What liberal media?

[Ubiquitous]

On March 13, the New York Times had published a page 1 story on Abu
Ghraib on the same day that it published a story on page 8 about the
murder of a hostage, who, as the Times reported the next day on page
10, was apparently tortured before being slain. Today the Times reports
its Abu Ghraib story may have been fake:

The online magazine Salon is challenging the
identity of a man profiled by The New York
Times in a front-page article on Saturday who
says he is the iconic hooded figure in a published
photograph who was abused by Americans at Abu
Ghraib prison in 2003 and 2004.

Salon bases its challenge on an examination
of a set of 280 Abu Ghraib photographs it has
been studying for several weeks and an interview
with an official of the Army's Criminal Investigation
Command, known as the C.I.D., who says the man
identified by The Times is not the detainee in
the photograph.

On Monday, Chris Grey, chief spokesman for the
investigations unit, asked about the challenge,
confirmed to The Times in an e-mail message: "We
have had several detainees claim they were the
person depicted in the photograph in question.
Our investigation indicates that the person you
have is not the detainee who was depicted in
the photograph released in connection with the
Abu Ghraib investigation.

The story raising doubts about the page 1 story appeared on page 17.

[Ubiquitous]

Good news from Iraq: Parliament has approved Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki's plan for securing Baghdad, which means that President Bush's
new strategy has the legal approval of the Iraqi government.

Bad news from Iraq, according to the New York Times:

Iraq's Shiite prime minister and Sunni lawmakers
hurled insults at one another during a raucous
session of Parliament on Thursday, with the prime
minister threatening a Sunni lawmaker with arrest
and the Sunni speaker of Parliament threatening
to quit.

That's the lead paragraph. The 27th paragraph--yes, the
_twenty-seventh_--finally informs us of the outcome:

Eventually, though, the tensions eased and Parliament
approved the security plan.

If Parliament had rejected the plan, do you think the Times would have
waited until the 27th paragraph to tell us?

[Roger]

Ladies and gentlemen, it is now "liberal" to tell a story chronologically.

Or is it now "liberal" to tell a story with its more interesting and unusual
aspects first, and the factastically exciting outcome of a vote with no real
doubt as to its outcome later?

If only "liberals" were boring and dry writers like their counterparts at
the Washington Times, they too could lose over a BILLION dollars for their
owners.

Post by Ubiquitous
Good news from Iraq: Parliament has approved Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki's plan for securing Baghdad, which means that President Bush's
new strategy has the legal approval of the Iraqi government.
Iraq's Shiite prime minister and Sunni lawmakers
hurled insults at one another during a raucous
session of Parliament on Thursday, with the prime
minister threatening a Sunni lawmaker with arrest
and the Sunni speaker of Parliament threatening
to quit.
That's the lead paragraph. The 27th paragraph--yes, the
Eventually, though, the tensions eased and Parliament
approved the security plan.
If Parliament had rejected the plan, do you think the Times would have
waited until the 27th paragraph to tell us?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.

[Ubiquitous]

From an Associated Press dispatch on yesterday's decline in the Dow Jones
Industrial Average:

The Dow fell 242.66, or 1.97 percent, to 12,075.96. On
March 24, 2003 the index dropped 307 points when U.S.
casualties began mounting in Iraq.

If casualties in Iraq go up when the Dow Jones Industrial Average goes
down, it follows that it is every American's patriotic duty to support the
troops by buying blue-chip stocks.

[Ubiquitous]

On June 5, 1999, the New York Times published an editorial praising the
president for using a recess appointment to install James Hormel, a
gay-rights activist, as ambassador to Luxembourg:

President Clinton took an appropriate stand against
bigotry yesterday by giving James Hormel a recess
appointment as the nation's Ambassador to Luxembourg.
Mr. Hormel's nomination had been blocked for 20 months
by a handful of Senate Republicans disturbed by his
sexual orientation.

The credentials of Mr. Hormel, heir to a meat-packing
fortune and a former dean at the University of Chicago
Law School who has been active in civic, educational and
political causes, were not the sticking point. There were
sufficient Senate votes to confirm him had Trent Lott,
the Senate majority leader, allowed a vote...

Under the constitutional provision that allows Presidents
to bypass the confirmation process when Congress is in
recess, Mr. Hormel can remain as Ambassador until late
next year. His shameful treatment by Mr. Lott and his
G.O.P. colleagues will be remembered long beyond that.

The New York Times editorial board, however, seems to have conveniently
forgotten the Hormel incident. Today the paper weighs in on another
president's recess appointment of an ambassador to a Low Country:

President Bush resorted to an old political trick
this week, using recess appointments to evade Senate
confirmation votes that he was sure to lose...

The most bitterly resented but least important appointment
sent Sam Fox, a major Republican donor, to Belgium as
ambassador. Mr. Fox contributed $50,000 to Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth, a group whose vicious ads during
the 2004 campaign lied about Senator John Kerry's war
record and helped win President Bush a second term. It
is common for administrations to reward big donors with
ambassadorships. But this appointment is a deliberate
thumb in the eye of Senator Kerry and fellow Democrats
who were poised to reject the nominee...

With nominees of such dubious merit, it is no wonder
that Mr. Bush resorted to an end run around the Senate.
The American public will almost certainly pay the price.

The assertion that Fox "was sure to lose" a confirmation vote in the
Senate is either mistaken or dishonest. As we noted yesterday, Sens.
Claire McCaskill and Joe Lieberman had both announced they would support
Fox, which would give him 51 votes assuming no Republican defections.
The Democrats planned to block Fox's confirmation by bottling the
nomination up in committee, just as the Republicans did to Hormel.

Also as in the case of Hormel, Fox's credentials are not in question--or
at least the Times does not question them. The only objection it offers
to his nomination is that it hurts John Kerry's feelings.

Given the Times's worldview, which is that any opposition to gay rights
is invidious, we can understand why the paper found the Republicans'
blocking of Hormel worse than the Democrats' blocking of Fox. But no one
can dispute that the latter is exceedingly petty. And the Times looks
even more risibly partisan than usual in calling recess appointments "an
end run around the Senate" when a Republican uses them and a
"constitutional provision" when a Democrat does.

[Topaz]

"BOTH Republicans AND Democrats are hypocrites and cowards, because
both have sold out America and the American gross domestic product
(GDP) to Israel. The United States does not exist anymore as a
sovereign entity and all our energy, all our societal efforts are
dedicated to supporting Israel first, Israel second, and Israel third.
America is a Jew-ocracy that is run for the Jews, by the Jews, and of
the Jews, because America is a Jewish owned corporation, not a
"democracy." Votes don't matter much here in the USA because
Washington runs on money, not on votes, and Democratic presidential
candidate Senator Hillary Clinton is just as sold out to the Israeli
lobby, AIPAC (the America Israel Public Affairs Committee), as
Republican presidential candidate Senator Bill Frist. Former
president Bill Clinton was sold out, Jimmy Carter was sold out and
later admitted it after he left office, Ronald Reagan was sold out,
all American presidents were sold out going back to JFK…
All our Middle East problems, our vast national debt, our collapsing
economy, and our collapsing standard of living are all directly the
result of our blind support for Israel's illegal ethnic cleansing of
Palestinians from Palestine. Bush used Israeli torture techniques on
Moslems, our leaders have let Israeli agents here in the USA illegally
spy on American citizens, we ignore UN Resolutions that tell Israel
to go retreat to their 1967 borders as international law mandates. We
routinely block the United Nations from taking action against Israel's
illegal activities. We gave Israel plutonium and helped them build
their atomic and hydrogen bombs, we shoveled Israel over 140 billion
in foreign aid since 1950, and we have wasted 3 to 4 trillion dollars
in total on the cult of Zionism since 1950 through the cost of illegal
wars, oil embargoes, foreign aid, and the cost of the strategic oil
reserve. Frankly, the Jews are bleeding America dry and no one is
courageous enough to stand up to the Jews because Jews in America are
the exact equivalent of George Orwell's BIG BROTHER. Jews tell us all
what to do, what we are allowed to think, and what we are allowed to
speak. Jews control our government, dominate our media, and crush any
opposition by slandering those with legitimate and provable complaints
as "anti-Semites."
It must be great to be above criticism and to control the stupid and
dull Christian masses and laugh at them behind their backs and even to
their faces and get no response other than more feet licking, bowing,
and kow towing. George Bush is a useful idiot, a water carrier for
the Jews just as Hillary Clinton will be if elected president. Both
Iraq wars were started for the Jews and by the Jews. All our
politicians are a disgrace and we will never regain our sovereignty,
solve our foreign policy problems, or balance our budget until we end
our slavish allegiance to the immoral, racist, murdering, torturing,
lying, stealing, manipulating cult nation of Israel.
The Holocaust business feeds the Zionist cult and Hollywood has
deified Jews while vilifying Moslems… Our nation is a lying,
hypocritical mess and the world hates us because the world knows we
are a nation of morons run by Jews. Where are the brave and honest
Americans who speak with one face, not two? Americans are defeated,
weak, foolish, and can't even speak out because they are scared like
little girls, unable to even speak the word "Jew" unless in praise or
on bended knees. Imagine if Catholics or Moonies or the Mafia had that
much control in America! Jews are not above the law and Jews can be
opposed for their real world crimes just like anyone else. Our brains
are frozen by decades of media programming and propaganda so that now
we cannot even speak the "J word." Political correctness, which was
invented by Jews as a form of mind control, prevents Americans from
being fully human. We are a nation of slaves, licking Jewish feet day
after day and we never get tired of it. It's a sad and pathetic
situation and we are a sad and pathetic people who deserve the
contempt of the world because we have no backbone and no honesty.
The United Kingdom is little better than the USA because Tony Blair is
a rabid Christian Zionist himself and most of his top advisors are
Jews. Much of Europe is sold out and controlled by Jews and the cult
of Zionism has Western leaders by the testicles, frozen and unable to
fight back. Now is the time to speak up, to fight back, and to do it
legally, responsibly, and effectively. Just decide that from now on
Jews have no special privileges in your brain and that you can
criticize Jews just like Republicans, Democrats, Catholics, Moonies,
or any other group. Jews act as a 90% unified group, commit crimes as
a 90% unified group, and control America as a 90% unified group, and
thus deserve to be criticized as a 90% unified group. Being able to
criticize those who do harm is what democracy means and is exactly
what freedom of thought means. Become a fully functioning human being
and not just another mind controlled blob of useless DNA!"
inkyblacks

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html http://www.nsm88.com/

[z]

Israel Israel Israel, Israel
Jew-ocracy Jews Jews
Jews Jewish Israeli
Israel
Israel's Israeli Israeli
Israel
Israel's
Israel Israel
Zionism Jews Jews Jews
Jews
Jews
Jews
Jews
Jews
Israel Zionist Jews Jews
Jews Jews
Jews
Jewish
Zionist
Jews
Jews Zionism
Jews
Jews Jews !!!!

[NetworkX]

"Diabetics using stem-cell therapy have been able to stop taking insulin
injections for the first time, after their bodies started to produce the
hormone naturally again," the Times of London reports. That's the first
paragraph. In the eighth and ninth, we learn that this promising field
of technology is under threat from "powerful critics":

Previous studies have suggested that stem-cell therapies offer huge
potential to treat a variety of diseases such as Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's and motor neuron disease. A study by British scientists in
November also reported that stem-cell injections could repair organ
damage in heart attack victims.

But research using the most versatile kind of stem cells--those acquired
from human embryos--is currently opposed by powerful critics, including
President Bush.

So that means if Bush had his way, he would've stopped the new diabetic
breakthrough? Uh, no, it turns out:

After stem cells had been harvested from their blood, they then
underwent a mild form of chemotherapy to eliminate the white blood cells
causing damage to the pancreas. They were then given transfusions of
their own stem cells to help rebuild their immune systems.

So this story has nothing to do with embryonic stem cells. But the Times
doesn't tell us that until paragraph No. 16.

[Ubiquitous]

"Clouds Part for Obama's Appearance"--headline, Associated Press, April 15

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070415/ap_on_el_pr/on_the_trail2008_2

[Ubiquitous]

The broadcast network evening newscasts remain as hostile as ever towards
President Trump and his agenda, although the networks appear to be easing up
on their obsessive wall-to-wall coverage of the administration.

Since Inauguration Day (January 20), Media Research Center analysts have
reviewed every mention of President Trump and top administration officials on
ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News,
including weekends. As of August 31, coverage of the administration has
totaled nearly 74 hours (4,418 minutes) of airtime, or about 39 percent of
all evening news coverage.

For comparison purposes, coverage of the Obama administration in all of 2015
and 2016 totaled 59 hours (3,544 minutes), or roughly 10 percent of the
available broadcast airtime. In other words, Trump has already received more
coverage in his first 224 days in office than Obama received in his final two
years as President.

Analyzing the networks’ spin makes it clear that the goal of all of this
heavy coverage is not to promote the President, but to punish him. In June,
July and August, broadcast evening news coverage of Trump was 91 percent
negative — worse than the astounding 89 percent negative spin we calculated
during the first three months of the administration, usually a traditional
honeymoon period for new presidents.

Methodology: Our measure of spin was designed to isolate the
networks’ own slant, not the back-and-forth of partisan
politics. Thus, our analysts ignored soundbites which merely
showcased the traditional party line (Republicans supporting
Trump, Democrats criticizing him), and instead tallied
evaluative statements which imparted a clear positive or
negative tone to the story, such as statements from experts
presented as non-partisan, voters, or opinionated statements
from the networks’ own reporters.

Using these criteria, MRC analysts tallied 1,567 evaluative
statements about the Trump administration in June, July and
August, of which 1,422 (91%) were negative vs. a mere 145 (9%)
which were positive. Since Trump took office on January 20,
there have been 4,144 such evaluative statements, of which
3,712 (90%) were negative, vs. 432 (10%) which were positive.

The networks’s aggressive anti-Trump spin has been constant throughout 2017,
as it was during the presidential campaign last year. The closest the evening
newscasts came to achieving balanced coverage was in April, when a few
reporters and analysts praised the President’s use of cruise missiles to
punish the Syrian regime for a chemical weapons attack. Yet network coverage
that month was still skewed against Trump by a greater than four-to-one ratio
(82% negative, vs. 18% positive).

The rate of TV coverage has been intense. Early in the year, the networks
focused on the Trump presidency as if it were a national crisis, with White
House news consuming almost half (49%) of all evening news airtime in
January, February and March. That rate subsided in April and May (see chart),
and has averaged 32 percent over the past three months — more than triple the
rate of coverage of the last two years of the Obama administration (10%), but
a significant decline compared to the earliest days of the administration.

It remains to be seen whether this drop in Trump presidential coverage is
permanent, or merely reflects the traditional decline in political news
during the summer months.

Four topics consumed more than half (53%) of all Trump news from June to
August. The networks’ favorite topic was the ongoing Russia investigation,
which consumed 415 minutes of airtime (27% of all Trump news) during the past
three months. But the frenzied coverage of late spring has abated. In June,
the three evening newscasts devoted 236 minutes to the probe; that fell to
140 minutes in July and just 40 minutes in August.

The failed attempt to repeal ObamaCare was the second-most frequent topic,
with 176 minutes of coverage this summer. During these same months, Trump’s
handling of the crisis with North Korea was the focus of 136 minutes of
coverage, while his response to the violence in Charlottesville drew 97
minutes of coverage.

The Russia investigation was also the source of most of the negative comments
about Team Trump — 322 negative vs. 21 positive statements, yielding a 94%
bad press score. Evening news coverage of the effort to repeal and replace
ObamaCare was just as negative as the President’s much-maligned statements
about the violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. There were slightly
more negative statements about the GOP health care replacement bill (240)
than the comments about Charlottesville (213), with virtually no positive
statements on either topic, for a matching score of 97% bad press.

A key difference, of course, is that the ObamaCare coverage unfolded over the
course of the spring and summer, while the Charlottesville coverage was
contained in an intense week of coverage in mid-August.

There was far less media spin regarding President’s handling of the showdown
with North Korea, with only 57 negative statements and nine positive ones,
for an 86% bad press score. Most of the coverage has actually been neutral,
with the negative press clustered around Trump’s “fire and fury” threat to
the North in early August.

The networks’ aggression in covering Trump contrasts with their docile, often
adoring coverage of President Obama. Both Presidents are, of course, highly
controversial — the key difference is that Obama’s policies matched the
liberal media’s preferences, while Trump’s agenda clearly clashes with the
establishment media’s world view.

On Friday’s Morning Joe, MSNBC analyst Mark Halperin gave the game away when
he admitted that Trump “will get good coverage, if he works with Democrats,
for as far as the eye can see. It will produce more liberal policies, which a
lot of people in the media like.” All Presidents deserve critical news
coverage from time to time, but the relentlessly hostile coverage Trump has
seen thus far is as much a reflection of the media’s ideological bias as
anything else.

[Ubiquitous]

Last March, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin argued
that the Obama administration had ordered surveillance on the Trump
campaign and that there was evidence to suggest information gathered
during that surveillance was leaked to harm Donald Trump
politically.

Monday’s report that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort
was wiretapped by the Obama administration before and after the
election confirmed what Levin had said, proving Levin’s analysis —
which was meticulously detailed and came from mainstream media
sources — was correct.

But back in March, the mainstream media dismissed Levin’s claims out
of hand. Levin was labeled a “conspiracy theorist,” the
“overwhelming” evidence Levin presented in great detail was largely
ignored, and Levin’s integrity was attacked viciously in the media.

