial security clearance application. "Who do you have to protect? You have to protect the guy who filled out the form saying I never took this meeting," one of CNN's unnamed sources said.

Kushner had a simple, credible explanation for the oversight. His involvement in the meeting was too inconsequential for him to remember including in the original application. Here is how he described his short stay at the meeting:  

"I arrived at the meeting a little late. When I got there, the person who has since been identified as a Russian attorney was talking about the issue of a ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children. I had no idea why that topic was being raised and quickly determined that my time was not well-spent at this meeting. Reviewing emails recently confirmed my memory that the meeting was a waste of our time and that, in looking for a polite way to leave and get back to my work, I actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after I had been there for ten or so minutes and wrote ‘Can u pls call me on my cell? Need excuse to get out of meeting.' I had not met the attorney before the meeting nor spoken with her since. I thought nothing more of this short meeting until it came to my attention recently."

Kushner claimed he had not read at the time the full e-mail exchanges informing his brother-in-law of an offer of potentially incriminating evidence the Russians reportedly had on Hillary Clinton. Kushner said he amended his security clearance application while preparing to testify before Congress to include disclosure of the meeting that included the Russian lawyer, after reviewing the e-mail chain for the first time.

Members of the hate-Trump media will continue to spin their Russian conspiratorial theories in an effort to delegitimize the Trump presidency. Jared Kushner has credibly pushed back in his statement with specific, documentable facts in place of the fake media's innuendos.



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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #8 

CNN analyst makes stunning admission about Trump

pic398.jpg

Truth Feed News is reporting that here's something you don't see every day, a bit of honesty and humility from CNN.

For once, a CNN employee, analyst Jeffrey Toobin, is admitting that President Trump was completely underestimated by the fake news network, and he's reminding his colleagues to pay our president his due respect.

Toobin scolded fellow CNN panelists, telling them that they all needed to have "a lot of humility" in their predictions about President Trump, considering they have embarrassed themselves thoroughly during  the 2016 election, and have continued to do so ever since.

"We sat around that table for years [dismissing Trump] … and he proved all of us wrong, and he won the presidency," Toobin stated bluntly, adding, "…And who's to say that he's not going to win it again?"

He's absolutely right, and CNN would benefit from listening, considering they've been completely discredited in the past few months alone, after their agenda-driven bias was painfully put on display for the entire world to see.

The disgraced network has become synonymous with the term "fake news," and the majority of the country is well aware that CNN is nothing but a left-wing propaganda outlet.

Should CNN wish to overhaul their tarnished image, and salvage their dismal ratings in the process, a drastic, albeit simple, overhaul is necessary; they must leave their anti-Trump narrative behind and focus on actually reporting news without a slant.

We're not holding our breath.



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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #9 

When The New York Times isn't printing lies, it's helping the enemy

pic390.jpg

Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne (FoxNews) are reporting that ISIS in Iraq and Syria has been "dismantled," with tens of thousands of its jihadist fighters dead, but a promising lead on its leader "went dead" after a media leak, according to a key U.S. military official.

"We have absolutely dismantled his network,"  Gen. Tony Thomas, speaking of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, said at the Aspen Security Forum. "I mean everyone who worked for him initially is dead or gone. Everybody who stepped to the plate the next time [is] dead or gone. Down through a network where we have killed, in a conservative estimate, 60,000 to 70,000 of his followers, his army."

In a wide-ranging interview moderated by Fox News' Catherine Herridge, Thomas, who leads the Special Operations Command, said his team was "particularly close" to Baghdadi after the 2015 raid that killed ISIS oil minister Abu Sayyaf. That raid also netted his wife, who provided a wealth of actionable information.

Thomas said:

"That was a very good lead. Unfortunately, it was leaked in a prominent national newspaper about a week later and that lead went dead. The challenge we have [is] in terms of where and how our tactics and procedures are discussed openly. There's a great need to inform the American public about what we're up to. There's also great need to recognize things that will absolutely undercut our ability to do our job."

