Is the press trustworthy? Can we believe what reporters and journalists tell us? Judith Miller, Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter for the New York Times, explains why Americans’ trust in the news media has fallen, and why that matters.
The NYT’s was against paying taxes before they were for it. This isn’t an argument against Trump (or the New York Times) as much as is is against the progressive tax code.
To set this story up, we will travel to THE YOUNG CONSERVATIVES regarding the New York Times and Trump’s taxes:
The only problem is, that, the New York Times didn’t pay any taxes as well. Why? Becuase when you are a business/business owner and you have loses… then you can claim those loses. L-E-G-A-L-L-Y! Here is the story from BREITBART:
Don’t believe the lies. Islam doesn’t mean peace. And every single good Muslim knows this FACT. But that doesn’t stop them from pushing the ‘peace’ narrative. It works well with the massive wave of opportunistic Muslim migration. In fact, it’s a key aspect of the dissimulation that allows the European Migrant Crisis to continue to spiral out of control.
“Also spelled ‘kafir’ or ‘kaffir’, Kuffar is a highly derogatory Arabic term used to refer to non-Muslims, though it is usually directed less against “People of the Book” (Christians and Jews) and more against others (Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, etc)…”
This just isn’t true. That is, that it is directed less against the “People of the Book.” Bill Warner explains (also, see the final — long — quote at bottom):
The socialists LOVE jihadists… because their real goal is to overthrow capitalism (see chapter from book explaining more, here):
Jihad Watch also notes the support the organization (ISM) gives to terrorists:
Explaining Islamic theology to all the wing-nuts at the NYTs is this longer excerpt from a wonderful book edited by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch:
Via the video description from my YouTube:
- In making its case that the popular AR-15 is a “common element in mass shootings,” the New York Times, citing the owner of a gun engineering company, reported the semi-automatic rifle can FIRE EIGHT ROUNDS PER SECOND.
The Blaze then quotes Olympic shooter AMANDA FURRER (pictured below) saying she can only shoot 3-rounds a second, and she shoots guns for a living!
In regards to the Grayson’s comment, my son (a Marine) and I were rolling over all the variables involved in his 700-rounds a minute statement:
Taking Amanda’s ability, and assuming she had a magazine or a belt with enough ammo on it, as well as assuming no muscular degradation in muscle ability from pulling the trigger for a minute straight, she would be able to shoot 180-rounds a minute.
These people [leftist media’ites and Democrats] are idiots, that is the only explanation. I thought this video by DOM RASO would be fitting considering the topic:
See more at NewsBusters!
(BreitBart) During Friday’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” on Fox News Channel, chairman of the Republican National Committee Reince Priebus spoke on The New York Times article, which Priebus speculated was done by Democratic primary candidate Hillary Clinton’s research group “American Bridge.”
The Daily Caller has more:
Surprise! NYT’s Embarrassing Rubio Hit Piece Came From Democratic Super PAC
…“Marco Rubio and His Wife Cited 17 Times for Traffic Infractions” is the headline of Friday’s Times piece, which credits three separate reporters. Missing from the headline is the important context that the candidate himself only had four violations to his name, over the span of two decades.
The Times took a lot of heat for the story from conservatives, who saw the piece as pointless and petty. But in an actual work of journalism, the Free Beacon’s Brent Scher noted that Rubio’s records weren’t pulled by the Times at all, but by Democratic opposition group American Bridge.
The David Brock-controlled American Bridge is known for its occasionally shoddy reporting work. In another embarrassing incident in 2014, American Bridge spread a video they claimed was of Republican Senate candidate David Perdue signing a young woman’s stomach… when he was actually signing her inhaler….
Dennis Prager reads from a New York Times article (http://tinyurl.com/pm886zv) slamming “infantile” persons creating “safe spaces” to act… well… child-like. This is just another example — from the many — of just how the Left in America harms freedom of thinking and freedom of interaction with competing ideas.
How do I look at it? Makes dealing with infantile ideas/position THAT much easier for people who actually engage in the real world. Some liberals get it, like this professor who warns that by doing such (labeling people and blocking out competing ideas) creates a false reality in the classroom and will sneak up on people out in the real world: http://tinyurl.com/dxznh3h
For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to visit: http://www.dennisprager.com/
Just a taste of the article… crazy stuff!
KATHERINE BYRON, a senior at Brown University and a member of its Sexual Assault Task Force, considers it her duty to make Brown a safe place for rape victims, free from anything that might prompt memories of trauma.