Instead of following up on the evidence Levin presented:
1.ABC’s Brian Ross called Levin “a conspiracy-loving talk show
host.”

2.The Washington Post claimed Levin was “confounded” or “trying to
confound everyone who listens to him.”

3.Writing for the Post, Chris Cillizza labeled Levin’s claims a
“conspiracy theory” and wrote of his evidence: “The proof that all —
or any — of these events are tied together by actual facts as
opposed to supposition is not offered.”

4.The New York Daily News declared Levin “the conservative radio
host behind Trump’s wiretap conspiracy theory.”

5.CNN’s Brian Stelter accused Levin of having “cherry-picked news
stories that supported his thesis and omitted information that cut
against it.”

6.The New York Times called Levin’s detailed argument a
“conspiratorial rant.”

7.The L.A. Times said Levin advanced his claims against the Obama
administration “without evidence” and labeled it a “conspiracy
theory.”

8.The Guardian pointed at Levin as “the talkshow [sic] host behind
the baseless Obama wiretap rumor.”

9.The Daily Beast smeared Levin as “a perpetually angry conservative
media star and commentator who too often enjoys indulging in wild
claims and grand conspiracy-theorizing.”

10.The Atlantic referred to the matter as “Levin and Breitbart’s
conspiracy theory.”

11.The Associated Press falsely claimed that Levin “voiced without
evidence the idea that Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower.”


Well, now Levin has been vindicated, and these media outlets look
like fools. The mainstream media reaction to Levin’s accurate claims
is a sterling case in point for why Americans don’t trust the media.

[Ubiquitous]

Why didn't TV networks show angry, booing NFL fans Sunday or Monday?
By Michael McCarthy

With President Donald Trump's attacks against protesting NFL players still
reverberating, the league's TV partners decided to air live coverage of the
national anthem before Week 3 games. Those partners left out a key element of
the coverage: crowd shots of angry fans.

Networks typically do not televise the national anthem except for the Super
Bowl and other special occasions, but they recognized there would be intense
viewer interest this past weekend.

Some fans, if they reacted at all, happily clapped and cheered during
protests, but others did not, and they angrily let their home teams know it.
The audio mics picked up the boos. Yet the TV networks mostly avoided crowd
shots Sunday, so there was never a chance for viewers to see fans jeering
players.

A segment of Patriots fans in Foxborough, Mass., for example, nearly booed
their own players off the field when some Pats sat or kneeled, with some
screaming, "Stand up!"

WATCH: Patriots fans boo their team during anthem protest in wake of
Trump's comments. More from @arniestapleton:
https://t.co/5dfjstwRJs pic.twitter.com/kvLmSzG28w
— AP NFL (@AP_NFL) September 24, 2017

One behind-the-scenes TV staffer at another stadium told Sporting News that
camera operators were ordered to avoid crowd shots in case they showed fans
counterprotesting the protests.

NBC Sports, CBS Sports, Fox Sports and ESPN pay billions each year to televise
live NFL games. The league saw this weekend's unprecedented anthem coverage as
a golden opportunity to demonstrate unity among players, coaches and owners --
and opposition to Trump's comments.

If crowd shots were indeed purposely avoided, it was a wise business decision
by the networks not to bite the hand that feeds them their most popular
programming, but a weak move from a journalistic standpoint. By covering one
of the most significant days in NFL history with rose-colored glasses, the
networks cheated viewers. We got an incomplete picture of what really happened
in stadiums on Sunday and Monday.

Yes, the main television focus should have been on the players, coaches and
owners sitting, kneeling or linking arms. But fans hold the ultimate power
over the networks and the league, and they were missing in action during
coverage.

CBS spokeswoman Jennifer Sabatelle told Sporting News no one at her network
was instructed to ignore the crowd.

"The anthem was covered by each crew in their own way, with many choosing to
stay with what was happening on the field," Sabatelle said. "There was no
directive given to not show the fans."

And yet, fans were hardly shown, much less interviewed, by NFL networks
Sunday.

During ESPN's "Monday Night Football" telecast of the Cowboys-Cardinals in
Glendale, Ariz., play-by-play announcer Sean McDonough noted, "Boos can be
heard from this sellout crowd" as Jerry Jones and the Cowboys collectively
took a knee.

But we never saw any of these frustrated spectators. Were they booing both
teams for protesting? Just booing the visiting Cowboys? Both? We got only one
quick shot of a fan holding Old Glory while Jordin Sparks sang "The Star-
Spangled Banner."

The booing at the NFL football game last night, when the entire
Dallas team dropped to its knees, was loudest I have ever heard.
Great anger
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 26, 2017

ESPN declined to comment, but a source said there was no edict from Bristol,
that it's up to the director of the "MNF" game telecast to make the call from
the production truck on what shots to use.

During NBC's telecast of "Sunday Night Football" in Landover, Md., we got
plenty close-up views of Raiders and Redskins sitting or linking arms during
the anthem. The fans were strictly in the background.

Fans booing Jets and Dolphins players were loud and clear during CBS's
telecast from East Rutherford, N.J. But we never saw them. Instead, we got a
lot of field-level shots of linked arms players and saluting police officers.

Thought I heard boos as #Jets +#Dolphins knelt or took a knee during
playing of national anthem. CBS avoided crowd shots. Anybody @MetLife?
— Michael McCarthy (@MMcCarthyREV) September 24, 2017

During the singing of the anthem before Giants-Eagles at Lincoln Financial
Field in Philadelphia, Fox stuck to up-close, ground-up shots of players,
coaches and owners. The only image of fans was one long shot showing them
clapping before the network cut to commercial.

Again, the story of fans who were not enamored of Sunday's anthem protests
were out there if TV networks wanted to show us. The reactions of those fans
should have been a bigger story.

In Detroit, a contingent of Lions fans booed their own players when they
protested for racial justice, according to the Detroit Free Press.

Perhaps it's unfair to judge networks by strict journalistic standards since
they are effectively billion-dollar business partners with the league. But
viewers shouldn't have to go to social media or local newspapers to find out
what really happens inside stadiums.

We're all big boys and girls. The sky isn't going to fall if networks show the
booing of protesting players.

Plenty of people are dubious about the league's real aim in all of this. Does
it really support the players' rights to protest, or was the emphasis on
"Unity" a self-serving PR ploy by a league seeking to deflect attention from
the real causes of Kaepernick's protest?

Deadspin's Tom Ley, for example, called BS on "Choose Your Side" Sunday: "The
NFL is literally using this for brand marketing."

Next time, the networks showing NFL games should keep it real. Give us the
truth, as uncomfortable as that might be, and not the glossy, Hallmark card-
version the NFL wants us to see.

[FPP]

Post by Ubiquitous
Some fans, if they reacted at all, happily clapped and cheered during
protests, but others did not, and they angrily let their home teams know it.
The audio mics picked up the boos.

Booing at a football game?
I'm shocked!

And you're a moron.

[Byker]

On Sept. 24 a 25-year-old black man allegedly born in Sudan shot up the
Burnette Chapel of Christ in Antioch, TN. He killed 38-year-old Melanie Crow
Smith and wounded at least eight others, including himself.

Among the wounded were the church’s minister Joey Spann and his wife Peggy.

Police took accused gunman Emanuel Kidega Samson to the hospital, where he
was treated for injuries before being returned into custody.
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2017/09/24/nashville-police-responding-
shooting-antioch-church/697968001/

Samson’s social-media posts reveal a deeply disgruntled black man obsessed
with black-identity politics and white supremacy and police brutality and
all the other topics that ensure that black men who myopically fixate on
them and never pause to smell the roses may ruin their chance at ever
escaping their chronic disgruntlement and embarking on a new life blessed
with never-ending waves of gruntling and regruntling.
http://gotnews.com/breaking-antioch-shooter-black-power-radical-posted-youre-
likely-killed-white-man/

The major American news media has wisely chosen not to make a big deal out
of this story for fear that it might unnecessarily cause racial tension...

http://www.5z8.info/how-to-build-a-bomb_s5f9xu_--INITIATE-CREDIT-CARD-XFER--

[Ubiquitous]

Filmmaker James O’Keefe released a new undercover video on Tuesday that is
just the first part in a new series from Project Veritas that exposes alleged
bias inside The New York Times.

In the first video targeting The New York Times, Project Veritas exposes
Nicholas Dudich — who reportedly manages all the videos that go on Facebook,
YouTube, and Instagram. When asked about being objective at the Times, Dudich
replied candidly, saying, “No, I'm not, that's why I'm here.”

According to Dudich, he is a person that wields significant influence inside
the Times, as he told an undercover Project Veritas operative “my voice is on
. . . my imprint is on every video we do.”

Dudich goes on to display his hatred for President Donald Trump and explains
how he is trying to destroy him:

I'd target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and
Eric. ...

Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. Boycott ...
So a lot of the Trump brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and
you put pressure on his business and you start investigating his
business and you start shutting it down, or they're hacking or other
things. He cares about his business more than he cares about being
President. He would resign. Or he'd lash out and do something
incredibly illegal, which he would have to.

When the undercover journalist asks Dudich if he could make sure that the
anti-Trump stories make it to the front, he replied, "Oh, we always do."

Dudich also claims in the video that he “used to be an Anti-Fa punk once upon
a time” and appeared to suggest that he has attacked people.

WATCH:

[FPP]

Filmmaker James O’Keefe released a new undercover video on Tuesday that is
just the first part in a new series from Project Veritas that exposes alleged
bias inside The New York Times.

No? Really!
You clowns are falling for it? Again?

What is Lil' Jimmie dressing up as today?--

[FPP]

Filmmaker James O’Keefe released a new undercover video on Tuesday that is
just the first part in a new series from Project Veritas that exposes alleged
bias inside The New York Times.
In the first video targeting The New York Times, Project Veritas exposes
Nicholas Dudich — who reportedly manages all the videos that go on Facebook,
YouTube, and Instagram. When asked about being objective at the Times, Dudich
replied candidly, saying, “No, I'm not, that's why I'm here.”
According to Dudich, he is a person that wields significant influence inside
the Times, as he told an undercover Project Veritas operative “my voice is on
. . . my imprint is on every video we do.”

Yeah... that may be a bit of a stretch. He was in a junior position,
and he re-posted already published videos. That's some big fish you've
got there...

"Based on what we've seen in the Project Veritas video, it appears that
a recent hire in a junior position violated our ethical standards and
misrepresented his role," the paper said. "In his role at The Times, he
was responsible for posting already published video on other platforms
and was never involved in the creation or editing of Times videos."

So Lil' Jimmie found somebody that doesn't like Trump?
Shit! I could have helped him with that!

Let's start with the guy who called Trump "a fucking moron".
What was his name again? Oh, yeah... "Mr. Secretary.

[Ubiquitous]

Geraldo Rivera said his trip to Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria confirmed
how badly biased the press is against President Trump.

"Having seen how he was treated in Puerto Rico and then seeing the press
about how he was treated in Puerto Rico it was almost an absolute 100
percent disconnect," the Fox News contributor told "Fox & Friends" on
Saturday.

Rivera visited Puerto Rico and interviewed the president and first lady as
they surveyed storm relief efforts in the devastated country.

He remembered crowds who were "ebullient" about the president's visit.

The federal government's response to Hurricane Maria has been far better
than it is given credit for, he continued.

"This president has the worst relationship not only with the press but with
those on the other side of the aisle that I have seen since Richard Nixon,"
Rivera said.

"He does not get the benefit of the doubt for anything. Anything he does is
construed in the most wicked, negative way possible."

http://media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2017/10/14/694940094001_5610554987001_5610554664001.mp4

[Ubiquitous]

Late on Tuesday evening, Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL), one of the
more radical members of the House of Representatives, told the media
that one of her constituents, Myeshia Johnson, had been called by
President Trump. Johnson is the widow of one of the soldiers, Sgt.
La David Johnson, killed in Niger two weeks ago. According to ABC
News:

In an interview with CNN Tuesday night, the Democratic
congresswoman said of Trump's comment about Sgt. Johnson:
"Basically he said, 'Well, I guess he knew what he signed
up for. But I guess it still hurt.' That's what he said."
When asked by ABC Miami affiliate WPLG if she was sure that
is what she heard Trump say, Wilson responded, "Yeah, he
said that. To me that is something that you can say in a
conversation, but you shouldn’t say that to a grieving
widow. And everyone knows when you go to war, you could
possibly not come back alive. But you don’t remind a
grieving widow of that. That’s so insensitive."

President Trump fired back on Twitter:

Democrat Congresswoman totally fabricated what I said to
the wife of a soldier who died in action (and I have proof).
Sad!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2017

Which led Wilson to return fire: “the president is evidently lying …
I have proof too, this man is a sick man.”

The media are running with the story; Wilson was, after all, present
on speakerphone during the conversation. But the level of initial,
unchallenged credibility accorded to Wilson is somewhat troubling.
It is worth noting that back in May, Wilson stated that Trump was
“on the brink of impeachment”; she made her national name by wearing
colorful hats and crusading for the imprisonment of George Zimmerman
in the Trayvon Martin case. She’s an ardent opponent of Trump’s.
Just two days ago, President Trump enraged his opponents by stating
(in evidence-free fashion) that President Obama did not call the
families of slain American troops; it’s rather convenient that
within 48 hours, an ardent Democrat would come up with a quote from
Trump proving his lack of compassion to those same family members.

It’s entirely possible that Trump said what Wilson alleges. But
we’re not hearing anything from Myeshia Johnson, who should be the
one making this allegation. And we’re not seeing a transcript or
hearing a recording. Which means that once again, we’re stuck in he
said-she said land, where various partisan players can choose
whether or not to believe their political favorites.

Here’s the position we should all be taking: we don’t know yet. We
can have our suspicions, but we simply don’t know. Even Wilson’s
replay of the conversation is a paraphrase, and there are ellipses
in her quotes that do a lot of heavy lifting. Did Trump say that
Johnson “knew what he signed up for” in response to something
Johnson’s wife said? Did he say something else that got lost in the
ellipses? We just don’t know.

So let’s wait for the transcript or the recording before either
jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an unfeeling monster or that
Wilson is an exaggerating hack. Is that too much to ask?

[FPP]

So let’s wait for the transcript or the recording before either
jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an unfeeling monster or that
Wilson is an exaggerating hack. Is that too much to ask?

Why? We already know one side is full of serial liars.
It's a very, very short jump.

[NoBody]

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
So let’s wait for the transcript or the recording before either
jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an unfeeling monster or that
Wilson is an exaggerating hack. Is that too much to ask?

Why? We already know one side is full of serial liars.

Yeah but what about Trump?

[Ubiquitous]

Post by NoBody

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
So let’s wait for the transcript or the recording before either
jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an unfeeling monster or
that Wilson is an exaggerating hack. Is that too much to ask?

Why? We already know one side is full of serial liars.

Yeah but what about Trump?

Heh.

So it turns out that rodeo clown proved herself to be a liar again.

[Ubiquitous]

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
So let’s wait for the transcript or the recording before either
jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an unfeeling monster or that
Wilson is an exaggerating hack. Is that too much to ask?

Why? We already know one side is full of serial liars.

Which leaves us with Trump's side of the story.

[FPP]

Post by Ubiquitous

Post by FPP

So let’s wait for the transcript or the recording before either
jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an unfeeling monster or that
Wilson is an exaggerating hack. Is that too much to ask?

Why? We already know one side is full of serial liars.

Which leaves us with Trump's side of the story.

Nobody believes anything coming out of the White House, or the
Leadership of either House.

President Weinstein has seen to that.

[Ubiquitous]

Jimmy Carter, the liberal 93-year-old former president, surprisingly
sided with President Trump when he told The New York Times that the
media have been been too hostile on the current commander-in-chief.

“I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president
certainly that I’ve known about,” Carter told The New York Times
columnist Maureen Dowd. The 39th president served one term from 1977 to
1981.

Carter added that he thought the media “feel free to claim that Trump
is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”

The former president also pushed back on accusations of Russian
collusion in the 2016 presidential election, saying: “I don’t think
there’s any evidence that what the Russians did changed enough votes,
or any votes.” He said his wife, Rosalynn, disagreed with him, before
he added, “We voted for [Bernie] Sanders” in the primary.

Carter also doesn’t believe the current president’s “America First”
strategy is out of step with the larger world, spoiling international
relations. “Well, he might be escalating it but I think that precedes
Trump,” he told the Times. “The United States has been the dominant
character in the whole world and now we’re not anymore. And we’re not
going to be. Russia’s coming back and India and China are coming
forward.”

Carter also said he's willing to go to North Korea on a diplomatic
mission amid the escalating tensions over nuclear weapons.

“I don’t know what they’ll do,” he said of North Korea. “Because they
want to save their regime. And we greatly overestimate China’s
influence on North Korea. Particularly to Kim Jong Un. He’s never, so
far as I know, been to China.”

He called the North Korean dictator “unpredictable.”

In September, Carter expressed optimism that Trump might break a
legislative logjam with his six-month deadline for Congress to address
the immigration status of 800,000-plus U.S. residents who were brought
to the country illegally as children.

Carter told Emory University students that the “pressures and the
publicity that Trump has brought to the immigration issue” could even
yield comprehensive immigration law changes that Presidents George W.
Bush and Barack Obama could not muster.

He blamed both major parties for an inability to pass any major
immigration law overhaul since a 1986 law signed by President Ronald
Reagan.