Thomas appeared to be referring to a New York Times report in June 2015. the Times reported:

blockquote
"New insights yielded by the seized trove -- four to seven terabytes of data, according to one official -- include how the organization's shadowy leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, operates and tries to avoid being tracked by coalition forces."

Thomas also provided new details about the military campaign in Libya. Fox News reported in 2015 that a half-dozen senior ISIS operatives travelled to North Africa to establish an ISIS satellite.

"They seized on Libya as a failed state (thank you Hillary). They declared it a province. Our estimates were that, at the high-water mark, they had anywhere from 1,500 to 2,000 folks primarily located in a seaside town named Sirte. They don't exist anymore."

Commenting on media reports that the CIA ended a covert program to arm anti-Assad rebels in Syria, Thomas said the story, first carried in the Washington Post, was wrong to suggest the purported move was to appease Moscow.

Thomas said the direction from his boss, Defense Secretary James Mattis, was very clear. He said.:

"It was 'defeat ISIS.' It's now 'annihilate ISIS.' I think he put a non-doctrinal term out there to amp up the volume a little bit. We all got the message."

Despite recent victories, Thomas said the strategic picture remained complex, given activity of Syria, Iraq, Russia and Turkey in limited space. For U.S. pilots providing cover for ground operations, it can be "Top-Gun-nish," Thomas said.

"Right now, our pilots out there are getting painted radar-wise by Syrian aircraft [and] Russian aircrafts' ground control intercept [have] that capability, so you can imagine how dicey it is for a pilot who's on top of us to give us the necessary protection," Thomas said. "[It's a] pretty dicey situation in a very tight space there."

As long as American military members are in harm's way, there remains the reality of casualties. and while strategy is always on the mind of Thomas, so to are the men and women who carry out the battle plans.

A frequent visitor to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, who makes a point to meet his wounded warriors, Thomas said his personal visits, outside the media glare, did more for him than the soldiers. Thomas said:

"I'd like to think that I'm going to buoy their spirits, but go in there and you'll walk out with one of the best buzzes you've ever had. In terms of resiliency of human beings, of service members who are not the least bit self-pitying. They want to think that they've helped accomplish something."



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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #10 

How the media lies -- Reuters headline misrepresents its own poll

Reuters recently published a report under the following headline:

pic380.jpg 

The headline is meant to convince readers that Trump's support is weakening.

Here are the first two paragraphs from the report:

About one in eight people who voted for President Donald Trump said they are not sure they would do so again after witnessing Trump's tumultuous first six months in office, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll of 2016 voters.

While most of the people who voted for Trump on Nov. 8 said they would back him again, the erosion of support within his winning coalition of older, disaffected, mostly white voters poses a potential challenge for the president. Trump, who won the White House with the slimmest of margins, needs every last supporter behind him to push his agenda through a divided Congress and potentially win a second term in 2020.

However, the poll actually shows President Trump's support has grown since May. Support for Trump has grown 6 points (88%) since May (82%).

Americans knows that the media and Democratic Party are united in a "destroy Trump" propaganda campaign, and are pushing conspiracy theories instead of reporting on real issues.

This poll shows they are not buying the nonsense.

pic381.jpg 



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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #11 

CIA Director Pompeo hammers NY Times reporter for his newspaper's outing of covert CIA officer

CIA Director Mike Pompeo blasted the New York Times Thursday for publishing the name of the undercover officer in charge of the agency's Iran operations.

The operative's name was published in a June 2 story.

The Times justified publishing the name because the officer had previously been identified in other "unidentified" news reports and because the operative is "leading an important new (Trump) administration initiative against Iran."

Translation: So what if covert CIA agent is captured or killed. If it hurts Trump it's worth it.

I just wish Fox hadn't edited out the Times' reporter's response. I would have liked to have hard what he had to say.