So when she heard last fall that a student group had organized a debate about campus sexual assault between Jessica Valenti, the founder of feministing.com, and Wendy McElroy, a libertarian, and that Ms. McElroy was likely to criticize the term “rape culture,” Ms. Byron was alarmed. “Bringing in a speaker like that could serve to invalidate people’s experiences,” she told me. It could be “damaging.”…
Are women independent? Tough? Able to do anything a man can do or bear? Or are they children… lesser of the sexes? Needing to be coddled? Protected at all times?
“Triggering” has become the all-purpose left-wing tool for censoring opinions leftists don’t like on the basis that expressing such opinions produce badfeels.
If these dames can’t handle the stress of interacting with the real world, they should just stay home and knit. Or iron, I got a whole pile of shirts they could get started on.
Since marriage is no longer about creating a stable environment for children, and has become (and this mainly the fault of heterosexual liberals [e.g., liberalism]) about personal fulfillment, validation, and access to social benefits, there literally is no constraint on how much more broadly it can be redefined. ~ Gay Patriot
Bravo. I just wish to mention that this area of the body is not made for sex. And many will read the following and think that this is an attack on the humanity of the gay lifestyle/choice. It is not, it is a cry for gay men to become monogamous and cease having relations with the people they purport to love in that area. It is out of compassion, not hatred the following is pointed out:
Homosexuals also continue to contract and spread other diseases at rates significantly higher that the community at large. These include syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis A and B, a variety of intestinal parasites including amebiases and giardiasis, and even typhoid fever (David G. Ostrow, Terry Alan Sandholzer, and Yehudi M. Felman, eds., Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men; see also, Sevgi O. Aral and King K. Holmes, “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the AIDS Era,” Scientific American). This is because rectal intercourse or sodomy, typically practiced by homosexuals, is one of the most efficient methods of transmitting disease. Why? Because nature designed the human rectum for a single purpose: expelling waste from the body. It is built of a thin layer of columnar cells, different in structure than the plate cells that line the female reproductive tract. Because the wall of the rectum is so thin, it is easily ruptured during intercourse, allowing semen, blood, feces, and saliva to directly enter the bloodstream. The chances for infection increases further when multiple partners are involved, as is frequently the case: Surveys indicate that American male homosexuals average between 10 and 110 sex partners per year (L. Corey and K. K. Holmes, “Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men,” New England Journal of Medicine; and, Paul Cameron et al., “Sexual Orientation and Sexually Transmitted Disease,” Nebraska Medical Journal).
Not surprisingly, these diseases shorten life expectancy. Social psychologist Paul Cameron compared over 6,200 obituaries from homosexual magazines and tabloids to a comparable number of obituaries from major American Newspapers. He found that while the median age of death of married American males was 75, for sexually active homosexual American males it is 42. For homosexual males infected with the AIDS virus, it was 39. While 80 percent of married American men lived to 65 or older, less than two percent of the homosexual men covered in the survey lived as long
In the black community, for example, one of the major factors in the degradation of that sub-culture is fatherlessness. In order to stop the devolving of young men into criminals, the black community would have to step up to the plate and accept responsibility for their own actions and change behavior… not blaming outside forces. Similarly, the gay community will have to battle their demons as well to help their subculture. See my Cumulative Case for some ideas of what these demons are.
Many years ago, Tammy Bruce reemphasized this dangerous, self-destructive notion and action:
And take note I talk about the nihilistic culture in the gay community [infected by liberalism] in a more philosophical and religious sense than most places, from my chapter in my book:
…Foucault looked at truth as an object to be constructed by those whom wielded the power to define facts. “Madness, abnormal sex, and criminality were not objective categories but rather social constructs.” He embraced what mainstream society had rejected, which was sadomasochism and drug use. In 1984 Foucault died from contracting AIDS. One should take note that Foucault so enjoyed his hope of dying “of an overdose of pleasure” that he frequented gay bathhouses and sex clubs even after knowing of his communicable disease. Many people were infected because of Foucault and Foucault’s post-modern views. On a lighter note, Dinesh D’Souza tells of a contest about the time Foucault was dying. The story is fitting for those who view hell as a real option:
People were debating whether AIDS victims should be quarantined as syphilis victims had been in the past. [William F.] Buckley said no. The solution was to have a small tattoo on their rear ends to warn potential partners. Buckley’s suggestion caused a bit of a public stir, but the folks at National Review were animated by a different question: What should the tattoo say? A contest was held, and when the entries were reviewed, the winner by unanimous consent was Hart. He [Hart] suggested the lines emblazoned on the gates to Dante’s Inferno: “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”
You see, in order to have one’s alternative lifestyle accepted, one must attack “what truth is” in its absolute (Judeo-Christian) sense. Truth is whatever the powerful decided it was, or so Foucault proposed. This is the attack. “We are subjected to the production of truth through power and we cannot exercise power except through the production of truth.” Foucault, sadly, never repented from violating God’s natural order and truth. He was a living example in his death of what Paul said was naturally to follow in their rejection of God’s gracious revelation of Himself to humanity, Romans 1:26-32 reads:
Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn’t know how to be human either—women didn’t know how to be women, men didn’t know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men—all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it—emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.… And it’s not as if they don’t know better. They know perfectly well they’re spitting in God’s face. And they don’t care—worse, they hand out prizes to those who do the worst things best! 