“I don’t see that as a hopeless cause,” Carter said. He added that
Trump’s critics, including himself, “have to give him credit when he
does some things that are not as bad” as they are depicted.

[FPP]

Post by Ubiquitous
Jimmy Carter, the liberal 93-year-old former president, surprisingly
sided with President Trump when he told The New York Times that the
media have been been too hostile on the current commander-in-chief.
“I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president
certainly that I’ve known about,” Carter told The New York Times
columnist Maureen Dowd. The 39th president served one term from 1977 to
1981.
Carter added that he thought the media “feel free to claim that Trump
is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”
The former president also pushed back on accusations of Russian
collusion in the 2016 presidential election, saying: “I don’t think
there’s any evidence that what the Russians did changed enough votes,
or any votes.” He said his wife, Rosalynn, disagreed with him, before
he added, “We voted for [Bernie] Sanders” in the primary.
Carter also doesn’t believe the current president’s “America First”
strategy is out of step with the larger world, spoiling international
relations. “Well, he might be escalating it but I think that precedes
Trump,” he told the Times. “The United States has been the dominant
character in the whole world and now we’re not anymore. And we’re not
going to be. Russia’s coming back and India and China are coming
forward.”
Carter also said he's willing to go to North Korea on a diplomatic
mission amid the escalating tensions over nuclear weapons.
“I don’t know what they’ll do,” he said of North Korea. “Because they
want to save their regime. And we greatly overestimate China’s
influence on North Korea. Particularly to Kim Jong Un. He’s never, so
far as I know, been to China.”
He called the North Korean dictator “unpredictable.”
In September, Carter expressed optimism that Trump might break a
legislative logjam with his six-month deadline for Congress to address
the immigration status of 800,000-plus U.S. residents who were brought
to the country illegally as children.
Carter told Emory University students that the “pressures and the
publicity that Trump has brought to the immigration issue” could even
yield comprehensive immigration law changes that Presidents George W.
Bush and Barack Obama could not muster.
He blamed both major parties for an inability to pass any major
immigration law overhaul since a 1986 law signed by President Ronald
Reagan.
“I don’t see that as a hopeless cause,” Carter said. He added that
Trump’s critics, including himself, “have to give him credit when he
does some things that are not as bad” as they are depicted.

Cozying up to Carter now? Yeah... no hypocrisy, there...

[FPP]

Last week, The Hill published new information about Russian efforts to
infiltrate the American uranium industry, including $31.3 million in
payments to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a huge speaking fee delivered
to Bill Clinton personally, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In
eight days, the network evening news coverage of this story amount to a mere
20 seconds on ABC's World News Tonight.

Nine. 9.

[Ubiquitous]

Post by FPP

Last week, The Hill published new information about Russian efforts to
infiltrate the American uranium industry, including $31.3 million in
payments to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a huge speaking fee delivered
to Bill Clinton personally, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In
eight days, the network evening news coverage of this story amount to a mere
20 seconds on ABC's World News Tonight.

Nine. 9.

Nonresponse noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

[Ubiquitous]

Here's one top takeaway from network news coverage in 2017: Sneaky Russian
influence in American politics is a huge story if it involves
Republicans/Donald Trump, but a non-story if it involves Democrats/Hillary
Clinton.

MRC analysts have been tracking all evening news coverage of the Trump
administration since Inauguration Day. From Inauguration Day, January 20,
through last Friday, October 20, these broadcasts have aired an astonishing
1,000 minutes of coverage discussing Russia's attempt to boost Trump in
2016, and speculation that Trump's campaign may have colluded with the
Russians in this project.

Last week, The Hill published new information about Russian efforts to
infiltrate the American uranium industry, including $31.3 million in
payments to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a huge speaking fee delivered
to Bill Clinton personally, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In
eight days, the network evening news coverage of this story amount to a mere
20 seconds on ABC's World News Tonight.

According to an October 22 story by The Hill's John Solomon and Alison
Spann, FBI agents "were surprised by the timing and size of a $500,000 check
that a Kremlin-linked bank provided Bill Clinton with for a single speech in
the summer of 2010. The payday came just weeks after Hillary Clinton helped
arrange for American executives to travel to Moscow to support Putin's
efforts to build his own country's version of Silicon Valley, agents said."

According to the same article: "'There is not one shred of doubt from the
evidence that we had that the Russians had set their sights on Hillary
Clinton's circle, because she was the quarterback of the Obama-Russian reset
strategy and the assumed successor to Obama as president,' said a source
familiar with the FBI's evidence at the time, speaking only on condition of
anonymity, because he was not authorized to speak to the news media."

In fact, from April 2015 through last night, the Clinton/Uranium/Russia
story has been granted only 3 minutes, 21 seconds of evening news coverage -
less than one-half of one percent of the coverage doled out just this year
to the conspiracy theories surrounding Trump and Russia.

ABC's World News Tonight and the CBS Evening News have been the most
intensive, churning out 350 minutes and 381 minutes of evening news coverage
of the Trump/Russia story, respectively, while the NBC Nightly News aired a
relatively restrained 269 minutes of coverage since January 20. (Note: These
statistics include weekend broadcasts, when aired in the Washington D.C.
area.)


Combined, the three evening newscasts have aired a total of 5,015 minutes of
coverage of the Trump administration since Inauguration Day, which means the
Russia story alone has comprised almost exactly one-fifth of all Trump news
this year.

There's no conclusive proof that the Clintons traded favors in exchange for
all of the cash going their way, but there's no proof that Trump and his
campaign team did anything wrong vis a vis Russia, either - yet the media
have made it their business to keep the cloud of suspicion over Trump and
his presidency.

Now that they have a chance to be equally zealous in applying the same
standard to a Democrat, it's obvious that much of the media's interest in
the Trump/Russia story has less to do with Russia's attempts to infiltrate
our government and politics, and more to with a partisan news agenda.

[FPP]

Last week, The Hill published new information about Russian efforts to
infiltrate the American uranium industry, including $31.3 million in
payments to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a huge speaking fee delivered
to Bill Clinton personally, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In
eight days, the network evening news coverage of this story amount to a mere
20 seconds on ABC's World News Tonight.

Nine. 9.

[Ubiquitous]

Post by FPP

Last week, The Hill published new information about Russian efforts to
infiltrate the American uranium industry, including $31.3 million in
payments to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a huge speaking fee delivered
to Bill Clinton personally, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In
eight days, the network evening news coverage of this story amount to a mere
20 seconds on ABC's World News Tonight.

Nine. 9.

Nonresposnse noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

[Ubiquitous]

We all know the liberal media has wasted an ungodly amount of time
on the Russia collusion story. The endless crusade to find the
smoking gun that links the Trump campaign colluding with Russian
intelligence operatives has only ended with delivering buckshot in
the Democrats’ direction. The latest bombshell in this story doesn’t
even have to do with Trump, though his name is on the dossier, it’s
the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Marc Elias, a lawyer for both entities, retained Fusion GPS, who
then used ex-MI6 operative Christopher Steele to gather information
on Trump. He used sources outside and inside the Russian foreign
ministry and intelligence community to compile the unverified
documents that has served as one of the reasons why we have ex-FBI
Director Robert Mueller looking into the allegations of collusion,
acting as special counsel.

Former Bush aide Ari Fleischer noted that the DNC-funded this
outing, and the Russians gave Steele information which could be
construed as collusion, no? And the Democrats only funded Steele.
So, it seems there could be a Hillary/Russia angle. The Uranium One
deal, which has been fraught with pay-to-play allegations is also
back into the mix since we now know that the Obama administration
and the FBI knew the Kremlin was bribing their way to control the
Canadian mining company—Uranium One. The Obama administration kept
things quiet since they didn’t want to not upset the Russian reset.
The Russians took over the company in 2013, and its mining sites in
the U.S. It gave them control of 1/5 of our uranium supply. The
Committee on Foreign Investment, which oversees deals that could
impact America’s national security priorities, approved the transfer
of the majority stake to the Russians that led to the takeover of
Uranium One. During the process, Bill Clinton got a $500,000 check
for a speech from a Russian bank selling Uranium One futures. The
Clinton Foundation got $2.35 million from the then-chairman of
Uranium One. Hillary was secretary of state at the time, one of the
principals on the committee.

Yet, only a mere 20 seconds has been devoted to that development,
while at least 1,000 hours of coverage has been given to the ‘Trump
is the Manchurian Candidate’ hysteria. That constitutes one-fifth of
all the coverage the big three—ABC, NBC, and CBS—has given to this
administration. Rich Noyes at the Media Research Center broke it
down:

MRC analysts have been tracking all evening news coverage
of the Trump administration since Inauguration Day. From
Inauguration Day, January 20, through last Friday, October
20, these broadcasts have aired an astonishing 1,000 minutes
of coverage discussing Russia’s attempt to boost Trump in
2016, and speculation that Trump’s campaign may have
colluded with the Russians in this project.

[…]

According to an October 22 story by The Hill’s John Solomon
and Alison Spann, FBI agents “were surprised by the timing
and size of a $500,000 check that a Kremlin-linked bank
provided Bill Clinton with for a single speech in the summer
of 2010. The payday came just weeks after Hillary Clinton
helped arrange for American executives to travel to Moscow
to support Putin’s efforts to build his own country’s
version of Silicon Valley, agents said.”

According to the same article: “‘There is not one shred of
doubt from the evidence that we had that the Russians had
set their sights on Hillary Clinton’s circle, because she
was the quarterback of the Obama-Russian reset strategy and
the assumed successor to Obama as president,’ said a source
familiar with the FBI’s evidence at the time, speaking only
on condition of anonymity, because he was not authorized to
speak to the news media.”

Imagine $500,000 in Russian money being paid for a speech
delivered by Donald Trump or a member of his family. But
Bill Clinton’s big payday has generated ZERO network news
coverage this week, and only a single reference on ABC’s
This Week back in 2015, when the book Clinton Cash first
disclosed the potential scandal.

[…]

There’s no conclusive proof that the Clintons traded favors
in exchange for all of the cash going their way, but there’s
no proof that Trump and his campaign team did anything wrong
vis a vis Russia, either — yet the media have made it their
business to keep the cloud of suspicion over Trump and his
presidency.

https://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/hv/images/2017/299/43acd47d-
2a23-4232-9d04-053568527d16.png

On the Clinton funding the Trump dossier development, Kristine Marsh
added that ABC News gave a mere 31 seconds to the story, but devoted
10 minutes to the meeting Donald Trump, Jr. had with a Russian
lawyer in June of 2016, which turned out to be nothing.

The Wall Street Journal had a good op-ed about this Uranium One
revival, snarkily calling it the “silence of the scams.”

The Rosatom [the Russian state-owned corporation that took
over Uranium One] director named Arkady Dvorkovich, was “a
top aide to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and one
of the highest-ranking government officials to serve on
Rosatom’s board of supervisors, was listed on a May 14,
2010, email as one of 15 Russians the former president
wanted to meet during a late June 2010 trip, the documents
show,” wrote the Hill.

Mr. Clinton ended up meeting with Russian strongman Vladimir
Putin instead. The Russians ended up getting control of the
uranium. The sale benefited donors to the Clinton
Foundation, which failed to disclose some of the money
donated as required by an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck
with the Obama Administration.

To The New York Times’ credit, they did devote a lengthy article to
this story back in 2015. Yes, it’s par for the course concerning the
duration of the coverage—and the old “if this were a Republican’
game never gets old. It doesn’t make it any less infuriating.

[FPP]

Post by Ubiquitous
We all know the liberal media has wasted an ungodly amount of time
on the Russia collusion story.

Nope. We all know you won't believe anything that contradicts your
dogma, that's all.

[Ubiquitous]

Post by FPP
Nope. We all know you won't believe anything that contradicts your
dogma, that's all.

Projection noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

[Ubiquitous]

On Friday, Rob Gronkowski of the New England Patriots appeared on CNBC
to discuss the augmented reality app, Mojiit, alongside its creator,
Jeremy Greene. During the segment, the hosts prodded the football star
with questions about the NFL kneeling controversy.

Gronkowski appeared to be taken off-guard by the first question
regarding the anthem protest. "Uh," he uttered, looking somewhat
perplexed.

Nevertheless, the hosts persisted, asking him three more times to offer
his opinion. Gronkowski managed to avoid answering each question.

Greene interjected: "I think the whole thing is just negative, and he
likes to focus on things that are positive, like this app." Gronkowski
replied: "Like Mojiit. I just focus on positivity."

According to CNBC, "with Mojiit, a user takes a selfie video and sends
it to a friend. The recipient sees a hologram of the digital avatar
relaying the message projected onto another surface."

[Ubiquitous]

Early Monday morning, CNN posted a video of what they believed was a
horrific faux pas on the part of President Donald Trump, now
visiting Japan — but the network, whose new slogan is "just facts,"
appears to have deliberately failed to tell the whole story.

As Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited the Akasaka
palace in Tokyo on Monday, they were given boxes of food to feed the
palace's Koi fish, considered a de rigeur activity, and one which
confers certain blessings. According to the CNN video, which focused
only on the president, Trump shoveled a few spoonfuls of fish food
into the pond before unceremoniously — and wrongly — dumping his
entire box of food directly into the water.

Since the video shows only Trump — deliberately — and only pans out
to Abe once the fish segment is concluded, it appears that Trump
defied his host's home tradition, insulting the entire country of
Japan.

Leftists on social media pounced. Oh, that Trump! What an uncultured
swine!

But, once video of the full scene emerged, it became clear CNN was
endeavoring to tell only half a story. See if you can spot the
difference between AFP's fish-feeding video and the "facts"
network's:

You see, Abe dumped his fish food into the pond first, and Trump
just followed suit — although in a less delicate manner. He even
seems to have fun imitating Abe.

The president receives a lot of flack for calling CNN "fake news,"
but in this case, the network appears to have gone out of its way to
change how its own story was presented — allowing viewers to believe
that Donald Trump had made a serious fish faux pas when, in fact, he
was only following the example of Japan's own leader. CNN zoomed in
on Trump, and failed to tell the full story, then gave the video an
odd headline, implying Trump was the only fish over-feeder on the
trip.

In fairness to the fish, neither PM should have dumped his box into
the pond. Overfeeding is the top cause of death among Koi fish, and
these Koi are precious to the nation. But at least tell the whole
story.

[Ubiquitous]

Liberal media fixates on laws that wouldn't have stopped attack,
ignores good guy with gun

Before knowing almost anything about Sunday’s mass public shooting,
gun control advocates are once again calling for more gun control.
The attack at the First Baptist Church in tiny Sutherland Springs,
Texas, claimed 26 lives and left people with an understandable
desire to “do something.” One thing is certain: the proposals put
forward by gun control advocates wouldn’t have stopped this attack.

What they ignored was what stopped the killer was a good guy with a
gun. As one witness said, without the good guy with a gun it “would
have been much worse.” If more people were carrying guns, the
attack might have been stopped even faster and more lives would have
been saved.

Democratic Senators such as Dick Durbin (Ill.), Richard Blumenthal
(Conn.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), and Kamala
Harris (Calif.) all immediately made statements that were various
versions of, “Congress must act.”


The media spent all day after the attack rhetorically asking whether
now was the time for more gun control. CNN’s Jim Acosta repeatedly
asked if President Trump is, “Content . . . with these mass
shootings exploding every month or so.”

Today, the day after the shooting, we know some more about the
killer. We now know that one of the victims who attended the church
was his ex-mother-in-law. That his conviction was for cracking the
skull of his infant son years ago. That he had a “bad conduct”
discharge from the military.

If the media waited even a few hours, they would have learned that
their calls for regulations — primarily for “universal” background
checks — wouldn’t have stopped this attack. Indeed, their proposals
wouldn’t have stopped any of the other mass public shootings in the
last couple decades. Kelley bought a gun at a gun store, and he
passed the background check that the store conducted on him. Lying
on the form doesn’t help you evade the computer background check.

Others on MSNBC immediately called for limiting magazine capacities,
but a magazine is just a box with a spring in it. They can be made
with very simple tools, and now-a-days 3D printers make it an even
easier project. We still don’t know if Kelley planned this attack
long in advance, though he bought the gun back in April 2016. It is
very common for killers to plan mass public shootings one or two
years in advance. It's not serious to think that a ban is going to
keep anyone other than law-abiding people from obtaining a magazine.

During his press conference early Monday morning in Japan, President
Trump worried that the attack was the result of a "mental health
problem at the highest level" and called the gunman a, “very
deranged individual.” Kelley may well have been suffering from a
mental illness, but mental health evaluations shouldn’t be counted
for much help. Psychiatrists and psychologists have an extremely
poor track record in identifying those who pose a threat to others.
Half of the mass public shooters of the Obama years were seeing
mental health professionals prior to their attacks. None of these
experts identified the killers as a danger to others.

Elliot Rodger, who killed six and injured 14 others near the
University of California at Santa Barbara, fooled not only sheriff’s
deputies but also the internationally-known Dr. Charles Sophy. Sophy
is medical director for the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services. That ought to give people pause before
they assume that there’s an easy solution for identifying dangerous
individuals.

We know that the attack at the Texas church could have been even
worse if it wasn’t for an armed civilian. According to the Texas
Department of Public Safety, “A local resident grabbed his rifle and
engaged the suspect, the suspect dropped his rifle and fled from the
church.”