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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #12 

Senior Obama official says that the media colluded with Russian intelligence officials

Edward Price is a former CIA employee and senior director for Obama’s National Security Council. In this video, he accused the media of colluding with Russian intelligence officials during the 2016 presidential election.

Whoa! Whoa! We don't want to hear about the media colluding -- or cooperating -- with the Russians!

We don't want to hear about Hillary’s camp colluding with the Ukrainians!

We only want to hear about Trump's colluding with Russia -- even though there's no evidence to support the charge of collusion.


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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #13 

#VeryFakeNews scandal erupts again -- CNN's Cillizza's latest attack on Trump debunked by his own network

pic372.jpg

Matthew Boyle (Breitbart) is reporting that the very fake news scandal engulfing CNN just erupted again on Wednesday afternoon as CNN's Chris Cillizza published demonstrably fake news.

What's more, Cillizza's significant mistake ropes two more CNN anchors -- Kate Bolduan and Brooke Baldwin -- into the very fake news scandal touching nearly every single person at CNN.

The fake news from Cillizza specifically was meant to rebut President Donald Trump's attacks on the fake media after the nothing story about a supposed extra, previously unreported "meeting" with Russian president Vladimir Putin at the recent G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany.

Many media outlets went haywire on Tuesday when the extra "meeting" with Putin went public, but the fake news reports were debunked quickly by a White House statement detailing there was nothing extraordinary or wrong whatsoever with what Trump and Putin did during the dinner at the G20 summit. The fake news reports fell apart quickly, as Breitbart News's Kristina Wong detailed.

Then, late Tuesday, Trump Tweeted that the fake media's efforts have now become "sick."

pic369.jpg

In response to Trump's Tuesday night Tweets, Cillizza published an analysis piece on CNN's website on Wednesday attempting to challenge the accuracy of the president's statements. The move backfired significantly, as Cillizza made a number of inaccurate statements himself -- thereby becoming a fake news purveyor.

"No media outlet reported anything about a 'secret dinner,'" Cillizza wrote. "No one is making the dinner look 'sinister.' And, no one is suggesting that the media was unaware that the dinner was taking place."

On Twitter, Cillizza took his fake news even further by Tweeting a link to his fake news CNN piece: "Again, NO ONE is saying the meeting was private or secret. NO ONE."

pic370.jpg

Interestingly, Cillizza's inaccurate assertion that "NO ONE" said the meeting was "private or secret" is debunked by, among other places, his employer CNN.

On the same day that Cillizza published his fake news -- Wednesday, July 19 -- two different CNN anchors contradicted his assertion that nobody said the meeting was "secret" live on air on CNN.

Brooke Baldwin, a CNN anchor, twice referred to the meeting as a "secret sitdown" between Trump and Putin -- and even at one point asked, "Why didn't we know about this?"

Another time, Baldwin said live on CNN, "These two presidents, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, did not disclose a second meeting until now."

Kate Bolduan, another CNN anchor, also repeated the line that it was a "secret" meeting between Trump and Putin.

Bolduan on Wednesday called it a "secret and second sitdown between the president and Russian president Vladimir Putin. Why wasn't the meeting revealed? What was discussed? And who knows what really was said?"

Also on Wednesday, Bolduan described the meeting a second time live on CNN as "secret."

She called it "a secret sitdown between the President and Vladimir Putin. Only three people know what they said at all, what was talked about, how unusual is this? Did it break any rules? Can it happen again? And why wasn't it revealed that they met for a second time?"

CNN's own anchors are not the only people who debunk CNN's Cillizza. His old colleague at the Washington Post's The Fix, Aaron Blake, discredits him as well. On Twitter on Wednesday morning, Blake described the meeting as "secret" when he asked: "Why did Trump meet secretly with Putin?"

pic371.jpg 

The headline of Blake's piece for the Washington Post section that Cillizza used to edit linked in that Tweet also refers to the meeting as "secret."

Salon's Matthew Rozsa, in a headline, called it a "secret" meeting between Trump and Putin.