Foucault said that “sex was worth dying for,” but is it?…
 Jeffrey Hart, a professor many years ago at Dartmouth Univ.
 Dinesh D’ Souza, Letters to a Young Conservative: The Art of Mentoring (New York: Basic Books, 2002), 20.
 Flynn, 235-237.
 Walter A Elwell, Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), Romans 1:21
 Eugene H Peterson, The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2002), Romans 1:26-27, 30-32.
 Ibid., 235.
The President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, made a surprise visit St. Mark’ Cathedral on the Nativity Feast. WOW.
Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi visited the main Coptic Christian cathedral Tuesday during its Christmas Eve mass (Coptic Christians celebrated Christmas yesterday), “the first such visit by an Egyptian president in history” according to First Things writer Mark Movsesian. “It’s important for the world to see this scene, which reflects true Egyptian unity, and to confirm that we’re all Egyptians, first and foremost. We truly love each other without discrimination, because this is the Egyptian truth,” Sisi told service attenders.
Coptic Pop al-Tawadri thanked Sisi for his visit, calling it “a pleasant surprise and a humanitarian gesture.”
It isn’t the first such gesture that Sisi has made—in a speech celebrating the birth of Mohammed on New Year’s Day, he called on Muslim religious leaders to help fight against extremism: ”I say and repeat, again, that we are in need of a religious revolution,” he said, according to CNN. ”You imams are responsible before Allah. The entire world is waiting on you. … We need a revolution of the self, a revolution of consciousness and ethics to rebuild the Egyptian person—a person that our country will need in the near future.”…
Huge news via Breitbart! On the one hand you have people on Bill O’Reilly defending the Muslim Brotherhood, but the inserted leader of Egypt may be the beginning of what we should hear from leaders in Islamic countries. Again, this is the first leader of an Islamic country who has said publicly that Islam needs to reforms:
One of the most controversial, and yet indisputable, observations that can be made about the current state of global affairs is that Islam has problems with violence and aggression. (That’s not redundant – cultural and political aggression without physical violence are possible, and troublesome.)
This observation does not imply that all Muslims are universally violent or aggressive – that’s the straw-man argument apologists for Islam and critics of the West would rather deal with. But there are aspects of Islamic practice that make it useful to those who would pursue the path of violent domination. It doesn’t take much effort to find passages in the Koran that can serve as signposts along that path.
Contrary to the endless harangues of their domestic critics, people in the West are not comfortable with the notion of a “bad religion.” Religious tolerance is an important value across the European diaspora, and it was written into the ideological DNA of the United States. Granted, this ideal of tolerance has not always been observed with the greatest fidelity, but everyone gets the general idea that their neighbors should be respectfully allowed to pursue whatever religious faith they choose. Criticism of any faith from the outside is uncomfortable.
But here we are, looking back over quite a bit of Islamic violence around the world, unable to find parallel behavior in any other contemporary religious practice. (It’s telling that the nearly universal responses to a discussion of Islamic violence are What about the Crusades? or What about the Inquisition? Whatever else one can say about those chapters of history, they indisputably took place a long time ago.) Something is different with Islam, and not in a good way. It’s so obvious, and yet so politically incorrect to point it out, that it has reached elephant-in-the-room status.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is willing to talk about the elephant in the room, and he didn’t mince words when he spoke on the topic of Islamic violence in Cairo on New Year’s Day:
It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic world to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!
That thinking – I am not saying “religion” but “thinking” – that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!
Is it possible that 1.6 billion people should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants – that is 7 billion – so that they themselves may live? Impossible!
This is all the more remarkable because al-Sisi was addressing a gathering of Islamic scholars and clerics. He went on to tell them a “religious revolution” was needed, and “the entire world” was waiting for it…
It is nevertheless remarkable to hear a leader of al-Sisi’s prominence and devout religious background to call for a worldwide Islamic reformation. Note that he’s not using the “hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists” dodge, or saying that violent jihadists are aberrations bound to wither away on the “wrong side of history.” He’s calling for revolutionary action across the Muslim world, and calling out fundamentalists who believe Islamic law and tradition were chiseled in stone centuries ago…