Something should be done, but the question is what. Texas lets each
church decide whether to allow permitted concealed handguns, and we
don’t know whether this particular church allowed it. What we do
know is that time is crucial. The longer it takes for someone to
arrive at the scene with a gun, the more people who will be harmed.

If the media and politicians want to do something effective, they
could take a page out of Israel’s playbook. When there is a surge in
terrorist attacks , Israeli police call on permitted civilians to
make sure that they have their guns with them at all times.

Police tend to support an increase in permits. “What would help most
in preventing large-scale shootings in public?” PoliceOne asked its
450,000 American officer members in 2013. The most common answer:
“More permissive concealed carry policies for civilians.”

Eighty percent of the surveyed officers believed that allowing
permitted concealed handguns would reduce the number of victims of
mass public shootings.

Thank God, there was a good guy with a gun on Sunday in Sulpher
Springs.

:John R. Lott, Jr. is a columnist for FoxNews.com. He is an
:economist and was formerly chief economist at the United States
:Sentencing Commission. Lott is also a leading expert on guns and
:op-eds on that issue are done in conjunction with the Crime
:Prevention Research Center. He is the author of nine books
:including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is "The War on
:Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies (August 1, 2016).
:Follow him on ***@johnrlottjr.

[FPP]

Post by Ubiquitous
What they ignored was what stopped the killer was a good guy with a
gun.

Stopped what? Dozens of people were murdered.
He may have prevented more deaths, but he didn't "stop" shit.

[Ubiquitous]

any in the media are apparently so desperate to score points against
President Trump they’re willing to fish up a phony scandal about how the
commander in chief improperly feeding Japanese koi fish.

The fishy story began overnight Sunday, when CNN circulated a deceptively
edited video that appeared to show Trump, who was feeding koi fish with
his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe, simply dumping his box of fish food
into the pond.

The apparent breach of fish-feeding protocol immediately went viral, as
Trump was seen as too impatient to thoughtfully spoon the fish food into
the pond, as Abe was doing.

Here's how CNN's edited the video:

Here is one of the many tweets CNN published:






CNN also wrote up a news story about the fake fish story:


The Huffington Post's Yashar Ali was one of many journalists to circulate
the false report, snidely tweeting that "Trump was supposed to feed the
koi by the spoonful with PM Abe but quickly got impatient and dumped the
whole box of food into the pond."

The New York Times's Julie Davis likewise helped spread the myth:




The only problem is that ... it's all untrue.

As the non-edited video below shows, both leaders casually spooned fish
food to the koi; after doing so for approximately 30 seconds, Abe dumped
the remainder of his box into the pond; Trump, following Abe's lead, then
does the same:

Yashar Ali, to his credit, deleted his tweet:






The other fake scandal concerns Trump apparently suggesting to Abe that
Japan should build cars in the United States and create American jobs,
rather than import them from Japan.

Haha, journalists sniffed, everyone knows Japan already manufactures cars
in America!

Take, for example, this sample treatment from Slate:




The Hill also helped make this fake story go viral:






As did CBS's White House reporter, Mark Knoller:






Again, the only problem with this story is that it's untrue.

After spreading uncorrected for almost 24, The Washington Post's Aaron
Blake tweeted a debunking:





As the full quote makes clear, Trump not only is aware Japan manufactures
cars in America, but he specifically thanks them for all of the jobs
they're creating. "I also want to recognize the business leaders in the
room whose confidence in the United States — they've been creating jobs —
you have such confidence in the United States, and you've been creating
jobs for our country for a long, long time. Several Japanese automobile
industry firms have been really doing a job," Trump says.

He then thanks Toyota and Mazda specifically for a new plant they're
building in the U.S.:

And we love it when you build cars — if you're a Japanese firm,
we love it — try building your cars in the United States instead
of shipping them over. Is that possible to ask? That's not rude.
Is that rude? I don't think so. (Laughter.) If you could build
them. But I must say, Toyota and Mazda — where are you? Are you
here, anybody? Toyota? Mazda? I thought so. Oh, I thought that
was you. That's big stuff. Congratulations. Come on, let me
shake your hand. (Applause.) They're going to invest $1.6 billion
in building a new manufacturing plant, which will create as many
as 4,000 new jobs in the United States.

We're only one day into Trump's Asia trip, and the major media's already
embarrassed itself twice. It's shaping up to be a long trip.

[FPP]

Post by Ubiquitous
any in the media are apparently so desperate to score points against
President Trump they’re willing to fish up a phony scandal about how the
commander in chief improperly feeding Japanese koi fish.

Any what?

[trotsky]

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
any in the media are apparently so desperate to score points against
President Trump they’re willing to fish up a phony scandal about how the
commander in chief improperly feeding Japanese koi fish.

Any what?

Is there any time where koi aren't Japanese in origin?

[A Friend]

Post by trotsky

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
any in the media are apparently so desperate to score points against
President Trump they’re willing to fish up a phony scandal about how the
commander in chief improperly feeding Japanese koi fish.

Any what?

Is there any time where koi aren't Japanese in origin?

Yes. We've raised koi. Many U.S. koi come from Israel. Their colors
aren't as vibrant as the Japanese variety, but they're a lot cheaper.

[trotsky]

Post by A Friend

Post by trotsky

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
any in the media are apparently so desperate to score points against
President Trump they’re willing to fish up a phony scandal about how the
commander in chief improperly feeding Japanese koi fish.

Any what?

Is there any time where koi aren't Japanese in origin?

Yes. We've raised koi. Many U.S. koi come from Israel. Their colors
aren't as vibrant as the Japanese variety, but they're a lot cheaper.

Yes, but they originated in Japan. If there have been many generations
raised in Israel it's possible their traits could change.

[A Friend]

Post by trotsky

Post by A Friend

Post by trotsky

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
any in the media are apparently so desperate to score points against
President Trump they’re willing to fish up a phony scandal about how the
commander in chief improperly feeding Japanese koi fish.

Any what?

Is there any time where koi aren't Japanese in origin?

Yes. We've raised koi. Many U.S. koi come from Israel. Their colors
aren't as vibrant as the Japanese variety, but they're a lot cheaper.

Yes, but they originated in Japan. If there have been many generations
raised in Israel it's possible their traits could change.

Something about the way they're raised in Israel, or the conditions --
maybe even the water -- has affected the coloring, and the Israeli koi
people don't seem to be able to do anything about it. This is a good
export for them, but I suppose the color thing is driving them a little
nuts.

[Ubiquitous]

Talk about not letting go. While some liberals are gathering to “scream
helplessly at the sky” for the one year anniversary of the 2016
presidential election, the journalists at the Washington Post are busy
writing the equivalent of fan fiction, an “alternate timeline” imagining
"what if Hillary had won." Amazingly, the Post published TWO "alternate
histories" in 24 hours.

Writers Ben Terris, Dan Zak, Monica Hesse and Amy Argetsinger (it took
four people to write this?) on Thursday began by rewriting, “What if
Election Day 2016 had gone a little differently? What if a freak snowstorm
across the Rust Belt had kept rural Trump voters from the polls? What if
Russia had read its psyops data wrong and pivoted its resources to
Snapchat? What if James Comey had taken a closer look at those emails in
late October and decided, eh, it’s probably nothing.”

They fantasized, “What if all of these things happened? What if Clinton
had won? Let’s pretend." The entry included bizarre attempts at humor (?)
such as “Carrie Fisher is still alive.” The four journalists speculated:

On Inauguration Day, President Hillary Rodham Clinton took the
oath in a headband and a pantsuit. Hey, it was rainy, and what
does she care what you think anymore? That night, Lin-Manuel
Miranda brought the house down with a freestyle rap at her first
inaugural ball, while new White House co-chief strategists/toasts
of the town Robby Mook and Donna Brazile set Twitter afire with
their exuberant choreographed dance.

The following day, dozens descended on the Mall for the “Men’s
March.” Three fistfights broke out over who forgot to secure a
rally permit.

It all coincided with a major shake-up at Fox News. The New York
Times had taken advantage of the post-election news lull to ramp
up its investigation of Bill O’Reilly, who was forced out by
early December. Fox then rebuilt its lineup around its new
highest-paid star; Megyn Kelly’s two-hour show, which debuted
Jan. 23, fillets the new president every night for a record-
breaking viewership. Tagline: “Hey, she’s a woman, so you can’t
say it’s sexist.”

Some of it is meant to “funny." Other entries dripped with typical liberal
journalist disdain:

In June, CNN reported that Chelsea Clinton requested permission
to stow her double stroller in a West Wing broom closet while
bringing the kids in to see Grandma. Outraged, Rep. Jason Chaffetz
(R-Utah) — already seeing in the chaos of his party a shot at the
House speakership — postponed his 12th Benghazi inquiry to probe
this potential violation of the Federal Anti-Nepotism Statute.

It’s hard to imagine the journalistic “alternate timeline” for John McCain
or Mitt Romney defeating Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012.

On Wednesday, the Post’s website posted a SECOND alternate timeline with
typically snarky condescension from writer Rachel Sklar

Nov. 22, 2016: In an exclusive interview with the New York Times,
Clinton touches on a wide variety of issues. The transcript is
widely read, and widely understood.

Dec. 4, 2016: Clinton begins speaking with foreign leaders
through State Department channels. She declines to speak to
the leader of Taiwan. She doesn’t cite decades of diplomatic
tradition because it’s obvious.

The Post isn’t the first media outlet to imagine this “Hillary wins”
fantasy. In August, a Showtime program fantasized about “President
Clinton” bringing “world peace.”

[FPP]

Talk about not letting go. While some liberals are gathering to “scream
helplessly at the sky” for the one year anniversary of the 2016
presidential election...

So THAT'S why the Dems cleaned the Republican's clocks last Tuesday!
Call it whatever you like... so long as it continues to run those
ignorant fucks out of office, I'm good with it.

[Ubiquitous]

Following bombshell allegations on Thursday where two women have
come forward and accused Democrat Minnesota Sen. Al Franken of
harassment, the media’s double-standard is on full display.

On Thursday, Media Equalizer Co-Founder Melanie Morgan came forward
and detailed her own experience with Franken before he became a
member of the Congress.

Morgan said Franken stalked her and wouldn’t leave her alone after
they had a disagreement in August 2000 during a segment on ABC’s
Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher.

Prior to Morgan’s revelations, KABC on-air personality Leeann
Tweeden accused Franken of kissing and groping her without her
consent while she was asleep.

Tweeden also tweeted out a photo as evidence, which clearly shows
Franken with his hands on her breasts while he smiles for the
camera.

KABC anchor: Senator Al Franken Kissed and Groped Me
Without My Consent, And There’s Nothing Funny About It
https://t.co/lG4A1ZTUhC pic.twitter.com/EYIzr9ok2s

— Meridith McGraw (@meridithmcgraw) November 16, 2017

While left-leaning media have largely admitted the allegations
against Franken are serious, they haven’t called on Franken to
resign from his senate seat.

This is a man. Al Franken blames himself. Roy Moore and
Donald Trump blame the women. That is a huge difference.
https://t.co/AwNaDXKEE2

— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) November 16, 2017

If u think Franken should resign then you should also call
for Trump to resign. Amazing amt of outrage over Franken
from Trump supporters.

— Kirsten Powers (@KirstenPowers) November 16, 2017

It seems too trite to say that presidents help us reveal
who we are, but they do define the age. Electing Obama
revealed some hard truths about race in America. Trump is
doing so around gender and misogyny.

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) November 16, 2017

If you’re a Republican who supports Trump & you condemn Al
Franken, I would like to hear your thoughts on Donald Trump
as well. And if you agree that Franken shouldn’t be in the
Senate anymore, tell me why you believe Trump should still
be in the White House. #TrumpSexPredator

— Scott Dworkin (@funder) November 16, 2017

Democrats are peddling a much different message with it comes to
Franken, where many have opted to shift the blame to anyone and
anything else rather than calling on Franken to resign.

Conversely, many of these liberals have have been calling on
Republican Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore to step
aside amid a report accusing him of sexual misconduct from four
decades ago.

Last week, The Washington Post published a piece accusing Moore of
sexual misconduct from nearly 40 years ago. Other accusers have
since come forward in recent weeks.

Moore has vehemently denied the allegations.

Many of these same liberals in the media immediately called for
Moore to resign when the The Post report was published.

Amazingly enough, it's not a foregone conclusion that
this ends Moore's campaign. Still, it's disturbing and
suggestive of a behavior pattern that in any sane world
would be immediately disqualifying: https://t.co/kYC2gN17xt

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) November 9, 2017

Horrifying. Roy Moore should resign as Alabama Republican
nominee for US Senate pending a full investigation
https://t.co/FhLJ3PrwdE

— David Leopold (@DavidLeopold) November 9, 2017

So great that Senate Republicans are calling for Roy Moore
to step down over sexual assault allegations. What about to
call for Donald Trump to step down?

— Luisa Haynes (@wokeluisa) November 9, 2017

Here are the Senators so far who don't think that
accusations from multiple women & 30+ sources of Roy
Moore's sexual abuse of minors are enough for him to step

down:@***@SenateMajLdr@***@SenShelby@***@SenatorT
***@SenatorCollins

— Nicole Silverberg (@nsilverberg) November 9, 2017

Moore also spoke about the allegations levied against Franken, where
he said there was a clear double standard in the media.

Al Franken admits guilt after photographic evidence of his
abuse surfaces.

Mitch: "Let's investigate."

In Alabama, ZERO evidence, allegations 100% rejected.

Mitch: "Moore must quit immediately or be expelled."

— Judge Roy Moore (@MooreSenate) November 16, 2017

When it’s a Republican, liberals demanded Moore step aside from his
senate seat.

When it’s a Democrat, they point to others who have been accused of
sexual assault, rather than admitting the severity of the charges
against Franken.

On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called
on the Senate Ethics Committee to review allegations made against
Franken.

“As with all credible allegations of sexual harassment or assault, I
believe the Ethics Committee should review the matter. I hope the
Democratic Leader will join me on this. Regardless of party,
harassment and assault are completely unacceptable — in the
workplace or anywhere else,” McConnell said, according to The Hill.

[FPP]

On Thursday, Media Equalizer Co-Founder Melanie Morgan came forward...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/media-equalizer/

Notes: Media Equalizer is a news and opinion blog with a strong right
wing bias in reporting. All articles favor the right and discredit the
left. Like most sources that lack credibility, Media Equalizer does not
have an About Page, nor any information about ownership or the authors.
There is moderate use of loaded emotional language in articles and
sourcing is typically to other right biased sources such as Fox News,
who has a poor track record with fact checkers. Overall, we rate Media
Equalizer Right Biased and Mixed for factual reporting based on poor
sourcing. (D. Van Zandt 9/13/2017)

[FPP]

Post by Ubiquitous
On Thursday, Media Equalizer Co-Founder Melanie Morgan came forward
and detailed her own experience with Franken before he became a
member of the Congress.

Here is a sample of Media Equalizer, commenting on Roy Moore.
Tell me... do you find them credible?

Post by Ubiquitous
Rush to judgment, more on Moore
How much fact-checking actually took place before the Washington Post rushed to print in the Judge Roy Moore story? It appears that there were a few important biographical items left out of the narrative since the Thursday salacious details of “inappropriate sexual conduct” became public.
The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple reported that the former Alabama Supreme Court justice was accused of sexual impropriety 38 years ago. But the story becomes something different when you add in the latest information from Fox News Friday evening.
It appears that one of the women accusing Moore reportedly worked as a sign language interpreter for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
https://mediaequalizer.com/kyleeidson/2017/11/rush-to-judgment-more-on-moore

See? Roy Moore is just an innocent victim of... wait for it... Hillary
Clinton!

[Ubiquitous]

What happened to believing women when they speak out against powerful
male accusers? On Thursday, evidence broke of a 2006 incident in which
Democrat Al Franken groped and forcibly kissed TV and radio personality
Leeaan Tweeden. Photographic proof backs up her claim.

Yet, MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt described the now-Senator's predatory behavior
this way: _“[Franken] took a picture, which his office now says was of a
joke, that showed him potentially — not actually groping — but mock-
groping her while she was asleep.”_

https://www.mrctv.org/videos/not-believing-victim-kasie-hunt-frankens-
action-not-actually-groping

In the noon hour, Hunt repeated her mild description. This time, she
didn't cite the Franken staff and made it her own: “Then she also
published a picture that was given to her of her asleep with Senator
Franken mock-groping her.” This isn’t how Tweeden described the unwanted
attention. She didn’t offer qualifiers such as “mock-groping” or “not
actually groping”:

It wasn’t until I was back in the US and looking through
the CD of photos we were given by the photographer that I
saw this one:

I couldn’t believe it. He groped me, without my consent,
while I was asleep.

I felt violated all over again. Embarrassed. Belittled.
Humiliated.

How dare anyone grab my breasts like this and think it’s funny?

Doesn’t Tweeden have a right to be believed on her own terms and not
have a journalist downgrade her claims against a liberal, Democratic
senator?

Later on MSNBC, host Andrea Mitchell described what Franken did as
“groping” and didn’t qualify it.

A transcript of the two comments is below.

MSNBC Live
11/16/17
11:53 p.m. Eastern

KASIE HUNT: We are starting to see some immediate reaction
to this on Capitol Hill to those allegations and you covered
what she had to say pretty well. In a nutshell, she said she
was on this USO tour that Al Franken wrote — he was a comedian
then, not a Senator — wrote into the script that he should
kiss her. Tried to get her to rehearse it. It was
uncomfortable. She avoided him after that. Then he took a
picture, which his office now says was of a joke, that showed
him potentially — not actually groping, but mock-groping her
while she was asleep.