The Financial Times, in its own piece, called the meeting "secret" in its headline and "private" in the sub-headline, debunking Cillizza's piece as purely fake news on all accounts.

CNN spokespersons Lauren Pratapas, Emily Kuhn, Liza Pluto, and Richard Hudock have refused to comment on this latest grave error by the network. When sent all of the above evidence, they have not answered a request for comment from Breitbart News and continue refusing to make network president Jeff Zucker available for an interview to explain the serious journalistic problems that have cast significant doubt on whether CNN follows normal ethics procedures.

Pratapas, Kuhn, Pluto, and Hudock specifically will not answer whether Cillizza's piece and Tweet will be retracted and corrected, or whether Bolduan and Baldwin will appear on television to retract and correct their statements -- since both Cillizza's piece and their multiple statements live on CNN's airwaves cannot be true.

The network spokespeople also refuse to answer whether anyone will be held accountable for this latest error. This is the latest in a long line of serious issues ripping CNN apart from the inside since the network was forced to retract a blatantly inaccurate piece about Trump associate and SkyBridge Capital Founder Anthony Scaramucci.

Several weeks ago, CNN ran a false piece accusing Scaramucci of holding a "meeting" with a Russian banking executive in Switzerland at the Davos conference -- a "meeting" that was not really a meeting, but rather, as Scaramucci said, someone approaching him in a public venue. The network accused Scaramucci of being both under Senate Intelligence Committee and Treasury Department investigation for it -- both accusations are untrue.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is not probing the matter, Breitbart News found in its own investigation into the subject, and the Treasury Department -- at the urging of a conspiracy theory forwarded at the beginning of the administration by Sen. Liz Warren (D-MA) before Trump's inauguration -- has already looked into and determined it to be entirely "without merit."

CNN, as a result of Breitbart News's investigation, was forced to retract the Scaramucci hit piece and apologize to Scaramucci. Three senior CNN editorial staffers, including Pulitzer Prize winning editor Eric Lichtblau, Pulitzer Prize nominated reporter Thomas Frank, and CNN investigative reporting unit chief Lex Haris were forced to resign as a result of the Breitbart News investigation as well.

CNN continues to refuse to be transparent publicly about the matter, and will not answer questions about it -- and will not make Zucker, the network president, available for press interviews on the scandal casting doubt on the network's journalistic integrity or lack thereof.

Since then, several videos of CNN producers and personalities making a variety of off-color comments surfaced via James O'Keefe's Project Veritas. The network has not held anyone accountable for those either. What's more, the network continues to make mistakes and print fake news like this latest fake news from Cillizza. And nobody seems to be held accountable for printing inaccurate information.



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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #14 

Our goal is the "elimination of the entire mainstream media"

pic368.jpg

Matthew Boyle, Breitbart News' Washington Political Editor, gave a speech entitled "Combating Fake News: Replacing Establishment Media" at the Heritage Foundation in Washington on Wednesday.

"The goal eventually is the full destruction and elimination of the entire mainstream media. We envision a day when CNN is no longer in business. We envision a day when the New York Times closes its doors. I think that day is possible," he said in his speech to the Phyllis Schlafly Collegians Leadership Summit.

Boyle elaborated on Breitbart News' record in uncovering falsehoods reported in the mainstream media. Breitbart's fact-checking exposed a false CNN story in June claiming that President Trump's associate Anthony Scaramucci -- the founder of SkyBridge Capital and now an Export Import Bank official -- was under investigation by the Treasury Department and Senate Intelligence Committee for alleged meetings with a Russian banking official. The supposed meetings never happened, and the Senate Intelligence Committee was not investigating Scaramucci. Furthermore, the Treasury Department -- at the urging of Sen. Liz Warren (D-MA) and other Democrats at the beginning of the administration -- had looked into the matter already and determined it to be entirely "without merit."

After Breitbart verified through research that the CNN hit piece was entirely fraudulent, CNN retracted the piece, apologized to Scaramucci and three of its senior editorial staffers, including a Pulitzer Prize-winning editor and the head of CNN's investigative unit, resigned over the scandal. CNN continues to not be transparent about the matter.

Beyond uncovering such lies from the media, Boyle underlined Breitbart's commitment to covering stories overlooked by establishment media organizations. "A lot of the stories we do and a lot of the stories that we focus on are very, very strategically focused things," Boyle said. "So, we like to go after stories that they ignore."

According to Boyle, Breitbart News' reporting on the Republican congressional primary between establishment-favorite, now former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and now Rep. Dave Brat in 2014 found that: "If you were reading Breitbart, you weren't surprised when you saw that David Brat won the election. The rest of the media was just shocked."

A similar pattern of reporting overlooked aspects in the 2016 election, such as raw polling data, ensuring that no one at Breitbart News was surprised when Donald Trump won the presidency.

Boyle further argued that the failure of the mainstream media extended beyond a mere liberal bias. In his words: 

The media is an industry in crisis that refuses to admit that it's an industry in crisis. It's almost like an alcoholic refusing to admit that they have a problem. They continue to go out there and make the same mistakes over and over again. It's actually pretty easy, I could sit here all day and make a full time living on fact checking CNN. It gets boring after a while, but they make mistakes over and over again. Many of them, the same mistakes, and they refuse to correct them. Journalistic integrity is dead. There is no such thing anymore. So, everything is about weaponization of information. Both sides are fighting on the battlefield of ideas and you know CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Politico, Associated Press, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, the whole alphabet soup they've all thrown in together with the institutional left.

He underlined that the chief distinction between Breitbart and its left-of-center competition was that Breitbart admitted to being conservative-oriented. 

Our viewpoint at Breitbart has always been that we'd rather be open about our personal biases. We're openly conservative. We don't hide it. We're very honest with our audience. We told people we all wanted Trump to win last year. If you're open with your audience about that, I think you're honest with your audience.

Boyle contrasted such transparency with outlets of the establishment media that see themselves as neutral and objective.

They claim to be objective. They claim that they don't have a side. And many of them actually believe their own lies. So, a lot of these people are decent human beings who are working in a broken institution. Again, I know many of them.

Despite outlets like Breitbart fighting against "this behemoth of an industry that is all these different media organizations," Boyle was quite confident in Breitbart's ability to undermine the narrative of establishment media. The victory of Donald Trump, whose candidacy received a record-low number of media endorsements, proved such success according to Boyle.   

We're getting past these guys. There is a good contingent of the country, in fact, a majority, enough to win a presidential election, majorities in the house and senate in elections, that don't believe the mainstream media. We're winning this war and we're outnumbered. So the more people that get involved, the more people that stand up and fight, the closer we are going to get to a total victory.



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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #15 

The truth versus CNN

For decades, conservatives have been complaining about bias in the media, but that wasn't quantified until now. CNN's fake news does more than get them ratings -- its libel undermines the very nature of our democratic republic. In this Firewall, Bill Whittle lambasts the mainstream media for its toxic politicizing of the news and exposes the influence of media bias on elections.


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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #16 

CNN commentator Marc Lamont Hill praises convicted cop murderer on Twitter

pic367.jpg

Alex Griswold (FreeBeacon) is reporting that "progressive" CNN commentator Marc Lamont Hill praised a convicted cop murderer and wanted terrorist in a series of tweets Sunday.

Hill celebrated the 70th birthday of Assata Shakur, who changed her name from Joanne Deborah Chesimard, calling her a "queen." He also wrote two quotes from Shakur with the hashtag "#AssataTaughtMe" beneath them.

pic366.jpg

In actuality, Shakur is a convicted bank robber and murderer. In 1973, she and two other members of the Black Liberation Army opened fire on a pair of New Jersey state police officers, wounding one and killing the other execution-style. The fallen officer left behind a widow and two children.

Four years later, Shakur was found guilty of first degree murder, assault and battery of a police officer, armed robbery, and several other crimes. She was sentenced to life in prison.