(....)

12:17 p.m. Eastern

HUNT: She says he wrote a part into their skit that required
him to kiss her and that he tried to rehearse the kiss
backstage that made her uncomfortable. And then she also
published a picture that was given to her of her asleep with
Senator Franken mock-groping her.

[Ubiquitous]

http://media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2017/12/03/694940094001_5666251347001_5666251102001.mp4

While most networks offered mixed coverage to the trial of an
illegal immigrant accused of killing Kate Steinle, one network
ignored the case's verdict altogether, Pete Hegseth reported.

Hegseth said MSNBC did not cover the verdict of Jose Ines Garcia
Zarate at all.

Number of minutes MSNBC covered Kate Steinle verdict
(Friday - Saturday): 0. pic.twitter.com/Yj65cLX092

— Fox News (@FoxNews) December 3, 2017

Zarate was found guilty on a weapons charge, but acquitted of more
serious manslaughter and murder charges.

"They ignored it all together because to them it wasn't news," The
Federalist's Bre Payton said.

Payton said Zarate didn't deny shooting Steinle, but the fact that
the 45-year-old is a five-time deported illegal immigrant felon
didn't fit the network's narrative.

Hegseth said CNN moderately covered the verdict, but dropped
coverage in favor of reporting that Gen. Michael Flynn [Ret.]
pleaded guilty to lying to federal authorities when that story
broke.

[Ubiquitous]

MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski lamented the resignation of Sen. Al Franken on
Morning Joe Friday, after the Democratic lawmaker announced he would be
stepping down from the Senate in the wake of a number of sexual misconduct
allegations leveled against him.

“I have an incredibly uneasy feeling about this entire story,” Brzezinski
started.

Joe Scarborough then made sure to point out that his co-host and fiancée
Brzezinski has consistently criticized Democrats as “hypocrites” on Bill
Clinton’s alleged sexual transgressions.

“I’m concerned about women, who are legitimately sexually harassed in the
workplace across America, and where this is taking us,” Brzezinski said,
before reading an excerpt from a Washington Post column asking “Was Al
Franken’s punishment fair?”

Brzezinski then seemed to call into question the legitimacy of Leeann
Tweeden’s allegations (the radio news anchor first accused Franken of
forcible kissing and groping her while she slept, which prompted the other
women to come out and accuse the senator of misconduct.)

“We’ve never really talked about the woman who first came out against Al
Franken,” she said, before questioning the “Playboy model who goes on
Hannity, voted for Trump.”

“I see some politics there, but I haven’t brought that up every step of the
way because of course, in this ‘Me Too’ environment, you must always believe
the women.”

Brzezinski went on to note that she has spoken to the accusers of ex-Morning
Joe analyst Mark Halperin.

“I spoke to them, I believe them. I’m just wondering if all the women need to
be believed. I’m concerned that we are being the judge the jury and the cops
here and so did Senate Democrats getting ahead of their skis,” Brzezinski
said.

Brzezinski also read an excerpt from Masha Gessen’s latest column for the New
Yorker, which criticized the “selective force” of the #MeToo movement.

A number of op-eds have trickled out since Franken’s resignation — including
one from Mediaite’s John Ziegler — that have sought to call into question his
accusers, as well as the heavy-handed way in which his punishment, in the
form of a quasi-forced resignation, was carried out.

[FPP]

“I spoke to them, I believe them. I’m just wondering if all the women need to
be believed. I’m concerned that we are being the judge the jury and the cops
here and so did Senate Democrats getting ahead of their skis,” Brzezinski
said.

So, you find believing Franken's accusers is just peachy, but believing
President Poly Grip and Judge GropATeen should be suspect.

[Ubiquitous]

On Monday, Americans awoke to news of an attempted terrorist attack
in New York City. Thankfully, nobody was seriously injured in the
attack, which was believed to be a failed suicide bombing carried
out by someone inspired by ISIS.

But beyond that, CNN had some really pressing news to report:
President Donald Trump sure does drink a whole lot of Diet Cokes,
eh?

CNN is on it this morning pic.twitter.com/nzy0KbaFwY
— Max Tani (@maxwelltani) December 11, 2017

Apparently, a New York Times report suggests that Trump drinks a
dozen cans of Diet Coke a day. Which, while this probably makes
Trump's dentist wince a little bit, doesn't seem to be a matter of
national security. Nor does this seem like it would be more
important than reporting on an attempted terrorist attack in a major
American city, but then again, I'm not the one making programming
decisions over at CNN.

CNN was criticized for covering this bizarre "story" when there were
clearly other pressing events happening.

Remember when everyone criticized Fox News for talking
about the hamburger emoji? I would love people to give the
same scrutiny to @CNN and @MSNBC, who cut away from a
terror attack to talk about Trump watching TV and drinking
diet coke. https://t.co/zyVItvY2ul
— Amber Athey (@amber_athey) December 11, 2017

Hey @cnn I normally would not support Trump .... but that
last segment on his TV and Diet Coke habbits was horrible...
move on to real news not gossip and complete speculation...
esp when a pipe bomb just went off in NYC
— Alex (@Sparticus_V2) December 11, 2017

8:45, more than an hour after the pipe-bomb story broke,
CNN was busy with Trump’s diet Coke. Note the ticker at the
bottom right of “NYPD responding” pic.twitter.com/x2miM3LnLm
— Yossi Gestetner (@YossiGestetner) December 11, 2017

Been bouncing back and forth between CNN and Fox to compare
coverage of the NYC attack this morning. CNN took a break to
update us on Trump’s Diet Coke intake.
pic.twitter.com/1MYAyte57q
— Phil Woodall (@phil_woodall) December 11, 2017

At 8:46 am today, just more than an hour after an attempted
suicide bomb attack in Manhattan, NY, CNN were reporting
about Trump drinking 8 Diet Coke’s a day. Let that sink in.
— BNL NEWS (@BreakingNLive) December 11, 2017

Full disclosure: I'm not a soda drinker (carbonated beverages aren't
my thing), and I've probably had fewer than 12 cans of soda total in
my entire life. The concept of drinking that many a day is something
that my brain can't really comprehend. Regardless, if Trump wants to
do this he totally can as he's a free American who can do what he
wants, including (reportedly) drinking over a gallon of Diet Coke a
day.

But for the love of Pete, it'd be best for everyone if our news
channels stuck to covering actual news.

[FPP]

Post by Ubiquitous
On Monday, Americans awoke to news of an attempted terrorist attack
in New York City. Thankfully, nobody was seriously injured in the
attack, which was believed to be a failed suicide bombing carried
out by someone inspired by ISIS

Directly triggered by President Polygrip's actions on Jerusalem.

Thanks Obama!

[NoBody]

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
On Monday, Americans awoke to news of an attempted terrorist attack
in New York City. Thankfully, nobody was seriously injured in the
attack, which was believed to be a failed suicide bombing carried
out by someone inspired by ISIS

Directly triggered by President Polygrip's actions on Jerusalem.

Leave it to FPP to try to justify a terrorist attack.

[Ubiquitous]

Post by NoBody

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
On Monday, Americans awoke to news of an attempted terrorist attack
in New York City. Thankfully, nobody was seriously injured in the
attack, which was believed to be a failed suicide bombing carried
out by someone inspired by ISIS

Directly triggered by President Polygrip's actions on Jerusalem.

Leave it to FPP to try to justify a terrorist attack.

Or blame others for Obama's failures, but someone needs to remind FPP
that Crooked Hillary _lost_ the election by a landlside.

[Ubiquitous]

An all-female CNN segment on Wednesday laughed, gloated, and even
screamed in mockery at the news that a female African-American
member of the Trump administration lost her job.

CNN political commentator Angela Rye gloated and screamed at the
news that Omarosa Manigault-Newman, director of communications for
the White House Office of Public Liaison, was let go from her
position.

CNN host Brooke Baldwin, CNN political analyst April Ryan, and
regular CNN guest Symone Sanders all joined in what was a public
display of complete classlessness as the group all laughed.

“Brooke, I'm going to do what you can't do, and what April and
Symone are too good of people to do and that's just be petty for a
minute,” Rye said, as reported by the WFB. Rye then proceeded to
scream, and said, “Bye girl. Bye. We did it already on the podcast,
April. Bye, honey, you have never represented the community. You are
skin folk. We don't own you like Zora. Goodbye. Good riddance.
Goodbye. Deuces.”

After a few moments, Ryan said she did not “delight in anyone's
demise.”

This is CNN.
https://twitter.com/_/status/941037232806383616

[FPP]

Post by Ubiquitous
An all-female CNN segment on Wednesday laughed, gloated, and even
screamed in mockery at the news that a female African-American
member of the Trump administration lost her job.
CNN political commentator Angela Rye gloated and screamed at the
news that Omarosa Manigault-Newman, director of communications for
the White House Office of Public Liaison, was let go from her
position.
CNN host Brooke Baldwin, CNN political analyst April Ryan, and
regular CNN guest Symone Sanders all joined in what was a public
display of complete classlessness as the group all laughed.

Fuck off and die.

They were celebrating the fact that a classless asshole who didn't do
anything except leach off the taxpayer's teat was dumped, like the
garbage fire she was.

She reportedly tried to intimidate April Ryan some months earlier.

This has nothing to do with her gender, her political affiliation or her
race... She was just another useless asshole.
Good riddance!

[Ubiquitous]

Covering the Trump presidency has not always been the media’s finest
hour, but even grading on that curve, the month of December has brought
astonishing screwups. Professor and venerable political observer Walter
Russell Mead tweeted on December 8, “I remember Watergate pretty well,
and I don’t remember anything like this level of journalistic
carelessness back then. The constant stream of ‘bombshells’ that turn
into duds is doing much more to damage the media than anything Trump
could manage.”

On December 1, ABC News correspondent Brian Ross went on air and made a
remarkable claim. For months, the media have been furiously trying to
prove collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
Ross reported that former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who
had just pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, was prepared to testify
that President Trump had instructed him to contact Russian officials
before the 2016 election, while Trump was still a candidate. If true,
it would have been a gamechanger. But Ross’s claim was inaccurate.
Flynn’s documented attempts to contact the Russians came after Trump
was president-elect, allegedly trying to lay diplomatic groundwork for
the new administration. Ross was suspended by ABC for four weeks
without pay for the error.

Later that same weekend, the New York Times ran a story about Trump
transition official K.?T. McFarland, charging that she had lied to
congressional investigators about knowledge of the Trump transition
team’s contacts with Russia. The article went through four headline
changes and extensive edits after it was first published, substantially
softening and backing away from claims made in the original version.
The first headline made a definitive claim: “McFarland Contradicted
Herself on Russia Contacts, Congressional Testimony Shows.” The
headline now reads “Former Aide’s Testimony on Russia Is Questioned.”
The website Newsdiffs, which tracks edits of articles after
publication, shows nearly the entire body of the article was rewritten.
(The Times website makes no mention of the changes.)




Still in that first weekend of December, Senator Orrin Hatch criticized
the excesses of federal welfare programs, saying, “I have a rough time
wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help
people who won’t help themselves.” The quote was taken wildly out of
context. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough as well as journalists from Mic,
Newsweek, and the Los Angeles Times reported that Hatch was directly
criticizing the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with some
suggesting Hatch thought children should be put to work to pay for
subsidized health care. Not only was Hatch not criticizing the CHIP
program, he cowrote the recent bill to extend its funding.

On December 5, Reuters and Bloomberg reported that special counsel
Robert Mueller had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank account records of
President Trump and family members, possibly related to business done
in Russia. The report was later corrected to say Mueller was
subpoenaing “people or entities close to Mr. Trump.”

Then on December 8, another Russia bombshell turned into a dud. CNN’s
Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb reported Donald Trump Jr. had been sent an
email on September 4, 2016, with a decryption key to a WikiLeaks trove
of hacked emails from Clinton confidant and Democratic operative John
Podesta—that is, before the hacked emails were made public. (WikiLeaks
is widely surmised to act as a front for Russian intelligence.) MSNBC
and CBS quickly claimed to have confirmed CNN’s scoop. Within hours,
though, CNN’s report was discredited. The email was sent on September
14, after the hacked Podesta emails had been made publicly available.
CNN later admitted it never saw the email it was reporting the contents
of.

This is just eight days’ worth of blundering. Since October of last
year, when Franklin Foer at Slate filed an erroneous report on a
computer server in Trump Tower communicating with a Russian bank, there
have been an unprecedented number of media faceplants, most of them
directly related to the Russia-collusion theory. The errors always run
in the same direction—they report or imply that the Trump campaign was
in league with Moscow. For a politicized and overwhelmingly liberal
press corps, the wish that this story be true is obviously the father
to the errors. Just as obviously, there are precedents for such high-
profile embarrassments in the past. (Remember Dan Rather’s “scoop” on
George W. Bush’s National Guard service?) But flawed reporting in the
Trump era is becoming more the norm than the exception, suggesting the
media have become far too willing to abandon some pretty basic
journalistic standards.

Editors at top news organizations once treated anonymous sourcing as a
necessary evil, a tool to be used sparingly. Now anonymous sources
dominate Trump coverage. It’s not just a problem for readers, who
should rightly be skeptical of information someone isn’t willing to
vouch for by name. It’s a problem for reporters, too, because anonymous
sources are less likely to be cautious and diligent in providing
information. According to CNN, the sources behind the busted report on
Trump Jr.’s contact with WikiLeaks didn’t intend to deceive and had
been reliable in the past. Maybe so, but given the network’s repeated
errors it’s difficult to just take CNN’s word for it.

But it’s one thing to use anonymous sources; it’s quite another to be
entirely trusting of them. CNN decided to report the contents of an
email to Donald Trump Jr. based only on the say-so of two anonymous
sources and without seeing the emails. “I remember when I was [a
staffer] on the Ways and Means committee and I would try and give
reporters stories, and I remember the Wall Street Journal demanded to
see a document,” former Bush administration press secretary Ari
Fleischer tells The Weekly Standard. “They wouldn’t take it from me if
I didn’t give them the document, and I thought, ‘Good for them!’?”

What makes the botched story of the WikiLeaks email more troubling is
how quickly MSNBC and CBS ran with CNN’s scoop. “It’s hard to imagine
how independent people could repeatedly misread a date on an email and
do so for three different networks,” says Fleischer. “Whose eyesight is
that bad?”

This points to an additional problem with the sourcing on these
unfounded reports. The only way three networks could claim to have
verified the same specious story is if they were all relying on the
very same sources. Many of the flawed Trump reports appear to be
sourced from a very narrow circle of people, who no doubt share
partisan motivations or personal animus.

Certainly, it appears a number of recent spurious stories have
originated as leaks from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee.
In Raju and Herb’s report, they revealed that Trump Jr. had been asked
about the WikiLeaks email in closed-door testimony before the
committee. After CNN’s scoop imploded, a spokesman for Adam Schiff, the
ranking Democrat on the committee, issued a classic non-denial denial,
telling Politico “that neither he nor his staff leaked any ‘non-public
information’?” about Donald Trump Jr.’s testimony.

Meanwhile, the Russia investigation has been very good for raising
Schiff’s profile. A December 13 press release from the Republican
National Committee notes the congressman has at that point spent 20
hours, 44 minutes, and 49 seconds on television since Trump took
office, talking mostly about the investigation (pity the low-level
staffer who must have had to do the research for that release). During
that time, Schiff has always declined to discuss the particulars of the
intel committee’s work. Nonetheless, consideration of his sensitive
position hasn’t stopped him from offering all manner of innuendo to
national TV audiences about evidence suggesting Russia collusion.

For their part, the media don’t seem to be coming to grips with the
damage they’re doing to their own credibility. CNN, which calls itself
“the most trusted name in news,” didn’t retract their WikiLeaks report
but rewrote it in such a way as to render the story meaningless. They
also came to the defense of Raju and Herb, saying the reporters acted
in accordance with the network’s editorial policies. And of course they
didn’t out their sources—the ultimate punishment news organizations can
mete out to anonymous tipsters who steer them wrong.

It understandably infuriates the media that President Trump remains
unwilling to own up to his own glaring errors and untruths, while news
organizations run correction after correction. And it also
understandably upsets the media to watch the president actively attack
and seek to undermine their work, which remains vital to ensuring
accountability in American governance. What they haven’t grasped is how
perversely helpful to him they are being: On a very basic level,
President Trump’s repeated salvos against “fake news” have resonance
because, well, there does indeed appear to be a lot of fake news.

“There is nothing wrong with holding powerful people accountable.
There’s nothing wrong with investigating whether or not collusion took
place. But there’s a lot wrong when because you want to believe in the
story so much you suspend skepticism,” says Fleischer. “You let your
guard down. You abandon the normal filters that protect journalistic
integrity. And you fail to also hold to account powerful leakers, or
powerful members of Congress who themselves have an anti-Trump agenda.
It’s called putting your thumb on the scale.”

[Ubiquitous]

The media’s coverage of President Trump has been overwhelmingly
negative, more than three times more critical than the initial
coverage of former President Barack Obama and twice that of former
Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

The Pew Research Center said that the early coverage of Trump was 62
percent negative. By comparison, Obama’s coverage was just 20
percent negative.

Loading Image...