In 1979, Shakur escaped prison and fled to Cuba. The FBI has placed her on its list of "Most Wanted Terrorists," offering a million dollars to anyone with information that leads to her recapture.

Hill has a long history of supporting Shakur. In 2009, he published a letter from her on his website with the foreword, "Let us give thanks for her life and her sacrifice." Hill's defense of Shakur and other cop killers eventually lost him his job at Fox News.

His birthday tweet came the same day that the official Twitter account for the Women's March praised Shakur. March organizers refused to back down under fire, defending the tweet and saying they "respect and appreciate [Shakur's] anti-racism work."

The little things that people do can tell you a lot about them.



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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #17 

What American's care about vs. what the media cares about

Pacific Pundit says that the way the media obsesses over Russia, you would think this was the number one concern of the American people. Well, think again. You know what percentage of the American people polled care about the whole Russia conspiracy theory? About a whopping 6%. That doesn't matter to the fake news media who have devoted 75% of 3/4th of all their news coverage since the inauguration to Russia.

pic364.jpg

People care about healthcare, jobs, immigration, terrorism and taxes. The Senate GOP had an epic fail on healthcare this week. Ordinarily, this would give the Democrat media complex plenty to celebrate in their news coverage.

This survey isn't just CNN either. It includes CNN, Fox, MSNBC as well as the alphabet networks. It don't know if this is funny or just plane sad. It's bad enough politicians don't give a damn what the American people want. The eggheads in the media, who attend all their cocktail parties in Manhattan or Los Angeles are just as arrogant, just as overpaid, and just as worthless as the politicians who populate Washington D.C. 75% of media coverage over the big Russia nothingburger. That is just absurd.



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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #18 

What is #FakeNews?

What is fake news? Is Donald Trump correct when he says CNN, The New York Times, and other mainstream outlets report fake news? Commentator and bestselling author Andrew Klavan explains:


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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #19 

How approval polls and "junk" journalism are fake views pushed by #FakeNews

pic361.jpg

Raheem Kassam (Breitbart) is reporting that the latest rod by which to beat the President of the United States is a Washington Post/ABC News poll showing Mr. Trump's approval ratings languishing at 36 per cent.

Americans across the board appear, on first take, to be well out of love with the new President. But the "small print" on the polls reveals something quite disturbing about the methodology of the group responsible.

The poll was performed by AbtAssociates -- a swamp dweller-staffed research and policy shop in Cambridge, MA.

AbtAssociates board members include former Bob Dole, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Planned Parenthood, World Bank, and Deloitte staffers. In other words, it is a microcosm of the party of Davos.

But that in itself doesn't rule AbtAssociates out from doing decent work. What might, however, is the underlying philosophy behind political polling, and the methodology they use to conduct it.

WaPo/ABC polling obviously predicted the U.S. election incorrectly. They'll point to the "margin of error" and claim they were aiming to predict the popular vote, of course. But this still led to them presenting Mrs. Clinton as the presumptive winner. Them, and basically everyone else, which is unsurprising, given the way these things work.

The latest headlines -- which themselves have seeded hundreds of articles in the press about the matter -- are about President Trump's unpopularity, born out of a poll of just 1,001 people. That's an average of 20 people per state in the U.S. they hold up as "representative".

The representative element comes from projecting this data out using pollster voodoo. This is what you're really paying for when you commission a poll. Anyone can survey 1,001 people, but these guys claim to know the "right" people, and then be able to project their views out onto the whole nation.

Then we go into the data tables. Since this time last year they have over-represented Democrat voters in their studies. For this latest one, 35 per cent of their respondents were Democrats, 23 per cent were Republicans, 35 per cent were Independents (who in turn lean towards voting Democrat), six per cent said 'Other', and two per cent had no opinion on the matter.

Interviews, they add, were conducted in English and Spanish, and demographic questions they asked are not included in the data. I asked the Washington Post why, but at the time of publication I had received no response.