“About six-in-ten stories on Trump’s early days in office had a
negative assessment, about three times more than in early coverage
for Obama and roughly twice that of Bush and Clinton. Coverage of
Trump’s early time in office moved further away from a focus on the
policy agenda and more toward character and leadership,” said Pew.

The report about the harsh media coverage was included in Pew’s
year-ending report titled "17 Striking Findings From 2017."

The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump’s first 60
days in office and found that just 5 percent was “positive.”

By comparison, Obama’s coverage was 42 percent positive.

[FPP]

The media’s coverage of President Trump has been overwhelmingly
negative, more than three times more critical than the initial
coverage of former President Barack Obama and twice that of former
Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
The Pew Research Center said that the early coverage of Trump was 62
percent negative. By comparison, Obama’s coverage was just 20
percent negative.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/122717-Trump-Pew-Coverage.png
“About six-in-ten stories on Trump’s early days in office had a
negative assessment, about three times more than in early coverage
for Obama and roughly twice that of Bush and Clinton. Coverage of
Trump’s early time in office moved further away from a focus on the
policy agenda and more toward character and leadership,” said Pew.
The report about the harsh media coverage was included in Pew’s
year-ending report titled "17 Striking Findings From 2017."
The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump’s first 60
days in office and found that just 5 percent was “positive.”
By comparison, Obama’s coverage was 42 percent positive.

You know who still gets bad press? Hitler.
Do you think the media has an axe to grind there, too?

[NoBody]

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
The media’s coverage of President Trump has been overwhelmingly
negative, more than three times more critical than the initial
coverage of former President Barack Obama and twice that of former
Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
The Pew Research Center said that the early coverage of Trump was 62
percent negative. By comparison, Obama’s coverage was just 20
percent negative.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/122717-Trump-Pew-Coverage.png
“About six-in-ten stories on Trump’s early days in office had a
negative assessment, about three times more than in early coverage
for Obama and roughly twice that of Bush and Clinton. Coverage of
Trump’s early time in office moved further away from a focus on the
policy agenda and more toward character and leadership,” said Pew.
The report about the harsh media coverage was included in Pew’s
year-ending report titled "17 Striking Findings From 2017."
The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump’s first 60
days in office and found that just 5 percent was “positive.”
By comparison, Obama’s coverage was 42 percent positive.

You know who still gets bad press? Hitler.
Do you think the media has an axe to grind there, too?

Leave it to FPP to pull out the Hitler card...

[Ubiquitous]

Post by NoBody

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
The media’s coverage of President Trump has been overwhelmingly
negative, more than three times more critical than the initial
coverage of former President Barack Obama and twice that of former
Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
The Pew Research Center said that the early coverage of Trump was 62
percent negative. By comparison, Obama’s coverage was just 20
percent negative.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/122717-Trump-Pew-Coverage.png
“About six-in-ten stories on Trump’s early days in office had a
negative assessment, about three times more than in early coverage
for Obama and roughly twice that of Bush and Clinton. Coverage of
Trump’s early time in office moved further away from a focus on the
policy agenda and more toward character and leadership,” said Pew.
The report about the harsh media coverage was included in Pew’s
year-ending report titled "17 Striking Findings From 2017."
The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump’s first 60
days in office and found that just 5 percent was “positive.”
By comparison, Obama’s coverage was 42 percent positive.

You know who still gets bad press? Hitler.
Do you think the media has an axe to grind there, too?

Leave it to FPP to pull out the Hitler card...

Just another way of knowing FPP lost the debate!
Again.

[FPP]

Post by Ubiquitous

Post by NoBody

Post by FPP

The media’s coverage of President Trump has been overwhelmingly
negative, more than three times more critical than the initial
coverage of former President Barack Obama and twice that of former
Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
The Pew Research Center said that the early coverage of Trump was 62
percent negative. By comparison, Obama’s coverage was just 20
percent negative.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/122717-Trump-Pew-Coverage.png
“About six-in-ten stories on Trump’s early days in office had a
negative assessment, about three times more than in early coverage
for Obama and roughly twice that of Bush and Clinton. Coverage of
Trump’s early time in office moved further away from a focus on the
policy agenda and more toward character and leadership,” said Pew.
The report about the harsh media coverage was included in Pew’s
year-ending report titled "17 Striking Findings From 2017."
The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump’s first 60
days in office and found that just 5 percent was “positive.”
By comparison, Obama’s coverage was 42 percent positive.

You know who still gets bad press? Hitler.
Do you think the media has an axe to grind there, too?

Leave it to FPP to pull out the Hitler card...

Just another way of knowing FPP lost the debate!
Again.

Leave it to NoIrishUbi to pull out the Obama card.

[Ubiquitous]

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous

Post by NoBody

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
The media’s coverage of President Trump has been overwhelmingly
negative, more than three times more critical than the initial
coverage of former President Barack Obama and twice that of former
Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
The Pew Research Center said that the early coverage of Trump was 62
percent negative. By comparison, Obama’s coverage was just 20
percent negative.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-

producers/122717-Trump-Pew-Coverage.png

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous

Post by NoBody

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
“About six-in-ten stories on Trump’s early days in office had a
negative assessment, about three times more than in early coverage
for Obama and roughly twice that of Bush and Clinton. Coverage of
Trump’s early time in office moved further away from a focus on the
policy agenda and more toward character and leadership,” said Pew.
The report about the harsh media coverage was included in Pew’s
year-ending report titled "17 Striking Findings From 2017."
The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump’s first 60
days in office and found that just 5 percent was “positive.”
By comparison, Obama’s coverage was 42 percent positive.

You know who still gets bad press? Hitler.
Do you think the media has an axe to grind there, too?

Leave it to FPP to pull out the Hitler card...

Just another way of knowing FPP lost the debate!
Again.

Leave it to NoIrishUbi to pull out the Obama card.

Thanks for making my point again!
QED.

[super70s]

Post by FPP

The report about the harsh media coverage was included in Pew's
year-ending report titled "17 Striking Findings From 2017."
The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump's first 60
days in office and found that just 5 percent was "positive."
By comparison, Obama's coverage was 42 percent positive.

Did it ever occur to the Washington Examiner that Barack Obama did 37%
fewer controversial acts than Donald Trump in their respective first
years? For starters, Obama wasn't on Twitter every single day acting the
fool.

Post by FPP
You know who still gets bad press? Hitler.
Do you think the media has an axe to grind there, too?

If Donald Trump was aware in 1940 he'd go, "I think the press has been
very, very unfair to Hitler."

REPORTER: "But some say Hitler is a killer."

TRUMP: "There's been a lot of killers in history, so what..."

[Ubiquitous]

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
The media’s coverage of President Trump has been overwhelmingly
negative, more than three times more critical than the initial
coverage of former President Barack Obama and twice that of former
Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
The Pew Research Center said that the early coverage of Trump was 62
percent negative. By comparison, Obama’s coverage was just 20
percent negative.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/122717-Trump-Pew-Coverage.png
“About six-in-ten stories on Trump’s early days in office had a
negative assessment, about three times more than in early coverage
for Obama and roughly twice that of Bush and Clinton. Coverage of
Trump’s early time in office moved further away from a focus on the
policy agenda and more toward character and leadership,” said Pew.
The report about the harsh media coverage was included in Pew’s
year-ending report titled "17 Striking Findings From 2017."
The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump’s first 60
days in office and found that just 5 percent was “positive.”
By comparison, Obama’s coverage was 42 percent positive.

You know who still gets bad press? Hitler.

Goodwin's Law violation noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

[Ubiquitous]

CNN's quest to uncover an explanation for why a truck blocked its
view of President Trump's golf course in West Palm Beach, Fla., on
Wednesday stretched into a second day and once again bore no
concrete answers.

Noah Gray, a producer for CNN who tweeted a picture of a white box
truck in front of hedges adjacent to the golf course on Wednesday,
tracked down what looked to be an identical, if not the same, truck
parked Thursday in a parking lot at the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s
Department.

When asked about the truck Wednesday, the sheriff's department told
CNN it did not order the truck to obstruct the media's view of the
president.

Gray noted that a spokesperson for the department, Teri Barbera,
reiterated that denial on Thursday, saying the management team
didn't order the truck.

CNN's John Berman, who sat in for Anderson Cooper on his "360"
evening program on Thursday, said that the truck, which was in a lot
behind a fence, was parked in such a way that they could not compare
license plates.

Berman also said that where the truck was parked on Wednesday
outside of Trump's golf course, Trump International Golf Club, only
sheriff's department vehicles had parked there previously.

The truck blocked CNN's view of the golf course one day after the
network touted "exclusive" footage of the president hitting the
links.

The president had been golfing with Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga.,
professional golfer Bryson DeChambeau, and former PGA player Dana
Quigley at Trump International Golf Club.

CNN also reached out to the Secret Service on Wednesday for comment
on whether it had anything to do with the truck — the driver of
which in the video could be seen blocking a view of his or her face.

"The USSS is in the business of protection and investigations not in
commissioning vehicles to block the media's view of the President's
golf swing," the Secret Service said in a statement.

Trump's golfing habits have come under intense scrutiny as he long
complained about former President Barack Obama playing the sport
while serving as commander-in-chief.

Trump's 10-day stay at the Mar-a-Lago for the Christmas holiday is
also drawing scrutiny as a Wall Street Journal report Monday noted
that the president has visited one of his company’s properties on
nearly one-third of the days he has been in in the White House.

Trump's habit to visit and stay at his properties has long raised
conflict of interest concerns.

[FPP]

Post by Ubiquitous
CNN's quest to uncover an explanation for why a truck blocked its
view of President Trump's golf course in West Palm Beach, Fla., on
Wednesday stretched into a second day and once again bore no
concrete ans

It's so we can't see his lies on tape.

[Ubiquitous]

CNN and The New York Times have had an exceptionally difficult time covering
a wave of anti-government, anti-Islamic fundamentalist unrest taking place in
Iran. As the Iranian people have taken to the streets to speak out against an
oppressive regime, CNN and The New York Times have swiftly moved to rebrand
the protests as inconsequential and, at times, anti-American.

According to CNN's latest, the protests — which have seen women throw off
their hijabs, defying years of fundamentalist restrictions telling them what
they can and cannot wear in public — are, in fact, a reaction to the Trump
Administration's refusal to honor an Obama-era deal giving the ruling mullahs
a controlled path to nuclear weapons.

"Iranians are angry, experts say, because they expected life to get better
when severe sanctions were lifted after a deal was reached in 2015 between
the P5+1 and Iran over its nuclear program," CNN claims, as though the United
States is responsible for repressive policies within the formerly Westernized
nation.

Obama's team, of course, assumed the nuclear deal would moderate Iran's
restrictive and oppressive religious government. That simply didn't happen.

Further down, the article downplays the protests as small and taking place in
less consequential places outside Tehran. Only in passing does the article
mention that the protests have taken place in some of the country's most
religiously repressive cities.

CNN, of course, opposes President Donald Trump's intervention, preferring
that the president take a less active role similar to that of President
Barack Obama in 2009. The New York Times, in a seemingly coordinated piece,
also suggested that Donald Trump "do nothing," and work to preserve the
Obama-era deal with the mullahs rather than pursue any American interest in a
free-er Iran.

But if the stories out of two of America's most "respected" media outlets
have been strange, the headlines have been downright bizarre. As anti-
government protests raged in Iran over the weekend, CNN and the NYT focused
on . . . pro-government protests, almost certainly organized by Iran's ruling
party.

https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/947189471874899968/photo/1

And that's when CNN focused on the protests at all.

https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/947316350694969344/photo/1

Most of Saturday, CNN's front page focused on "more important news" — that
President Trump had hired security to keep nosy reporters out of Mar-a-Lago.

https://twitter.com/omriceren/status/947356614838898688/photo/1

Sunday morning, at least, the Iran story lead.

[FPP]

Post by Ubiquitous
CNN and The New York Times have had an exceptionally difficult time covering
a wave of anti-government, anti-Islamic fundamentalist unrest taking place in
Iran.

No, they haven't. Not at all.

[Ubiquitous]

On Monday, The New York Times ran the latest in a series of
despicable pieces dedicated to making excuses for the tyrannical
Islamist Iranian despotism. Here’s their tweet on the regime’s
killing of dissidents:

https://t.co/M9G7x8lvAT

Yes, it’s the fault of the demonstrators, who have somehow merely
refused to heed the decent calls for calm from the Iranian mullahs.
Oddly, The New York Times never has such words for Palestinian
rioters who throw rocks at Israeli troops at the behest of the
Palestinian Authority and Hamas. When that happens, it’s Trump’s
fault or the Jews’ fault. Somebody else’s fault, anyway.

But when it’s democracy-seeking Iranians, then they’re the problem.

The piece itself, by Thomas Erdbrink, is a disaster area. It
contains lines like this one:

Despite Mr. Rouhani’s diplomatic language, it was clear
the demonstrators would be given no leeway…Mr. Rouhani has
_urged demonstrators to avoid violence_ but defended their
right to protest. He did so again on Monday on Twitter.

Rouhani is a tool of the regime, of course, and a radical Islamist
to boot, as well as a Holocaust denier. But according to the Times,
he’s a moderate:

This time, it is the failure of President Rouhani, a
moderate, to deliver greater political changes and economic
opportunity, despite the lifting of some of the sanctions
against Iran as part of the nuclear deal. Young people are
especially angry. The average age of those arrested is under
25, one official said.

And the protests are about economics, not about the repressive
regime. Of course, the regime has spent billions of dollars on
terrorism abroad, including the maximization of its bloodshed in
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. But it’s just that the Iranian
government hasn’t redistributed the oil wealth enough. The Iranians
probably just need Bernie Sanders or something.

Erdbrink’s love for Rouhani isn’t well-hidden in his coverage – he
thinks that Rouhani is trying his best, but the dastardly Americans
are the problem:

Many youths in larger cities enthusiastically voted for Mr.
Rouhani when he was re-elected in May, raising expectations
among many in the reform camp. But since then even many of
the president’s supporters say he has failed to fulfill his
promises for improving an economy sorely hobbled by years
of sanctions, corruption and mismanagement… Beyond that,
the United States has continued other sanctions, making it
still harder for Mr. Rouhani to make gains. The economic
frustrations do not appear to have been offset by the
greater social freedoms that the president has granted
young people.

Those “greater social freedoms” do not include converting to
Christianity; in June and July 2017, the Iranian courts have issued
lengthy prison sentences to 11 Christian converts.

But at least we know the real bad guys: those protesters. And Trump,
of course.

[Ubiquitous]

On Monday, The New York Times ran the latest in a series of
despicable pieces dedicated to making excuses for the tyrannical
Islamist Iranian despotism. Here’s their tweet on the regime’s
killing of dissidents:

https://t.co/M9G7x8lvAT

Yes, it’s the fault of the demonstrators, who have somehow merely
refused to heed the decent calls for calm from the Iranian mullahs.
Oddly, The New York Times never has such words for Palestinian
rioters who throw rocks at Israeli troops at the behest of the
Palestinian Authority and Hamas. When that happens, it’s Trump’s
fault or the Jews’ fault. Somebody else’s fault, anyway.

But when it’s democracy-seeking Iranians, then they’re the problem.

The piece itself, by Thomas Erdbrink, is a disaster area. It
contains lines like this one:

Despite Mr. Rouhani’s diplomatic language, it was clear
the demonstrators would be given no leeway…Mr. Rouhani has
_urged demonstrators to avoid violence_ but defended their
right to protest. He did so again on Monday on Twitter.

Rouhani is a tool of the regime, of course, and a radical Islamist
to boot, as well as a Holocaust denier. But according to the Times,
he’s a moderate:

This time, it is the failure of President Rouhani, a
moderate, to deliver greater political changes and economic
opportunity, despite the lifting of some of the sanctions
against Iran as part of the nuclear deal. Young people are
especially angry. The average age of those arrested is under
25, one official said.

And the protests are about economics, not about the repressive
regime. Of course, the regime has spent billions of dollars on
terrorism abroad, including the maximization of its bloodshed in
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. But it’s just that the Iranian
government hasn’t redistributed the oil wealth enough. The Iranians
probably just need Bernie Sanders or something.

Erdbrink’s love for Rouhani isn’t well-hidden in his coverage – he
thinks that Rouhani is trying his best, but the dastardly Americans
are the problem:

Many youths in larger cities enthusiastically voted for Mr.
Rouhani when he was re-elected in May, raising expectations
among many in the reform camp. But since then even many of
the president’s supporters say he has failed to fulfill his
promises for improving an economy sorely hobbled by years
of sanctions, corruption and mismanagement… Beyond that,
the United States has continued other sanctions, making it
still harder for Mr. Rouhani to make gains. The economic
frustrations do not appear to have been offset by the
greater social freedoms that the president has granted
young people.

Those “greater social freedoms” do not include converting to
Christianity; in June and July 2017, the Iranian courts have issued
lengthy prison sentences to 11 Christian converts.

But at least we know the real bad guys: those protesters. And Trump,
of course.

[FPP]

Post by Ubiquitous
On Monday, The New York Times ran the latest in a series of
despicable pieces dedicated to making excuses for the tyrannical
Islamist Iranian despotism.

No. They didn't.

[Ubiquitous]

The first year of the Trump administration was as turbulent for the
news media as it was for politics, with many journalists dropping any
pretense of professionalism to become strident opponents of the
President. As a proxy for the larger establishment media, the Media
Research Center analyzed every moment of coverage of President Trump
last year on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts, usually seen by
more than 25 million people each night. The major findings:

• The Trump presidency was the biggest story of the year,
accounting for one out of every three minutes of evening
news airtime — nearly 100 hours in total.

• The tone of coverage has been incessantly hostile, especially
for a new President in his honeymoon year: 90% negative, vs.
just 10% positive (These percentages do not include neutral
statements).

• More than two-fifths of evening news coverage of the
President (43%) focused on controversies, not policies, with
the Russia investigation alone accounting for one-fifth of
all Trump coverage (1,234 minutes).

• Despite their massive coverage of Russia, the networks had
almost no airtime for questions about how the investigation
began, or whether special counsel Robert Mueller’s current
investigation is biased.

Now the details of our year-long study:

• The Trump Presidency Was by Far the Biggest Story of 2017: From
Inauguration Day (January 20) through the end of 2017 (December 31),
the three evening newscasts aired 3,430 stories that talked about
either President Trump or his administration, totaling 99 hours, 3
minutes of airtime. This amounts to approximately 34 percent of all
evening news airtime (excluding commercials), meaning that one out of
every three minutes of broadcast evening news coverage was devoted to
the Trump story last year.

In contrast, MRC analysis of these same newscasts in 2015 and 2016
found that airtime devoted to President Obama and his administration
amounted to approximately ten percent of overall evening news coverage
in those years, or less than one-third the level of Trump’s coverage.

• Coverage of Trump Has Been Incessantly Negative: Reviewing all of
this coverage, our analysts catalogued 5,883 evaluative statements
about the President or his administration from either reporters,
anchors or non-partisan sources such as experts or voters. Only about
10 percent of those comments (617) were positive, compared with 5,266
(90%) which were negative — an unparalleled level of media hostility
for a President in his first year in office.

There were only three months in 2017 when Trump’s level of good press
rose above 10 percent on the evening news: January, when TV coverage of
his inauguration included a few stories about the positive reaction
among Trump voters; April, when the network coverage mentioned
supportive reaction to the cruise missile strikes against Syria; and in
December, when Congress finally passed a major tax reform package, a
Trump legislative success. Even in those months, however, the balance
of TV’s coverage of Trump was still hugely negative — 85 percent
negative in January, 82 percent in April, and 85 percent in December.

The media’s negative approach has been essentially consistent
regardless of which issues or controversies were prevalent in the news.
For example, network TV coverage was no more hostile in August (91%
negative), when Trump came under intense criticism for his reaction to
the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, related to a white
supremacist march, than it was in most other months.

Rather, the evening newscasts have provided extremely heavy coverage of
some stories (Russia, the travel ban, and myriad personal
controversies) where they evidently believed heavy criticism is
justified, while they barely mention other topics where the
administration has a positive story to tell. (Tomorrow, we will report
on six of Trump’s accomplishments that were essentially ignored by the
networks.)

• A Huge Percentage of Network News Coverage Focused on Controversies,
Not Policy: More than two-fifths of evening news coverage of the Trump
administration (43%, or 42 hours, 37 minutes) centered on various
controversies associated with the President and his top aides. The
Russia investigation was the networks’ favorite topic, with an
astonishing 20 hours, 34 minutes of coverage, or more than one-fifth of
all Trump coverage last year.

Discussion of all public policy issues combined amounted to 46 hours,
58 minutes of coverage, or roughly 47 percent of all Trump coverage.
The five most-frequently covered policy issues: the effort to repeal
and replace ObamaCare (475 minutes); the nuclear showdown with North
Korea (364 minutes); immigration policy, including ramped-up
deportations and a potential border wall (258 minutes); the temporary
travel ban and the ensuing court fight (251 minutes); and the
ultimately successful push for comprehensive tax reform (222 minutes).

Besides Russia, the networks spent more than 100 minutes on two other
controversies: the President’s reaction to the white supremacist
violence in Charlottesville, and the furor over his allegation in a
tweet that President Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower. No other
controversy achieved that much airtime; our analysts found that the
networks typically obsessed about one controversy at a time, and then
dropped it when a new one became available.

And, for those who might wonder, the remaining airtime not spent
discussing controversies or policy issues (about 9 hours, 17 minutes)
consisted of other administration news (various nominations and
appointments, presidential travel, ceremonial functions, etc.).

• Lots of “Collusion” Coverage, Little Scrutiny of Mueller: Throughout
2017 — even before the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel
— the networks were obsessed with the investigation into whether the
Trump campaign colluded with Russia’s efforts to affect the 2016
presidential election. As noted above, one-fifth of all Trump coverage
on the evening newscasts last year was about the Russia probe, making
it more prominent than the effort to repeal ObamaCare, tax reform,
immigration, or any of the other Trump controversies that TV found so
worthy of coverage.


Yet very little of the airtime devoted to the Russia investigation was
spent looking into how the inquiry into Team Trump first began, or
whether Mueller’s current investigation is biased. Suggestions that
Obama administration officials had improperly “unmasked” Trump
officials caught up in foreign surveillance garnered just 20 minutes of
evening news coverage, or less than two percent of the Russia total.
Evening news coverage of the uncorroborated anti-Trump dossier, which
we eventually learned was financed by the Clinton campaign’s lawyer,
amounted to a mere 15 minutes of airtime.


While the media subjected Clinton-era independent counsel Ken Starr to
harsh scrutiny, any doubts raised about Mueller and his team have been
given little airtime. The three evening newscasts spent a combined 11
minutes (less than 1% of their Russia coverage) on the biased anti-
Trump text messages exchanged between an FBI agent and an FBI lawyer,
both of whom had worked on the investigation. Criticism that the
Mueller team had improperly obtained e-mails written by Trump officials
during the transition period was given barely five minutes of airtime,
(or less than 0.5% of the total Russia coverage).

+++++


The media reaction to Trump’s first year has been so extreme, the
public itself has become polarized over the coverage. In September,
Gallup discovered that record numbers of Democrats are reporting “trust
and confidence in the mass media to report the news ‘fully, accurately
and fairly,’” with 72 percent of Democrats saying they trusted the
press in 2017, compared to just 51 percent who said that a year ago.



A month later, a Politico/Morning Consult poll found that “more than
three-quarters of Republican voters, 76 percent, think the news media
invent stories about Trump and his administration.” That number swells
to 85 percent when just Trump supporters are asked the question.


What seems to be happening is that many in the media, including the
broadcast networks, have chosen to morph into anti-Trump activists. As
a result, they provide massive attention to stories that they think
make him look bad, give little airtime to more positive aspects of his
administration, and punish him with massively negative spin.


The polls suggest anti-Trump Democrats love that kind of news, pro-
Trump Republicans hate it — while the national media are cementing
their reputation as biased partisans. Their hostility against the White
House is now so obvious, nobody could possibly take them seriously if
they ever again claim to be fair and non-partisan professionals.

[Ubiquitous]

Despite President Trump’s positive health exam results, CNN simply won’t
accept the White House doctor’s assessment.

Pundits who have not examined Trump parsed the results and drew
conclusions likely intended to scare viewers.

Host Alisyn Camerota and medical analyst Sanji Gupta declared Trump to
be “borderline obese,” predicted he would have a heart attack in “3-5
years” and Gupta concluded the president has heart disease.

Camerota held back laughs over Trump’s height, which the exam found to
be 6’3?. He had reportedly been 6’2? in the past.

“Somehow he has grown while being in the White House,” she snarked.

Because of Trump’s weight of 239 lbs., she said his Body Mass Index is
“two-nine point nine.”

Gupta conceded the BMI ratio is “not a perfect ratio by any means,” but
nevertheless, went on to declare Trump “borderline obese.”

“So he’s point-one away from being in the obese category,” Camerota
emphasized.

After Vice President Joe Biden’s doctor panned CNN’s hysteria, Camerota
went back to Gupta.

Because of Trump’s calcium score, CNN predicted the president will have
a “heart attack or heart disease” in “3-5 years.”

But Gupta was more aggressive.

“So the president has heart disease,” he declared.

Yesterday, CNN host Brian Stelter didn’t accept Dr. Ronny Jackson’s
findings, either.

Brian Stelter
Here's how the next few hours will go. Trump supporters will
say "Concerns about Trump's mental health were always absurd.
Case closed now." The obvious response: "The Q's about fitness
for office are serious. Someone could be sharp as a tack, but
still unfit"

“Here’s how the next few hours will go,” he sniffed. “Trump supporters
will say ‘Concerns about Trump’s mental health were always absurd. Case
closed now.’

“The obvious response: ‘The Q’s about fitness for office are serious.
Someone could be sharp as a tack, but still unfit,” he tweeted.

[FPP]

Despite President Trump’s positive health exam results, CNN simply won’t
accept the White House doctor’s assessment.

Because they have eyes.
Most people shrink with age... but Trump managed to GAIN an inch.

How? Simple... because if he stayed at the same height he was at, he
would have been classified as "obese" for his weight to height ratio.
So, he miraculously grew an inch.

Either that, or he's a fucking liar, just like the lickspittle people
(like you) that he keeps around him to give him constant reach-arounds.

[trotsky]

Post by FPP

Despite President Trump’s positive health exam results, CNN simply won’t
accept the White House doctor’s assessment.

Because they have eyes.
Most people shrink with age... but Trump managed to GAIN an inch.
How?  Simple... because if he stayed at the same height he was at, he
would have been classified as "obese" for his weight to height ratio.
So, he miraculously grew an inch.
Either that, or he's a fucking liar, just like the lickspittle people
(like you) that he keeps around him to give him constant reach-arounds.

Trump is about 6' 1" and 310 lbs. Perhaps more.

[NoBody]

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
Despite President Trump’s positive health exam results, CNN simply won’t
accept the White House doctor’s assessment.

Because they have eyes.
Most people shrink with age... but Trump managed to GAIN an inch.

Look at how low and desperate you leftie loons have become -- arguing
about height.

Post by FPP
How? Simple... because if he stayed at the same height he was at, he
would have been classified as "obese" for his weight to height ratio.
So, he miraculously grew an inch.

What's your BMI, FPP?

Post by FPP
Either that, or he's a fucking liar, just like the lickspittle people
(like you) that he keeps around him to give him constant reach-arounds.

Or you've spent too much time drinking the leftie Cool-aid.

[Ubiquitous]

Post by NoBody

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
Despite President Trump’s positive health exam results, CNN simply
won’t accept the White House doctor’s assessment.

Because they have eyes.
Most people shrink with age... but Trump managed to GAIN an inch.

Look at how low and desperate you leftie loons have become -- arguing
about height.

Height? Given how much the left are obsessed with sex, I figured he was
talking abuot another type of growth.
#girther

Post by NoBody

Post by FPP
How? Simple... because if he stayed at the same height he was at, he
would have been classified as "obese" for his weight to height ratio.
So, he miraculously grew an inch.

What's your BMI, FPP?

And with that, FPPsky went back into hiding for awhile.

Post by NoBody

Post by FPP
Either that, or he's a fucking liar, just like the lickspittle people
(like you) that he keeps around him to give him constant reach-arounds.

Or you've spent too much time drinking the leftie Cool-aid.

Tautology alert! :-)

[FPP]

Post by Ubiquitous

Post by NoBody

Post by FPP

Despite President Trump’s positive health exam results, CNN simply
won’t accept the White House doctor’s assessment.

Because they have eyes.
Most people shrink with age... but Trump managed to GAIN an inch.

Look at how low and desperate you leftie loons have become -- arguing
about height.

Height? Given how much the left are obsessed with sex, I figured he was
talking abuot another type of growth.
#girther

Post by NoBody

Post by FPP
How? Simple... because if he stayed at the same height he was at, he
would have been classified as "obese" for his weight to height ratio.
So, he miraculously grew an inch.

What's your BMI, FPP?

And with that, FPPsky went back into hiding for awhile.

Still. Not. Biting. (tm)

IDIOT-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *Watching Fox News... for NEWS.
0* -*- *Cutting and Pasting Fox
transcripts.
* |\ *Re-directing posts to other
groups.
* \ *Quoting Right Wing Loonies as fact.
* \ *BELIEVING what Fox News is selling.
* _\/ *Sockpuppet NoBody
* * *Fake #FakeNews Hashtag

[Ubiquitous]

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous

Post by NoBody

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
Despite President Trump’s positive health exam results, CNN simply
won’t accept the White House doctor’s assessment.

Because they have eyes.
Most people shrink with age... but Trump managed to GAIN an inch.

Look at how low and desperate you leftie loons have become -- arguing
about height.

Height? Given how much the left are obsessed with sex, I figured he was
talking abuot another type of growth.
#girther

Post by NoBody

Post by FPP
How? Simple... because if he stayed at the same height he was at, he
would have been classified as "obese" for his weight to height ratio.
So, he miraculously grew an inch.

What's your BMI, FPP?

And with that, FPPsky went back into hiding for awhile.

Still. Not. Biting. (tm)
IDIOT-O-METER
5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *Watching Fox News... for NEWS.
0* -*- *Cutting and Pasting Fox
transcripts.
* |\ *Re-directing posts to other
groups.
* \ *Quoting Right Wing Loonies as fact.
* \ *BELIEVING what Fox News is selling.
* _\/ *Sockpuppet NoBody
* * *Fake #FakeNews Hashtag

And this is why only competant people are allowed to use the troll-o-meter.
(Nice attempt at covering up being unable to post a rebuttal, BTW)

[Ubiquitous]

Newsweek is worried that President Donald Trump may kill himself or
have irreversible erection problems because of his hair.

"TRUMP HEALTH EXAM: PRESIDENT STILL TAKING HAIR LOSS DRUG EVEN AFTER
RESEARCH REVEALED IT CAUSES ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION AND DEPRESSION," reads
the title of the hysterical article.

Newsweek's concern comes after it was revealed that the president still
takes the hair-loss drug finasteride, which was first revealed by his
then-physician Dr. Harold Bornstein last February.

Newsweek then cited two studies that suggest doom for men who take the
widely prescribed hair loss drug. The first study said that
"finasteride was linked to persistent erectile dysfunction" and that it
could cause irreversible "debilitating sexual dysfunction."

The second study warned that use of the medication in men over the age
of 66 was linked to "significantly increased" risk of "self-harm and
major depression."

The article then delves into a brief scientific explanation of how the
drug works before suggesting the president could be taking psychiatric
medications that are being "prescribed in secret."

The embarrassing article's level of absurdity approaches that of MSNBC
analyst Anand Giridharadas, who claimed at the beginning of the month
that Trump's "profound sexual insecurity" is "literally threatening to
annihilate the planet."

[Ubiquitous]

CBS/NBC Downplay GOP Victory in Shutdown, ABC Guilts Dems for ‘Giving In’

Congressional Republicans and President Trump declared victory on
Monday over the Democrats in the government shutdown, as the
Resistance could no longer hold out and voted on the continuing
resolution to fund the government. In an exchange, they received a
promise to negotiate and vote on DACA in the next few weeks. The
three major network news outlets (ABC, CBS, and NBC) were notably
disappointed and frustrated that their party caved after just three
days.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2018/01/22/cbsnbc-downplay-gop-victory-shutdown-abc-guilts-dems-giving

[FPP]

CBS/NBC Downplay GOP Victory in Shutdown, ABC Guilts Dems for ‘Giving In’
Congressional Republicans and President Trump declared victory on
Monday over the Democrats in the government shutdown, as the
Resistance could no longer hold out and voted on the continuing
resolution to fund the government. In an exchange, they received a
promise to negotiate and vote on DACA in the next few weeks. The
three major network news outlets (ABC, CBS, and NBC) were notably
disappointed and frustrated that their party caved after just three
days.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2018/01/22/cbsnbc-downplay-gop-victory-shutdown-abc-guilts-dems-giving

No, you dumb fuck. They received SIX YEARS of funding to help sick kids.

The Dems got 6 years of freedom for the CHIP hostages, while the
Republicans got a 3 week extension of the status quo.

Man, you are a real laugh! You think because Fox News doesn't tell you
the whole story that the rest of us won't find out what really happened?

[Ubiquitous]

A journalist announced last week that he will publish a photograph
of then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) and Nation of Islam leader
Louis Farrakhan that he took in 2005 at a Congressional Black Caucus
meeting, but did not make public because he believed it would have
“made a difference” to Obama’s political future.

The photographer, Askia Muhammad, told the Trice Edney News Wire
that he “gave the picture up at the time and basically swore
secrecy.”

“But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the
inauguration; then for eight years after he was President, it was
kept under cover,” Muhammad said.

Asked whether he thought the photo’s release would have affected
Obama’s presidential campaign, Muhammad said, “I insist. It
absolutely would have made a difference.”

Reached by TPM on Thursday, Muhammad said a “staff member” for the
CBC contacted him “sort of in a panic” after he took the photo at a
caucus meeting in 2005. TPM has published the photo above with
Muhammad’s permission.

“I sort of understood what was going on,” Muhammad told TPM. “I
promised and made arrangements to give the picture to Leonard
Farrakhan,” the minister’s son-in-law and chief of staff.

Muhammad said he gave away “the disk” from his camera but “copied
the photograph from that day onto a file” on his computer.



“Realizing that I had given it up, I mean, it was sort of like a
promise to keep the photograph secret,” Muhammad said.

Muhammad said he did not release his copy of the photograph because
he thought it would be perceived as a betrayal of that promise: “I
was really, I guess, afraid of them.”

Muhammad said he thought the photograph would be “damaging
politically” if it were released and was afraid that someone might
“break into his apartment” looking for it, like “that Watergate
crap.” He said he “felt a little bit more at ease” after Farrakhan
in 2016 claimed that Obama visited his home in Chicago. Muhammad
contacted Farrakhan in autumn 2017 with the “final manuscript” for a
self-published book containing the photo.

“I sent him a copy of the manuscript suggesting that, showing him
the picture, and saying to him, if he did not object, I was going to
publish it,” Muhammad said. “He had no objection.”

Muhammad also told TPM that around the time he took the photo, he
asked Obama about a perceived resemblance to Farrakhan.

“I asked the senator, ‘Has anyone ever told you that you resemble
Minister Farrakhan?'” Muhammad said. “And he said what I thought was
the perfect answer: ‘Well, he’s much better looking than I am.'”

TPM learned about the photograph and Muhammad’s upcoming book from a
write-up in Richard Prince’s Journal-isms newsletter.

A spokesperson for the Congressional Black Caucus suggested that TPM
contact the caucus’ former chair, Mel Watt, who now leads the
Federal Housing Finance Agency. Watt did not immediately respond to
TPM’s request for comment.

A spokesperson for Obama referred TPM to remarks he made in 1995
after attending the Million Man March that Farrakhan organized. At
the time, Obama said that “anti-Semitic and anti-Asian statements
are not going to lift us up” and said the march’s organizers were
lacking “a positive agenda, a coherent agenda for change.”

Muhammad is the news director at Washington, D.C. radio station WPFW
and has served as the head of the Washington offices of the Nation
of Islam’s official newspaper, The Final Call.

Farrakhan is a minister who leads the Nation of Islam and has made
anti-Semitic remarks. During Obama’s presidential campaign,
conservatives pushed multiple apparently racially motivated
conspiracy theories about Obama’s religion and supposed ties to
Islam.

During the 2008 presidential election, conservatives questioned the
indirect ties between Farrakhan and Obama, who attended a church
that gave Farrakhan an award. At a 2008 presidential debate in
Cleveland, Obama said he had “been very clear” in his “denunciation”
of Farrakhan’s remarks.

“I did not solicit his support,” Obama said, referring to
Farrakhan’s praise for his candidacy. “I can’t say to somebody that
he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy.”

[FPP]

Asked whether he thought the photo’s release would have affected
Obama’s presidential campaign, Muhammad said, “I insist. It
absolutely would have made a difference.”

Yawn.

[Ubiquitous]

Fresh off their disinformation campaign in the immediate aftermath
of the Parkland, Florida school shooting in which they falsely
claimed there had been 18 school shootings this year, the three
major network news outlets (ABC, CBS, and NBC) moved on to another
fake news topic they wanted to push on the American people:
President Trump and the GOP made it easier for mentally ill people
to buy guns.

The accusation that a bill designed to remove restrictions and allow
the mentally ill to purchase guns was passed by the GOP and signed
by President Trump had long been debunked. As the National Review’s
Charles C.W. Cooke wrote over a year ago, what got removed was “in
layman’s terms: The rule would have allowed bureaucrats within one
of our federal agencies to bar American citizens from exercising a
constitutional right — and on the highly questionable grounds that
to be incapable of managing one’s finances is, by definition, to be
a ‘mental defective.’”

And the bill wasn’t even supported by the NRA. But it was supported
by the liberal ACLU and the American Association of People with
Disabilities. Yet that didn’t stop the networks from pushing lies
and being appalled that the President wasn’t exploiting the
situation to push gun control as their previous president did.

“The President's efforts to comfort the nation tonight striking for
what he didn't say,” chided White House Correspondent Peter
Alexander during NBC Nightly News. “President Trump in a nearly
seven-minute statement not once mentioning the word ‘Guns.’ Instead,
again signaling his focus is on the mental health of shooters, not
the weapons they use.” He then spewed a torrent of fake news:

https://www.mrctv.org/videos/nets-push-fake-news-trump-made-it-
easier-mentally-ill-buy-guns

Despite emphasizing mental health, the White House's
newly unveiled budget would slash funding for Medicaid
that covers a quarter of mental health care in the U.S.
And President Trump last year revoked a hotly contested
Obama-era regulation that would have made it harder for
some people with mental illness to buy guns.

That lamenting for the lack of a gun control push was echoed on CBS
Evening News when anchor Jeff Glor bemoaned that “President Trump
did not mention gun laws when he addressed the nation today about
the shooting.”

“Well, Jeff, the President didn't have a lot to say today about what
he actually plans to do about school shootings,” CBS’s Chip Reid
whined to Glor. “But just last year, the President signed
legislation reversing an Obama-era regulation that would have made
it more difficult for some people with mental illness to buy guns,”
Reid continued.

The report by ABC’s Senior White House Correspondent Cecilia Vega
during World News Tonight was particularly vindictive. “Calling the
shooter mentally disturbed, his message was clear … But shortly
after taking office, President Trump blocked an Obama-era rule that
made it tougher for the mentally ill to obtain guns,” she claimed.

But Vega’s lie appeared to be inadvertently exposed when Justice
Correspondent Pierre Thomas was describing how the shooter obtained
his rifle. “Federal law bans anyone deemed by authorities as
mentally ill from buying guns, but it's unclear whether any court or
commission designated Cruz as mentally unfit. So, it appears he fell
through the cracks,” he explained. So, is it easy for the mentally
ill to buy guns or are they banned? ABC doesn’t seem to know,
judging by their own reporting.

It should be noted that all three of the networks backed off and
didn’t repeat the bogus claim about there being 18 school shootings
since the start of the year. BUT, all of them left it out there and
didn’t correct their reporting from the previous night.

[FPP]

Post by Ubiquitous
Fresh off their disinformation campaign in the immediate aftermath
of the Parkland, Florida school shooting in which they falsely
claimed there had been 18 school shootings this year, the three
major network news outlets (ABC, CBS, and NBC) moved on to another
President Trump and the GOP made it easier for mentally ill people
to buy guns.

They did. Your Russian buddies are lying to you again. But you're too
stupid to get that.

Post by Ubiquitous
President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.
The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.
Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221

And you know how you can tell that Trump knew it was a BAD thing to do?
He signed it without a ceremony. In fact, there are pictures of him
signing it, but they REFUSED to release them to the public?

Post by Ubiquitous
A little over a month after his inauguration, on Feb. 28, 2017, President Trump signed HJ Resolution 40, a bill that made it easier for people with mental illness to obtain guns. CBS News then asked the White House to release the photograph of Mr. Trump signing the bill, making the request a total of 12 times.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders finally responded to repeated emails and phone calls with a one-line note on April 19, 2017, writing to CBS News, "We don't plan to release the picture at this time."

Why? Aren't they proud of making it possible for a nut to kill 14 year
olds?
Don't you get it yet? You're a fucking stooge!

[Ubiquitous]

President Trump is fine, but it was the media that appeared to be in
bad shape at a sickening spectacle Tuesday, where the White House
physician gave the commander-in-chief a clean bill of health.

The disbelieving media scoffed at the official report, mocking the
doctor's findings, offering its own diagnoses and ultimately
questioning the credentials of a U.S. Navy rear admiral.

“Ronny Jackson” quickly became a top trend on social media as
critics rushed to make jokes and snide remarks about the doctor.
“Maybe Dr. Ronny Jackson is the same guy who measured Trump’s
inaugural size,” HuffPost contributor Bryan Behar snickered.

White House physician Ronny Jackson declared that Trump was in
"excellent health," with the exception of being a tad overweight,
needing more exercise and taking medication for high cholesterol –
things that the president has in common with millions of Americans.

Many White House correspondents appeared to be in disbelief that
Trump was given a clean bill of health and spent nearly an hour
peppering Jackson with questions as they fished for maladies.

Immediately following the positive report, ABC’s Cecilia Vega asked,
“Are you ruling out things like early onset Alzheimer's? Are you
looking at dementia-like symptoms?"

Dr. Marc Siegel wrote an op-ed in USA Today noting that while some
of “Trump’s tweets and off the cuff comments may seem disinhibited,
exhibiting a lack of good social judgment and calling on a need for
restraint,” but “linking this pattern of behavior to a possible
larger neuropsychological issue is pure speculation and a dangerous
leap to take.”

Sadly, the majority of the press didn’t get Siegel’s message.

A new genre of fake news was created as a result of Trump’s positive
physical, as pundits turned into weight truthers, or as MSNBC star
Chris Hayes put it, “girthers.”

The White house doctor reported that Trump stands 6-foot-3 and
weighs 239 pounds, which magically turned critics into carnival-
style weight guessers. “Morning Joe” namesake Joe Scarborough was
among the most prominent media members who could moonlight as a
weight guesser at his local county fair.

“I know somebody who is 6’3? and weighs close to 239 pounds. And all
I can tell you is this -- if that’s what 239 pounds looked like -- I
would weigh 170 pounds. So, yes, I have great respect for people who
have great respect for this doctor. But if that’s what 6’3?, 239
pounds looks like -- that’s a shock to me,” Scarborough said on
Wednesday morning.

New York City’s Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio joined the MSNBC
morning show and helped pile on, telling Scarborough and co-host
Mika Brzezinski that Trump’s actions “don’t suggest” he is sane.

New York Times columnist Frank Bruni said the White House doctor
“seemed like a Trump fanboy,” during a CNN panel in which host Don
Lemon literally laughed at the president’s reported weight.

An NBC News reporter even challenged Trump to “step on a scale in
public” to prove his weight, while New York Times star Maggie
Haberman suggested that Trump’s height may not coincide with
“earlier physicals” because an extra inch would make a difference on
“his BMI from overweight to obese.”

Media Research Center Vice President Dan Gainor told Fox News the
doctor who was appointed to be the president’s personal physician by
President Barack Obama is ”suddenly suspect” because the left and
mainstream media “doesn’t like” what he said, pointing specifically
to CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta – who was on hand for Tuesday’s press
briefing and now claims Trump has heart disease.

“It’s like a sitcom. Dr. Jackson is then challenged by TV Dr. Sanjay
Gupta who hasn’t examined Trump,” Gainor said. “What will the media
do next? Interview the cast of ‘ER’ or perhaps dig up Dr. House and
ask their opinions on the president’s height and weight?”

Reporters spent months diagnosing the president as mentally unfit
for office, unstable and Trump was even speculated to have early-
onset Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. Now that the armchair
doctors and psychologists have been proven wrong, many old school
journalists would expect an apology, retraction or even correction
but it doesn’t appear that will happen anytime soon.

An assortment of publications mocked the doctor’s findings and a
Twitter account claiming to be a “rogue” senior White House adviser
tweeted false information that Jackson fudged the numbers and Trump
actually weighs 339 pounds. The untruthful message has been
retweeted over 4,400 times and favorited by nearly 10,000 people.

Many conservative and down-the-middle media members have mocked the
press’ obsession with Trump’s health, as it appears the good news
disappointed some of the president’s critics. The Federalist even
published a story headlined, “10 of the dumbest questions reporters
asked during Trump’s health press conference,” that details the
embarrassing line of questions that makes it hard for traditional
journalists to defend their anti-Trump peers.

Jackson called speculation about the president’s health “tabloid
psychiatry,” which is apparently doctor talk for “fake news.”

“I thought the news media couldn’t get any more stupid,” Gainor
said. “Boy was I wrong.”

[FPP]

“I thought the news media couldn’t get any more stupid,” Gainor
said. “Boy was I wrong.”

And, yet, they're the same people that had Hillary at death's door every
time she sneezed.

[trotsky]

Post by FPP

“I thought the news media couldn’t get any more stupid,” Gainor said.
“Boy was I wrong.”

And, yet, they're the same people that had Hillary at death's door every
time she sneezed.

Hillary took a drink of water, she must have a urinary tract infection!!!

[Ubiquitous]

Post by trotsky

Post by FPP

“I thought the news media couldn’t get any more stupid,” Gainor said.
“Boy was I wrong.”

And, yet, they're the same people that had Hillary at death's door every
time she sneezed.

Hillary took a drink of water, she must have a urinary tract infection!!!

Oh, look! The sockpuppets are pretending to converse!

[Ubiquitous]

The media appears to have a very different attitude toward President
Donald Trump's health than it once did toward former Democratic
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's health.

During the 2016 campaign, there were a number of rumors and stories
speculating that Clinton's health was failing. But reporters at major
news networks and publications brushed aside questions about her
health, describing them as conspiracy theories pushed by conservative
media and the Trump campaign.

"It's really a cue to his voters, to his supporters to think, ‘Oh,
maybe she does have that secret illness that I've heard on talk
radio,'" CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter said, referring
to Trump questioning Clinton's stamina.

CNN reporter Jim Acosta called questions about Clinton's health
"bogus."

Only when Clinton collapsed at a 9/11 memorial event did reporters
begin asking questions about Clinton's health.

"Hillary Clinton's health just became a real issue in the presidential
campaign," the Washington Post wrote after Clinton's health scare.
Other news outlets also began to question Clinton's health status—with
the exception of MSNBC, which tried to defend Clinton's fainting spell.

When it comes to Trump's health and fitness for office, reporters
appear to have a different standard.

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough mocked Fox News host Sean Hannity for
questioning Clinton's mental fitness during the campaign, but he
recently questioned whether Trump has dementia. He even complained that
the Washington Post would not let him mention the possibility that
Trump has dementia in his columns.

Stelter now thinks reporters are right to question Trump's health and
fitness for office.

"The tip-toeing is over. The whispers are turning into shouts.
President Trump's fitness for office is now the top story in the
country," Stelter said.

A number of journalists have reported about a group of psychiatrists,
who have never personally examined Trump, warning of the danger that
the president poses and his deteriorating mental capacity.

Discussions of Trump's health came to the forefront this week after
White House physician Dr. Ronny Jackson stood at the press briefing
podium for more than 50 minutes on Tuesday. Jackson praised Trump's
stamina and called his overall health "excellent," stipulating that the
president is overweight and needs to eat better. The doctor also
revealed that Trump requested that he take a cognitive test and
performed well on it, saying that he has "no concerns" about Trump's
mental state.

During the press conference, reporters asked Jackson about Trump's
weight, his life expectancy, and whether he has a drug addiction.

The flurry of questions left one to wonder: Would the White House press
corps ask Clinton about her weight or if she was addicted to drugs if
she was president?

[FPP]

Post by Ubiquitous
The flurry of questions left one to wonder: Would the White House press
corps ask Clinton about her weight or if she was addicted to drugs if
she was president?
Clinton may have taken performance-enhancing drugs before debate – Trump
Republican suggests drug tests before next showdown and repeats suspicion of ‘rigged’ election at New Hampshire rally.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/15/donald-trump-drug-testing-new-hampshire-rally

Post by Ubiquitous
PRESIDENTIAL RACE
Hillary Clinton’s Shocking 30-Pound Weight Gain!
White House wannabe has started WADDLING.

https://www.nationalenquirer.com/politics/hillary-clinton-shocking-30-pound-weight-gain/

Still wondering, you fawning moron?

[Ubiquitous]

Post by FPP

Post by Ubiquitous
On Monday, Americans awoke to news of an attempted terrorist attack
in New York City. Thankfully, nobody was seriously injured in the
attack, which was believed to be a failed suicide bombing carried
out by someone inspired by ISIS

Directly triggered by President Polygrip's actions on Jerusalem.

Well, there you go blaming Obama's failures on others again!
BTW, no matter how much you wish it, Crooked Hilalry is not the
president.

[Ubiquitous]

http://media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2017/12/03/694940094001_5666251347001_5666251102001.mp4

While most networks offered mixed coverage to the trial of an
illegal immigrant accused of killing Kate Steinle, one network
ignored the case's verdict altogether, Pete Hegseth reported.

Hegseth said MSNBC did not cover the verdict of Jose Ines Garcia
Zarate at all.

Number of minutes MSNBC covered Kate Steinle verdict
(Friday - Saturday): 0. pic.twitter.com/Yj65cLX092

— Fox News (@FoxNews) December 3, 2017

Zarate was found guilty on a weapons charge, but acquitted of more
serious manslaughter and murder charges.

"They ignored it all together because to them it wasn't news," The
Federalist's Bre Payton said.

Payton said Zarate didn't deny shooting Steinle, but the fact that
the 45-year-old is a five-time deported illegal immigrant felon
didn't fit the network's narrative.

Hegseth said CNN moderately covered the verdict, but dropped
coverage in favor of reporting that Gen. Michael Flynn [Ret.]
pleaded guilty to lying to federal authorities when that story
broke.

[Geo. Crap]

Post by Ubiquitous
Hegseth said CNN moderately covered the verdict, but dropped
coverage in favor of reporting that Gen. Michael Flynn [Ret.]
pleaded guilty to lying to federal authorities when that story
broke.

Real patriots get everthing they know straight from Trump's tweets. Accept
no substitutes. Hope he doesn't raise taxes on me, social security is all I
have to survive on.

[Byker]

Post by Ubiquitous
http://media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2017/12/03/694940094001_5666251347001_5666251102001.mp4
While most networks offered mixed coverage to the trial of an illegal
immigrant accused of killing Kate Steinle, one network ignored the case's
verdict altogether, Pete Hegseth reported.
Hegseth said MSNBC did not cover the verdict of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate at
all.

They were too busy badmouthing Trump...