Additionally, they didn't even choose to whom they were speaking. They used a process called Random Digit Dialling, which I wrote about on the run up to the Brexit referendum (another one the pollsters got wrong):

One polling industry insider told Breitbart London that [pollster] ORB uses "random digit dialing" which effectively dials random numbers until it makes a connection with a human being who might answer questions. The methodology is used by Pew's Research Center, but in tiny sample sizes can lead to a less representative sample that relies more on post-poll weighting.

This method has been under fire for years, but is still used with scant criticism.

Finally, the pollster declares in the data tables: "Interviewers called landlines and cellular phone numbers, first requesting to speak with the youngest adult male or female at home. The final sample included 350 interviews completed on landlines and 651 interviews completed via cellular phones, including 404 interviews with adults in cell phone-only households".

Young cell phone users made up the dominant part of the poll, and cell phone-only households made up nearly half the interviews. It should not take a political scientist to work out how this, combined with the Dem/Ind bent (70 per cent) of the respondents, makes the poll unrepresentative.

Selective publication

Write ups of the poll include information about approval ratings, the Russia collusion story, healthcare, and the economy. But some of what they found is conveniently left out of the "news" copy or buried.

A greater stress is placed on those who disapprove than those who approve. No surprise given the poll's weighting. But of those who disapprove, what was their core issue?

Domestic policy? Foreign affairs? Economic theory? No, it was the "Inappropriate way [Trump] talks and acts".

This, surely, should at least prompt op-ed columns reflecting on how the centre/centre-left/left are obsessing over style rather than substance. Of those who approve, they compliment POTUS's leadership foremost, the fact he is not politically correct second, and then foreign affairs, the economy, building the wall, and tackling ISIS.

Further bad news for the left in the poll is that just 37 per cent of respondents think the Democrat Party "stands for something" while 52 per cent say they simply stand against Trump. WaPo buried this in paragraph 12 of 19 while CNN didn't mention it at all.

Political polling is "junk"

It is now obvious to most of us, though some have been saying it for years.

Take what Christopher Hitchens said in my favorite book ever, Letters to a Young Contrarian:

The first thing to notice, surely, is that these voyages into the ocean of the public mind are chartered and commissioned by wealthy and powerful organizations, who do not waste their money satisfying mere curiosity. The tactics are the same as those of market research; the point is not to interpret the world but to change it. A tendency to favor one product over another is something not to be passively discovered and observed but to be nurtured, encouraged and exploited.

He didn't stop there. In 1992 he said the "racket" of opinion polling has tried to become a substitute for democracy. In Harper's magazine he wrote, taking explicit aim at the Washington Post and CNN (plus ça change):

Poll, poll, poll. Try reading a news story of watching one aired on TV without encountering the word. Readers of the Washington Post of 5 February, to take but one example, were offered seven stories on the front page, and of these, three -- about the pessimism of Washington's residents, the souring on capitalism, and it should go without saying, the Clinton campaign -- were based on polls. Not content to wait a day or two for results, the Cable News Network (CNN) pioneers the viewer phone-in poll, inviting nightly news-watchers to glimpse a minute-long story, then dial an instant opinion.

He continued:

Opinion polling was born out of a struggle not to discover the public mind but to master it. It was a weapon in the early wards to thwart organised labour in the battle against Populism, and it later became a rather favorite in the arsenal of "mass psychology" parties of the European right…

…Polls are deployed only when they might prove useful -- that is, helpful to the powers that be in their question to maintain their position and influence. Indeed, the polling industry is a powerful ally of depoliticization and its counterpart which is consensus.

Finally, it is worth hearing out the man on the same topic, in his own voice, opining on how the Los Angeles Times had become so bizarre in its fealty to public polling that they even asked their audience what the outcome would be of President Reagan's polyp in his colon back in 1986:

The irrefutable moral of the story here is that political polling today is part of the fake news establishment's way of promoting fake views, designed not to reflect the mood or temperature of a nation, but to shape it


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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #20 
Collusion delusion


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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #21 

The week in pictures

pic347.jpg

pic348.jpg

pic349.jpg



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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #22 

Bongino slams Obama, Antifa, and media libtards pushing #FakeNews

Truth Feed News is reporting that Dan Bongino, former Secret Service agent, has become well known for not pulling any punches when it comes to telling it like it is.

Now, Bongino is hitting back hard against the crooked media and brain dead liberal dumbasses everywhere, calling their fantasy of impeaching President Trump "literally insane."

Dan accurately pointed out that the majority of Americans are "tuning everybody out who’s talking about this," and he is absolutely correct.

Speaking on the Don Jr. meeting with the Russian lawyer, Bongino stated, "If bad political decisions were grounds for impeachment, former president Barack Obama would have been impeached within six months of office."

In this interview with Fox News, Bongino goes on to also discuss liberal domestic terrorist group Antifa, and does a fantastic job of exposing the disgusting nature of the left in general.


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

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

CNN never should have made a big deal about the meme -- they just keep getting better

Now there are pages of them on YouTube.


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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #24 

Dershowitz slams The New York Times and Democrats claiming Trump Jr. "treason"

The Hill is reporting that noted attorney and Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, slammed The New York Times on Wednesday, telling Fox News's Neil Cavuto he can't believe the newspaper "had an op-ed in which treason was mentioned" regarding Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer.

"There's really no difference on the First Amendment between a campaigner using information obtained from somebody who obtained it illegally and the newspaper doing it," said Dershowitz, who is also an opinion contributor for The Hill, on "Cavuto Coast to Coast" show on Fox Business. "So I think this is conduct that would be covered by the First Amendment.

"It is also not prohibited by law," Dershowitz continued. "There has been so much overwrought claim. People are talking about treason. I can't believe The New York Times had an op-ed yesterday in which treason was mentioned."The Times published a Tuesday op-ed that argued while a treason charge against Trump Jr. is "ultimately unlikely," the president's eldest son could still be prosecuted under other statutes.

"Prosecution under the federal treason statute is ultimately unlikely because we are not at war with Russia," reads the op-ed by Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, who served as chief White House ethics lawyers for former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, respectively.

"But during the Cold War, treasonous conduct was often prosecuted under other statutes," the op-ed continues. "Alger Hiss was sentenced to four years in prison for ';forgetting' in sworn testimony that he had met with Whitaker Chambers, an American working for the Russians."

Dershowitz argued in a separate FoxNews.com opinion piece that even if Trump Jr. did collude with the Russians, there is no law on the books that says it's a crime.

"Perhaps mere collusion by a campaign with a foreign government should be made a crime, so as to prevent future contamination of our elections," wrote the 78-year-old law professor. "But it is not currently a crime."


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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #25 

CNN's "New Day" spent 93% of its airtime on Russia conspiracies

Newsbusters is reporting that As CNN continues their crusade to bring down the Trump presidency, "New Day" spent 93 percent of their three-hour program Wednesday covering Donald Trump Jr. and the Trump campaign's supposed collusion with Russia. The other seven percent was spent on baseball (~1.5%) and negative coverage of the GOP's healthcare bill (~5.5%).

No one is arguing that this revelation should not be covered, but when you spend 93 percent of your time talking about it, it shows an obsession, not an objective news judgment. The same liberal media spent virtually no time seriously covering the supposed collusion between Bill Clinton and the Red Chinese in Clinton's '96 re-election bid. They ignored the potentially corrupt behavior by the Clinton Foundation for years. Yet, when there is even a sniff of scandal surrounding a Republican, they pounce with hysterical outrage.

Here is the actual time allocation, after commercials are excluded:

pic325.jpg

Later, CNN Newsroom the following hour (9 AM) spent 100% of the airtime they had prior to their coverage of Christopher Wray's confirmation hearing on the Russia story (31 min 43 sec).



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

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

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

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved