Donald Trump

RPT’s Series: Introduction to “How to Be an Antiracist”

Published by Papa Giorgio

JUMP TO…

Paragraph from Page Eight (letters a – e)

  1. Donald Trumped liked to say, “Laziness is a trait in Blacks”
  2. defaming Latinx immigrants as mostly criminals and rapists
    1. Grammar
    2. Trump’s “Rape” Quote
    3. HuffPo Says 60% Raped
    4. Fusion Says 80%
    5. Gavin McInness Interviews Anti-Trumper Feminist (video)
  3. he routinely called his Black critics “stupid.”
  4. He claimed immigrants from Haiti “all have AIDS”
    1. Anonymous Sources — The Media’s Narrative Bias Faux Pas
  5. [Trump said] White supremacists as “very fine peo­ple” — THE BIG LIE
    1. NFL Star, Jack Brewer
    2. Joe Biden Spreads The Lie
    3. What Is Meant When This Is Repeated
    4. CNN’s Jake Tapper Admits the Truth (video)
    5. Biden Is Shown To Be Woefully Wrong (video)
    6. (LONG) Larry Elder’s Recent Refuting of The Big Lie (video)
    7. CNN’s Michael Smerconish Admits the Truth (video)
    8. CNN’s Steve Cortes Refutes the Big Lie for Prager University (video)

I am pausing my reading list….

…to read and critique a book that many teachers and other “public” organizations are studying in some form (I assume on the tax-payer dime).

WHY

Here is the graphic I came across on a friend’s Facebook that got me interested in responding to what I figured was a gawd-awful read since all these orgs are involved… the cultural Marxist politically correct “red-flags” were being thrown in my mind (after two chapters and the intro, I am not being disappointed). I wanted to delve into what many teachers are learning in order to indoctrinate…. er…. teach our children with:

I just wonder how many times this is repeated around the nation.

BACKGROUND

You may be interested in some biographical background of myself… here is an excerpt of a video I did in late 2008 after reading 2-books cover-to-cover [first two listed below] of 4-books I ordered off of Trinity United Church of Christ’s bookstore’s website. In case you are wondering, that was Obama’s church for 20-years. (The name of the bookstore is Akiba.)

  • A Black Theology of Liberation;
  • Black Theology & Black Power;
  • Is God A White Racist? A Preamble to Black Theology;
  • The Black Christ

Here is a short sampling of what prompted me to make the fuller video which the excerpt for biographical use is below:

    • “The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew” — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
  • “The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods” — James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.62
  • “White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity. That is why whites are finding and will continue to find the black experience a disturbing reality” — James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.64

OKAY, MOVING ON….

First of all, I figured I would break up this review of Ibram Kendi’s book, “How to Be an Antiracist.” The below is my responding to the Introduction, which itself is short. And the continued critique will take time, so do not think I will be pumping these out daily or even monthly.

ARTICLES

I did take the time to read a few articles discussing the book by right-leaning as well as left-leaning persons (the right leaning outnumbers the left greatly — FYI):

  • (One of the best) A Glimpse at the Intersectional Left’s Political Endgame (THE INTELLIGENCER )
  • Ibram X. Kendi, Prophet Of Anti-Racism (NATIONAL REVIEW)
  • How To Be An Anti-Intellectual: A Lauded Book About Antiracism Is Wrong On Its Facts And In Its Assumptions (CITY-JOURNAL)
  • Ibram Kendi’S Board Book Teaches Even Babies To Hate White People: There’S Just Enough Vagueness In Kendi’s Children’S Book To Plant The Seeds For Upcoming Generations To Push For The Utopian, False ‘Equity’ He Seeks (THE FEDERALIST)
  • Ibram Kendi Reveals The Dangers Of Reducing Everything To ‘Racism’: For Some Black Intellectuals Today, The Word ‘Racism’ Has Become A Verbal And Intellectual Crutch — A Substitute For Investigating Cause And Effect, The Basic Principle Of Scientific Inquiry (THE FEDERALIST)
  • Teachers Don’T Want Parents To Know They’Re Indoctrinating Their Kids (POST MILLENIAL)
  • How The Media Led The Great Racial Awakening: Years Before Trump’S Election The Media Dramatically Increased Coverage Of Racism And Embraced New Theories Of Racial Consciousness That Set The Stage For The Latest Unrest (TABLET MAGAZINE)
  • Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Donates $10 Million to Ibram X. Kendi, Who Wants To Make Racism Unconstitutional (REASON.ORG)
  • Why Capitalists Like Jack Dorsey Keep Bankrolling Anticapitalists Like Ibram X. Kendi (THE FEDERALIST)
  • University Of Southern Maine Asks Students And Faculty To Sign “Black Lives Matter Statement And Antiracism Pledge” – The President Of The University Will Post A Public List Of Signatories. Nonsignatories May Be Subject To Retaliation (REASON.ORG)
  • University’s Anti-Bigotry Reading List Includes Book That Equates Conservatism With Racism: GWU’s Racism ‘Resource Syllabus’ Draws Ire Of Students, Faculty (WASHINGTON FREE BEACON)

IBRAM’S BIRTH NAME

AS AN ASIDE, Ibram X. Kendi is not the authors birth name, he was born “Ibram Henry Rogers” and later changed his name. Here is the reasoning via E-NOTES:

  • Ibram X. Kendi changed his name to make it more meaningful, choosing a middle name which means “peace” in Zulu, and a surname which means “the loved one” in Meru. The name Kendi was also his wife’s name, which he adopted upon marriage as a gesture of respect to her, and a reversal of the usual patriarchal practise in which the woman changes her surname.
  • Dr. Ibram X. Kendi changed his middle name from Henry to Xolani and his surname from Rogers to Kendi upon his marriage to Dr. Sadiqa Kendi in 2013. Dr. Kendi has said that he made this change after discussions with his wife, and the principal reason for it was to make his name more meaningful. “Xolani” means “peace” in Zulu, while “Kendi” means “the loved one” in the Meru language of Kenya….

Many persons influenced heavily by ideology (often times the cults) change their names. For instance, The Love Israel Family, or Nation of Islam (NOI) members. To wit, Elijah Muhammad [the main founder of NOI] encouraged his followers to drop their “slave” names in favor of Muslim names or, in most cases, an “X,” signifying that they had lost their identities in slavery and did not know their true names. The sad thing is that the Arab Muslims are the one’s who mainly hunted down blacks and put them up for sale to the West or they (actually the majority) were taken inland to be slaves to Muslims.

BUT I DIGRESS…

Below are some thoughts, links to media and articles, as well as other quotes and musings. I would say enjoy, but this is a painful read to get through.

well-traveled anecdotes

Reading through the Introduction of Ibram’s book I noted the following on PAGE SEVEN, he is recalling a speech he gave as a young man in a competitive school championship (to which he is now embarrassed of)… here is the portion I noted:

  • “‘They think it’s okay not to think!’ I charged, raising the classic racist idea that Black youth don’t value education as much as their non-Black counterparts. No one seemed to care that this well-traveled idea had flown on anecdotes but had never been grounded in proof.” (p. 7)

Two things I annotated off to the side of the page at my local Starbuck’s (Bucks from now on), the first was, “He likes proof. Good.” The second was that yes, different cultures take studying [i.e., education] more seriously than that of others. So again, two things, Ibram likes “proof” (more on this in a minute), and what he called “anecdotal” is in fact provable.

The latter first. Thomas Sowell’s has shed much light on this idea that culture leads to actions, or lack of actions. For instance, Asians study more and do more homework than whites. And whites study more and do more homework than blacks. These affect outcomes:

SOWELL QUOTE 1

Economists tend to rely on “revealed preference” rather than verbal statements. That is, what people do reveals what their values are, better than what they say. Even when people give honest answers, expressing what they sincerely believe, some people’s conception of hard work, for example, need not coincide with other people’s conception, even when both use the same words.

When black students in affluent Shaker Heights spent less time on their school work than their white high school classmates did, and spent more time watching television,38 that was their revealed preference. Data from other sources show even greater differences between the time devoted to school work by black Americans and by Asian Americans in high school.39 Nor are such differences peculiar to blacks or to the United States. In Australia, for example, Chinese students spent more than twice as much time on their homework as white students did.40

How surprised should we be that Asian students in general tend to do better academically than white students in general, in predominantly white societies such as Australia, Britain or the United States? The same pattern can be seen among whole nations, as such Asian countries as Japan, South Korea and Singapore likewise show patterns of hard work by their students and academic results on international tests that place these countries above most Western nations.41

38. Valerie A. Ramey, “Is There a Tiger Mother Effect? Time Use Across Ethnic Groups,” Economics in Action, Issue 4 (May 3, 2011).
39. Kenneth Clark, “Behind the Harlem Riots— Two Views,” New York Herald-Tribune, July 20, 1964, p. 7.
40. Newton Garver, ‘What Violence Is,” Ike Nation, June 24, 1968, p. 822.
41. National Committee of Negro Churchmen, “‘Black Power,'” New York Times, July 31, 1966, p. E5.

Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2019), 102-103 (added references).

And in another work by Doc Sowell, he notes a historical comparison as well. (This excerpt should not be substituted for Sowell’s first chapter of Black Rednecks and White Liberals – found HERE for the savvy):

SOWELL QUOTE 2

Culture

As already noted, races can differ for reasons that are not racial, because people inherit cultures as well as genes. So long as one generation raises the next, it could hardly be otherwise. Many of the social or cultural differences between American blacks and American whites nationwide today were in antebellum times pointed out as differences between white Southerners and white Northerners. These include ways of talking, rates of crime and violence, children born out of wedlock, educational attainment, and economic initiative or lack thereof.37

While only about one-third of the antebellum white population of the United States lived in the South, at least 90 percent of American blacks lived in the South on into the twentieth century. In short, the great majority of blacks lived in a region with a culture that proved to be less productive and less peaceful for its inhabitants in general. Moreover, opportunities to move beyond that culture were more restricted for blacks.

While that culture was regional, both blacks and whites took the Southern culture with them when they moved out of the South. As one small but significant example, when the movement for creating public schools swept across the United States in the 1830s and 1840s, not only was that movement more successful in creating public schools in the North than in the South, those parts of Northern states like Ohio, Indiana and Illinois that were settled by white Southerners were the slowest to establish public schools.38

The legacy of the Southern culture is more readily documented in the behavior of later generations than is the legacy of slavery, which some distinguished nineteenth century writers said explained the behavior of antebellum Southern whites,39 and which later writers said explained the behavior of blacks. In reality, the regional culture of the South existed in particular regions of Britain in centuries past, regions where people destined to settle in the American South exhibited the same behavior patterns before they immigrated to the South.40 They were called “crackers” and “rednecks” before they crossed the Atlantic— and before they ever saw a slave. As a well-known Southern historian said, “We do not live in the past, but the past in us.”41

Educational and intellectual performance is a readily documented area where the persistence of culture can be tested. As late as the First World War, white soldiers from various Southern states scored lower on mental tests than black soldiers from various Northern states.42 Not only did black soldiers have the advantage of better schools in the North, they also had an opportunity for the Southern culture to begin to erode in their new surroundings. Over the years, much has been made of the fact that blacks score lower than whites nationwide on mental tests. From this, some observers have concluded that this is due to a racial difference and others have concluded that this is due to some deficiency or bias in the tests. But neither explanation would account for white Southerners’ mental test scores in the First World War.

Whatever the sources of the lower educational or intellectual attainments among blacks, there are major economic and social consequences of such differences. For many years, blacks received a lesser quantity and lower quality of education in the Southern schools that most attended. But, even after the quantity gap was eliminated by the late twentieth century, the qualitative gap remained large. The test scores of black seventeen-year-olds in a variety of academic subjects were the same as the scores of whites several years younger.43 That is obviously not a basis for expecting equal results in an economy increasingly dependent on mental skills.

37. See, for examples, my Black Rednecks and White Liberals (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2005), pp. 1-27.
38. Davidson M. Douglas, Jim Crow Moves North: The Battle over Northern School Segregation, 1865-1954 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 16.
39. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), Vol. I, p. 365; Frederick Law Olmsted, The Cotton Kingdom: A Traveller’s Observations on Cotton and Slavery in the American Slave States, edited by Arthur M. Schlesinger (New York: Modern Library, 1969), pp. 476n, 614-622; Hinton Rowan Helper, The Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It, enlarged edition (New York: A. B. Burdick, 1860), p. 34.
40. See my Black Rednecks and White Liberals, pp. 3-6.
41. Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, The Slave Economy of the Old South: Selected Essays in Economic and Social History, edited by Eugene D. Genovese (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1968), p. 269.
42. H.J. Butcher, Human Intelligence: Its Nature and Assessment (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), p. 252.
43. Stephan Thernstrom and Abigail Thernstrom, America in Black and White, pp. 354-355.

Thomas Sowell, Economic Facts and Fallacies (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2008), 165-166 (added references).

Okay, let me wrap back around to the first annotated note I made in Ibram’s book… proof. Remember, on page 7 he said “…but had never been grounded in proof.”  I noted “he likes proof.”

proof

On page eight (one-page after he touted “evidence” as something important to him), Kendi wrote this (I will insert letters to aspects I will respond to). This comes from PAGE EIGHT:

Firstly, I cannot stand books without footnotes to reference sources. I stopped reading Sean Hannity’s first book as soon as I figured out is was reference free. It is why even Lefty historians boldly critique Howard Zinn’s book on history, and, Mr. Kendi does the same here. So I tracked down the quotes Kendi attributes to Trump and show that “proof” is something of a tool to use as he sees fit.

The first example is the “laziness” quote. Even SNOPES lists this as “Undetermined” Whether Trump ever said “Laziness is a trait in blacks” is not certain.

A) Donald Trumped liked to say, “Laziness is a trait in Blacks”

Even the WASHINGTON POST said this quote shouldn’t be trusted, and they hate Trump:

  1. As the Washington Post noted, it is, at best, a secondhand quote from a private conversation, written down years after the fact, and should be viewed “with some skepticism.” — SNOPES
  2. Except – those weren’t their words. The Trump quote, apparently voiced by an actor, has not been substantiated, and should be viewed with some scepticism, the Washington Post reported two years ago. — BUSINESS INSIDER

Here I want to deal with this next portion in two ways, the first will be a Fact-Check via Breitbart, then an excerpt from a post of mine.

B) defaming Latinx immigrants as mostly criminals and rapists

BREITBART EXCERPT

…In his June 16, 2015 speech announcing his run for the presidency, Donald Trump said the following:

When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically.

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.

Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.

It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably— probably— from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.

Trump was referring to illegal aliens coming over the U.S.-Mexico border who commit additional crimes, such as rape. As Breitbart Texas has extensively documented, it’s common for human traffickers to “to sexually assault or rape the females” en route to the U.S., and the smugglers “usually remove an article of clothing from the female they rape and they tie it tightly to a tree—a rape tree.”

Furthermore, it is true that as the U.S. suffers from a massive heroin epidemic that killed over 47,000 people in 2014 alone, “nearly all” of the heroin consumed in the U.S. is smuggled in by Mexican traffickers, as the Washington Post found. Drug trafficking is an inherently violent operation….

VIDEO BREAK

RPT’S POST

…When I ask people to offer me an example of Trump’s “racism,” I get a reference to this example most often:

  • “The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems…. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you…. They’re sending people that have lots of problems…. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” — DONALD J. TRUMP

Before I add information that I doubt a millennial has heard because either they or their friends are quick to label Trump as being bigoted or racist for saying this, and moving on without further reflection, I want to note that all Republican politicians said to round up illegals in America would be an impossible task. Trump has evolved on his statement that many understood as rounding up 11-million (actually, there are 30-million). ALSO, every Republican politician noted that the Constitution would not allow for the banning of all Muslims coming to our country. Again, our Constitution forbids this. It allows for banning all persons from a country, but not a religious or sectarian belief. He [Trump] has backed away from this as well, as all of us knew he would. In fact, this was removed from his site. Trump is not a politician, but his team is counseling him well.

…Continuing.

Okay. What of Trump’s statement? It surely sounds bigoted at best.

I will shock the reader.

I think that is the most pro-woman statement in a long time by a politician regarding real — violent — crime against women.

Let me explain.

This is from the HUFFINGTON POST:

As the number of Central American women and girls crossing into the U.S. continues to spike, so is the staggering amount of sexual violence waged against these migrants who are in search of a better life.

According to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. That’s up from a previous estimate of 60 percent, according to an Amnesty International report…

[….]

Through May, the number of unaccompanied girls younger than 18 caught at the US-Mexico border increased by 77 percent.

But while many of these girls are fleeing their homes because of fears of being sexually assaulted, according to the UNHCR, they are still meeting that same fate on their journey to freedom…

For clarity in the sources for the HUFFPO article, for those that are of the impatient and research non-oriented generation:

✦ 60% Amnesty International Report (PDF)
✦ 80% Is rape the price to pay for migrant women chasing the American Dream? (FUSION)

(UPDATED EDITORIAL BY RPT) To be clear, these rapes are happening by residents who live in towns and districts these migrants are passing through. Other rapes are happening by Coyotajes, as well as many by the men making the trip as well. We know that many Honduren gang-members make the trek, and so, a high percentage of these men (criminals) do in fact cross our border into our nation. Where American women of all ethnic background are subjected to assault. Since we know illegals commit crimes at double the rate of native-born… rape is also part of these increased stats.

80% of C. American Illegals Raped on Trip to US, Still Dems Encourage Them to Come

…“According to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. That’s up from a previous estimate of 60 percent, according to an Amnesty International report,” the well-known news outlet continued….

So, many of the men they travel with are rapping them. Many of the Coyotajes as well take advantage of them. There are what are now being called “rape trees,” which you can learn more about on a previous post of mine, here. Here is how a conversation using this understanding went in the real world:

  • The above exchange was discussed a bit wrong, like Trump, the main idea is lost in the presentation. Gavin McInness made it sound as if the rapes were happening at the border when in actuality they are happening during the entire trip. And the girl thought he meant Coyotes, the real animal. Not Coyotajes. (That was very funny BTW, and why I ended the video like I did.)

What would be the most compassionate step to take? I would say, to control our border. That would help the migrant woman AS WELL AS our own mothers, daughters, and wives. Many from these countries that are experiencing these horrible circumstances are experiencing it because of their government models they have chosen. But this is neither here-nor-there….

I almost hate doing this “check” of Mr. Kendi… almost. It shows how awful of an author he is… it shows he does not practice what I assume he expects in others, as well as being too easy. I liken dealing with the Left to “shooting fish in a barrel.”

C) he routinely called his Black critics “stupid.”

They [Kendi and other talking heads] hear something and run with it as if it were true and not just hearsay. For instance, let’s discuss what surely Mr. Kendi got cues from Don Lemon (MERCURY NEWS):

Three days after President Donald Trump called LeBron James and CNN’s Don Lemon stupid, the anchor accused the president of racism.

Monday night was not the first time Lemon called Trump a racist. Nor was the previous Friday the first time Trump belittled the intelligence of a black critic of his administration, or Lemon specifically.

The ol “Switcheroo.” You call white people dumb or stupid, you are not racist. You call black people dumb or stupid, you are a racist. You criticize George Dubya’s policies, you are a patriot. (Remember all the bumper stickers from on Democrats cars during Dubya?) You criticize Obama’s policies, you are a racist.

The quote many Democrats had plastered on their cars was a quote “from” Thomas Jefferson.

What just a decade ago young Democrats used as “freedom of expression, they now deride:

Forty-four percent of Democratic college students polled responded that they strongly support taking the statues down, and another 29 percent said they support the measure, for a total of 73 percent in favor. Another 12 percent were against and 15 percent are not sure.

In contrast, only 4 percent of Republican college students supported the notion while 88 percent were against and 8 percent not sure, the poll results show. (THE COLLEGE FIX)

Heads I win Tails you lose.

Here are some white people Trump called stupid (WASHINGTON EXAMINER) — SIDE NOTE: you may think [like I do] this is not very “Presidential,” however, it is not racist as Kendi implies:

Many in the news media are branding President Trump as a racist after he insulted the intelligence of professional basketball player LeBron James and CNN’s Don Lemon, both of whom are black, even though Trump has made similar comments about prominent white men.

Many in the news media are branding President Trump as a racist after he insulted the intelligence of professional basketball player LeBron James and CNN’s Don Lemon, both of whom are black, even though Trump has made similar comments about prominent white men.

Over the weekend, liberal New York Times columnist Charles Blow said there was “definitely” a “racial underpinning” to Trump’s latest insults.

The Washington Post’s Max Boot tweeted Friday, “I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that Trump thinks African-Americans are dumb.”

Former CBS newsman Dan Rather called Trump’s remark, which he made on Twitter, a “disgrace” and “racist.”

Trump is, however, well known for taking aim at just about anyone who criticizes him in public, and there’s no evidence he considers race or gender before he fires back. Here are seven examples of when Trump insulted the intelligence of white, conservative men:

… FBI Director James Comey … Texas Gov. Rick Perry … 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney … Sen. Lindsey Graham … Washington Post columnist George Will … radio host Glenn Beck …

You see, Trump is equal opportunity.

D) He claimed immigrants from Haiti “all have AIDS”

Moving on… I wish to mention here that the story of Trump claiming “immigrants from Haiti ‘all have AIDS'” is an unsourced (anonymous) story. No one came on the record… just like the Russian Conspiracy Hoax, where, story after story has been refuted by under-oath testimony. AXIOS notes the NYTs article:

  • “Key quotes: Trump called Afghanistan a terrorist haven, claimed that the 15,000 Haitians who had travelled to the U.S. “all have AIDS,” and said that the 40,000 Nigerians would never “go back to their huts” after seeing the U.S., officials who had been in the room told Times reporters NYT’s Michael D. Shear and Julie Hirschfeld Davis.”

I will note after “d” what recent issues have been in the horrible reporting by the MSM regarding their “sources” — FIRST HOWEVER, The people who denied the even t from happening DID go on the record:

ANONYMOUS SOURCES

  • “Gen. Kelly, Gen. McMaster, Secretary Tillerson, Secretary Nielsen, and all other senior staff actually in the meeting deny these outrageous claims,” she said, referring to the current White House chief of staff, the national security adviser, and the secretaries of state and homeland security. “It’s both sad and telling The New York Times would print the lies of their anonymous ‘sources’ anyway.” (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)
  • Press Secretary Sarah Sanders shot down the “outrageous claims,” stating that senior officials who were in the meeting refuted them. “It’s both sad and telling The New York Times would print the lies of their anonymous ‘sources’ anyway,” Sanders said in a statement. The White House did not deny that the meeting took place, but said the president never used the words “AIDS” or “huts” to describe people from any country. But that isn’t the only story to the story. I do not think this even reported by anonymous sources actually happened. The same people that wrongly reported using anonymous sources are now the same people using anonymous sources. (NEW YORK POST)

Sharyl Attkisson has a pretty good list of media mishaps regarding Trump: Media Mistakes in the Trump Era: The Definitive List (it is up to 143). However, the issue for a while are articles stating something as true when they are based on unamed sources. Here is a portion from another post of mine dealing with the stories on Trump’s dealing with Covid-19:

News media figures advancing “Trump-Russia collusion” narratives are now spreading misinformation about President Donald Trump and the coronavirus outbreak as part of a “permanent coup,” […..]

The Washington Post, citing anonymous sources, recently alleged that Trump was issued repeated warnings about the coronavirus through a dozen classified daily briefings between January and February.

“An article in the Washington Post … said that in [his] presidential daily briefings, Trump repeatedly ignored warnings of the coronavirus,” Smith recalled. Acting DNI Richard Grenell tweeted at the authors of this piece. [He] said. ‘That’s not true. We told you this is not true, and yet you only included our denial in the ninth paragraph.’”

Smith continued, “So these two Washington Post journalists were a core Russiagate conspiracy team. Again, unfortunately, we’re seeing the same thing unfold again and again, and that’s why the title of the book is The Permanent Coup.”…

(BREITBART)

A worthwhile read:

  • Media Are Playing Games Yet Again With Anonymous Russia Leaks: Watch Nearly The Entire Corporate Media Establishment Run Wild With Claims From Completely Anonymous Sources In The Intelligence Community This Week (THE FEDERALIST)

E) [Trump said] White supremacists as “very fine peo­ple”

And this last section, “e”, actually just came up in a recent conversation with a family member. Their statement was a bit unclear, however, as far as I could tell, they were in agreement that Trump said this. And here again a person who encounters this argument may find themselves in a “switcheroo” environment. They will say when challenged — “well, he did say it”. But, it wasn’t said in the way they mean it…. like Kendi did.

It is really, THE BIG LIE. Here are my recent posts dammingly refuting the issue:

The “Fine People” Lie!

NBC NEWS mocked the following with this headline: “Former NFL player claims Trump never called white nationalist rallygoers ‘very fine people’.” Jack Brewer (below) is right-chya-know:

I made the following short clips not because I haven’t heard versions of this before, but these two versions clearly show that Trump didn’t say it the way the media or politicians mean he said it. He didn’t call on the one hand Nazi/KKK affiliated persons “fine people” — JUST LIKE HE DIDN’T call anyone from Antifa “fine people.” He was speaking about the normal Democrat and Republican (libertarian, independent, non-voter, etc) who came to express their support of tearing down a Confederate monument or for not supporting the destruction of our past (good or bad). Very rarely would a person find an article or video by Steve Cortes to see what the other side of the issue is.

However, these nets support the rhetoric because in the end they wish to defeat Trump, truth be damned. Here — for instance — is People magazine printing the issue:

…To borrow from The Washington Post, this is becoming a “Bottomless Pinocchio” for Biden. He never stops lying and smearing: 

Biden: The easy part of this is like my relationship with Barack — we trusted each other. Think about what happened when those folks came out in Charlottesville, carrying those torches. Close your eyes and remember what you saw, chanting the same anti-Semitic bile that was chanted in the streets of Germany in the ’30s, accompanied by the Ku Klux Klan. And a young woman gets killed protesting against them and the president of the United States says, “There are very fine people on both sides.” That phrase was heard ’round the world. This is going to change.

Harris: That’s right.

Biden: This is who we are [gestures to Harris next to him]. This is America.

(NEWSBUSTERS)

When people say the above (friends, family, MSM, politicians) they are “meaning” this often times:

However, Trump never said that… or meant what many attribute to him saying (in context… remember “context is king”).

TAPPER EDITION:

  • In an often misused comment (ripped from its context) Trump actually denounced Nazi’s in this press conference. I add some prophetic statues predictions coming true as well as Dennis Prager commenting on an evidence this was misconstrued. (See more at my post HERE)

If even Jake Tapper can pick up what the President is laying down, why can’t Kendi?

BIDEN EDITION:

Larry Elder recaps one of the biggest lies by the media and Democratic Presidential nominee… Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (e.g., Good Ol’ Joe). I include video “The Sage” had audio for, as well as extending some other audio – like Michael Smerconish doing what real reporters and media persons should do… that is… track down the real story [the truth of the matter]. This is Larry at his best, I only tried to embolden his points [hopefully I did]. I will be making a smaller truncated version to accent my just uploaded video, HERE.

Michael Smerconish doing what real reporters and media persons should do… that is… track down the real story [the truth of the matter] (“The Michael Smerconish Program” — March 27th, 2019). The article mentioned by Michael Smerconish’s guest, Steve Cortes, can be found here: Trump Didn’t Call Neo-Nazis ‘Fine People.’ Here’s Proof

????

PRAGER U

Did President Trump call neo-Nazis “very fine people” during a famous press conference following the Charlottesville riots of August 2017? The major media reported that he did. But what if their reporting is wrong? Worse, what if their reporting is wrong and they know it’s wrong? A straight exploration of the facts should reveal the truth. That’s what CNN political analyst Steve Cortes does in this critically important video.

END of BIG LIE

DENIAL MAKES YOU RACIST

Ibram also mentions Richard Spencer alongside Trump as some sort of connector. In this section (page 9 of the introduction) Kendi notes that is someone says “I am not racist” — that that is something a racist would say. Again, this is a “heads I win, tails you loose” scenario the Left loves. According to Kendi and others:

  • Yes my dears, all White people are racists. All. Of. Them. (MEDIUM)
  • If you’re white, you’re probably racist,” an editor for the University of Alabama’s student newspaper told her classmates in a recent op-ed. (CAMPUS REFORM)

This is being taught to teachers nationwide for years now. Here is an excerpt from an old post of mine detailing the issue:

During this interview, the “individual” came up. Why is this important? Because in totalitarian movements the individual is extinguished (which is opposite of our countries [the USA] documents). Below are some quotes from the socialist movement in Germany as an example. Here are the four parts mentioned in the above interview:

In this post as well there is video of Chicago Teachers Union president explaining how to make math racist. This is how radical the teaching profession has gotten. However, let us deal a bit more with,

RICHARD SPENCER

I have for years and years (after years of studying cults and political movements, and personal contacts over the year and almost a half I spent in jail with many involved in these racist movements) noted the proclivity of the KKK and other white supremacist groups to vote Democrat (3 of the 4 largest supremacy groups told their followers to vote for Obama, as one example. Another is the Grand Dragon of California telling his peeps to vote for Hillary. [I have a myriad of them]).

IN FACT, almost the entirety of racist groups (no matter the ethnicity) vote Democrat.

BUT NOW not only have I shown [via Dinesh D’Souza’s interview] that the favorite example of the leader/founder of the “Alt-Right” according to the MSM and Democrats is an avowed socialist Leftie — Richard Spencer. WHO…. has just endorsed…. Joe Biden for President. Of course he has. This from PJ-MEDIA:

MEDIA and SUPPORT for CLAIMS

SEE ALSO

SPENCER’S OWN WORDS

Dinesh’s interview can be seen here (see also GATEWAY PUNDIT):

Some of my studies were noted HERE, scroll down past the video seen. Here are a few excerpts from my post:

RPT

EXCERPT

[…..]

After the triumph of the civil rights movement and the introduction of a series of civil rights laws, the Klan broke up into various subgroups. Previously these KKK members were Democrats and they continued being so after.

  • “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” — Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;
  • “…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.” — Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.

People do not realize why these groups, especially the KKK, vote Democrat. For instance, out of the four leaders in the “white-power” movement (the KKK subculture) with the most followers, three told their peeps to vote Democrat (Actually, then it was them telling their followers to vote for Obama in 2008).

Here you see some higher ups in this white racist movement telling their people (3-of-the-4) to vote Democrat for the election in 2008:

➤ Tom Metzger: Director, White Aryan Resistance; Career Highlights: Was Grand Dragon of Ku Klux Klan in the 70s; won the Democratic primary during his bid for Congress in 1980…
➤ Ron Edwards: Imperial Wizard, Imperial Klans of America; Career Highlights: Sued in 2007 by the Southern Poverty Law Center for inciting the brutal beating of a Latino teenager; building the IKA into one of the nation’s largest Klan groups by allowing non-Christians to join.
➤ Erich Gliebe: Chairman, National Alliance; Career Highlights: Turning white-power record label, Resistance Records, into a million-dollar-a-year business juggernaut; an 8-0 record as a professional boxer under the nickname, “The Aryan Barbarian.”
➤ Rocky Suhayda: Chairman, American Nazi Party; Career highlights: Being widely quoted bemoaning in the fact that so few Aryan-Americans had the cojones of the 9/11 hijackers: “If we were one-tenth as serious, we might start getting somewhere.”

[…..]

Reason Three
They HATE (H-A-T-E) Israel, and this is a reason they tend to support Democrats. For instance, on his YouTube, David Duke endorsed Charles Barron for Congress (video on the left). Another endorsement for Hillary was from a KKK leader here in California (right video).

So attributing racism to the GOP is silly, because as a whole, the almost 8,000 KKK members nation wide vote Democrat. AS DO ALL THE OTHER RACIST CULTS IN AMERICA (*booming megaphone affect in a cave*). NOT TO MENTION where all the hub-bub is when all these hate groups vote for Democrats in years past?

In other words, WHY is it only “newsworthy” when they vote for Republicans and not for Democrats?

I smell something fishy here.

I can continue, but this post is already long enough. On the racial issues, I suggest my page entitled: U.S. RACIAL HISTORY. This page deals with the supposed party switch by racist Democrats to Republicans, slavery, American Indian narratives, some VERY PROUD BLACK HISTORY in our country… and the like.

Recap
Again, let’s recap for clarity some of my reasons white racist/nationalists cults vote Democrat:

  • They are typically socialist in their political views, and thus support the welfare state for personal financial reasons (poor) and ideological reasoning (socialist); or for the reason that it is a way of controlling minorities (racist reasoning). A modern plantation so-to-speak; There is a shared hatred for Israel and supporting of groups wanting to exterminate the Jews (Palestinians for instance).

This is why a majority STILL supported Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. She is a socialist at heart, wants a big welfare state, and does not like Israel as much as Trump, who has kids practicing the Jewish religion. Thee ONLY issue a racist could want to vote for Trump on is his immigration policies… hardly a racist position. It has only now become an issue of bigotry and racism because the Left has moved the goal post in the use of language. Racists no longer means “genetically superior,” rather, it mean you disagree with a Democrat and/or hurt their feelings. Otherwise, these people would be RACISTS!

END

Here are some other examples (recent as well as old):

  • Duke has continued his support of Gabbard via social media, updating his Twitter background asking, “Tulsi is being unjustly banned from the Dem Debate. Why?…She opposes the insane Neocon wars!” (NEWSWEEK)

More from SARAH PALIN:

…After repeatedly condemning the nation of Israel and those who support it in a series of anti-Semitic comments, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has picked up an endorsement from David Duke.

“David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and an open racist and antisemite, is publicly defending Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) in the wake of the freshman Democrat’s series of antisemitic statements that have rankled the Democrat Party nationally,” BREITBART reports.

In one tweet, Duke calls Omar “the most important member of the U.S. Congress.” “Simply stated, she is important because the dared expose the gorilla in Congress that nobody dares speak,” Duke said in another tweet.

Here’s more from Breitbart:

Duke has been a lightning rod in American politics for years, and in recent years the media and left have gone after Republicans–particularly President Trump–for having been praised by him. During the 2016 presidential campaign, the media demanded repeatedly that Trump disavow Duke–which he did. But now Duke has endorsed Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)–a Hawaiian Democrat–in the 2020 presidential election.

This is not the first time Duke has taken up Omar’s cause either. Back in early February, when she first came under the national spotlight for anti-Semitism at the beginning of the new Congress, Duke backed her up publicly as well.

Duke’s decision to back Omar now comes in the wake of several Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and presidential candidates like Sens Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), as well as many other Democrats, refusing to demand that Omar apologize and attempting to explain away her comments as somehow not deliberately anti-Semitic.

[…..]

According to the op-ed, mainstream media outlets will undoubtedly treat Duke’s endorsement of a Democrat differently than the way they pounced on Duke’s campaign endorsement of Trump. Trump immediately and repeatedly denounced the endorsement.

Check it out:

First, Omar herself should be repeatedly questioned about whether she accepts Duke’s endorsement and about why her views and his dovetail so nicely. Second, every Democrat should be asked, in light of Duke’s embrace of Omar, why the Democratic caucus shouldn’t be seen as Duke-friendly because it refused to adopt a resolution specifically denouncing Omar’s anti-Semitism.

This bears repeating: If the Duke-Omar embrace isn’t turned into a universal question for all Democratic House members, the media will have failed as an institution to act in a professional, even-handed manner.

If the media will not hold Democrats to the same standard, then it should forever ignore all of Duke’s efforts to thrust himself into the news merely by saying or tweeting something.

…etc…

For all the reasons above and more (theology, family, history, economics, philosophy, etc) —  I claim to be not racist, but can have off-color humor, like, “Yo Mamma is so white, when she opens her mouth — kids try to dunk cookies in it.” Ibram Kendi says the following about his racism:

  • “I use to be racist most of the time. I am changing. I am no longer identifying with racists by claiming to be “not racist.” (page 10)

Ahh — the “Ol’ Switcheroo.”

Pam Keith’s “Hit Card” (Democrat’s Violent Past)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(This is with a hat-tip to Santa Clarita Community Watchdog Group — a Facebook group) In a post on Facebook I came across this linked article to LAW ENFORCEMENT TODAY discussing a Democrat politician from Florida’s 18th Congressional district apparently putting out a “hit list” against Republicans. Here is a portion of that article:

Politics is hardly ever pretty when it comes for folks racing toward an election, and thus that means the election for Florida’s 18th congressional district is not immune from the likes of nasty rhetoric from people trying to get a seat at the table.

But when you have people calling for an “open season” for killing your political opponents, then that is where a line has been crossed.

The person who crafted a hypothetical call for murdering the likes of President Trump, Roger Stone and AG Bill Barr is Pam Keith. This Democrat is vying to land Florida’s congressional seat for the 18th district, but a Twitter post dating back to June 10th  of this year puts her disturbing mindset on full display:

“GOP: Yeah he’s dead. But it’s not a big deal because he was a “bad guy.” Is that REALLY the new rule they want? Killing is OK if it’s a “bad guy?” Is it now open season on: Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Gates, Cohen, Trump, Barr, Kavanaugh, Lewandowski, Bolton, Pompeo, Papadopolous, Parscale.”

NATIONAL REVIEW is the original source for the LET article and notes the political struggle in that district, writing that “The race between Mast and Pam Keith for Florida’s 18th district is now considered a toss up by the Niskanen Center.” Continuing they note:

…The district has swung Republican since 2016, however Keith represents a first major challenge to Mast’s tenure.

Mast is a veteran of the Afghanistan War, where he lost both legs after a bomb exploded under him. Keith is herself a former judge in the Navy, and is an African American who has voiced support for the Black Lives Matter movement.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairwoman Cheri Bustos has said of Keith, “Pam has never backed down from fighting for what’s right. She’s running for Congress to put an end to the petty partisanship that gets in the way of delivering results for Floridians.” However, Keith is not one of the candidates listed as part of the organization’s “Red to Blue” campaign to flip Republican-held districts.

With a competitive election on the horizon, focus has shifted to both candidates’ social media history. Keith was the subject of a profile in the Washington Post on Friday which did not mention her more controversial posts…..

Of course if this were a Republican, WaPo would have included those “controversial” posts. All this led to a humorous aside:

HOWEVER…

This made me think of a connection to the Democrat Party’s historical past. Here is my comment on that part of the group on Facebook:

You know, this reminds me of something from the Democrats past. What this is is a “hit card” that the violent arm [the KKK] of the Democrat Party use to carry around with them. They would use it as an identifier to kill or harass members of the “radical group” (Republicans who thought color did not matter) in order to affect voting outcomes. While we hear of the lynchings of black persons (who did make up a larger percentage of lynchings), there were quite a few white “radicals” lynched for supporting the black vote and arming ex-slaves. It is also ironic that the current Democrat melee is focused on racial differences.

I could go on, but I won’t.

Here is a short video discussing the matter:

  • “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” — Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;
  • “…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.” — Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.

The “Big Lie” Biden Continues To Spread

Published by Papa Giorgio

Larry Elder recaps one of the biggest lies by the media and Democratic Presidential nominee… Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (e.g., Good Ol’ Joe). I include video “The Sage” had audio for, as well as extending some other audio – like Michael Smerconish doing what real reporters and media persons should do… that is… track down the real story [the truth of the matter]. This is Larry at his best, I only tried to embolden his points [hopefully I did]. I will be making a smaller truncated version to accent my just uploaded video, HERE.

Michael Smerconish doing what real reporters and media persons should do… that is… track down the real story [the truth of the matter] (“The Michael Smerconish Program” — March 27th, 2019). The article mentioned by Michael Smerconish’s guest, Steve Cortes, can be found here: Trump Didn’t Call Neo-Nazis ‘Fine People.’ Here’s Proof

????

PRAGER U

Did President Trump call neo-Nazis “very fine people” during a famous press conference following the Charlottesville riots of August 2017? The major media reported that he did. But what if their reporting is wrong? Worse, what if their reporting is wrong and they know it’s wrong? A straight exploration of the facts should reveal the truth. That’s what CNN political analyst Steve Cortes does in this critically important video.

Oval Office “Decorum” (Bill Clinton)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Dammmmm Greg went there! (ACE OF SPADES hat-tip) Last night Bill Clinton lectured Trump about proper Oval Office decorum. “Decorum” comes from the Latin, meaning “the proper manner of decorating an intern’s face.”

“Trump Is NOT A Racist…. Go!” (Debating the Left: James Klug & Mike Luso)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(James Klug) In this video I talk to people about how I believe Donald Trump is NOT a racist. Trump says and Tweets obnoxious things all the time, but after closely examining his actions and the change that he’s doing policy wise I am not convinced that he is a racist. This video was a difficult one to create because the overwhelming majority of people that walked by and said he was wouldn’t talk to me. Thankfully we had a handful of people that wanted to defend their stance!

(Mike Luso) I visited Cal Poly Pomona with the task of debating the students on campus on whether or not President Trump is a racist.

A Trump Rally Turned This Woman Into a Trump Voter (Prager U Update)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Psychologist and author Karlyn Borysenko wouldn’t be caught dead at a Trump rally. So what was she doing in a New Hampshire arena, surrounded by 11,000 cheering Trump supporters? And what did she take away from the experience? She explains what happened when perception met reality in this eye-opening video.

Glenn Beck (for all the flaws some perceive about him — is a great narrator) reads an article in full, written by a Democrat who went to a Trump rally to experience FOR HERSELF the people and the atmosphere she has been repeatedly told was the opposite from what she experienced for herself. She wrote about her experiences at Democrat and Republican rallies in an article entitled,

A quote I love — because many posts on Facebook end with the “hashtag” – #TrumpCult:

  • …Now, Trump is always going to present the best case he can. And yes, he lies. This is provable. But the strength of this rally wasn’t about the facts and figures. It was a group of people who felt like they had someone in their corner, who would fight for them. Some people say, “Well, obviously they’re having a great time. They’re in a cult.” I don’t think that’s true. The reality is that many people I spoke to do disagree with Trump on things. They don’t always like his attitude. They wish he wouldn’t tweet so much. People who are in cults don’t question their leaders. The people I spoke with did, but the pros in their eyes far outweighed the cons. They don’t love him because they think he’s perfect. They love him despite his flaws, because they believe he has their back….

Enjoy the reading.

Some Hugh Hewitt and Larry Elder (Riot Logic)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is the first hour, truncated a bit. I am sure the ntire show will be viewable soon on HUGH’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL:

I start out with Hugh Hewitt, then Larry Elder is sandwiched in the middle of the two Hewitt parts, and I add the Saturday speech by Trump that CNN and MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, NYT, WaPO, and others missed. The First Amendment is discussed, as well as Trump’s walk to the church. Elder slam-dunks the statistics as usual. A good Mix-n-Match. A few callers to boot.

Some Hydroxychloroquine Straight Talk

Published by Papa Giorgio

I ended up pausing the first video below and went to FLECCAS TALKS to watch the second video below that BLUE COLLAR LOGIC played. But here are both of them:

This might be the most important episode of Fleccas Talks: This week Kez and I spoke with Dr. Jeff Barke (30 year board certified MD). He blows a hole in the MSM’s fake Corona Virus narrative and explains why it’s so important to get the country open as quickly and safely as possible. Dr. Barke receives a lot of flack for coming out and saying these things. His patriotism is greatly appreciated!

BONUS video:

This Doctor, Ivette. C Lozano, shares her experience with Covid-19 and she is upset at what is happening in our nation. Seek truth, freedom, and justice.

Trump Acted Quickley On Coronavirus (TIMELINES PART DEUX)

Published by Papa Giorgio

A friend – in response to a challenge, posted multiple stories about Trump’s response to the Coronavirus to my single post detailing the timeline of the Trump admins response here: “Trump Acted Quickley On Coronavirus (TIMELINES)“

This was his firing away as if to make a point:

JIM

  • 10 times Trump and his administration were warned about coronavirus (AXIOS)
  • Trump’s daily briefings warned about COVID-19 at least a dozen times before the US outbreak, but he ‘failed to register’ the threat (BUSINESS INSIDER)
  • Trump was warned in January of Covid-19’s devastating impact, memos reveal (THE GUARDIAN)
  • Trump Was Warned About Virus Threat In More Than A Dozen Intelligence Reports In January, February (KAIESER HEALTH NEWS)
  • Trump Received Intelligence Briefings On Coronavirus Twice In January (NPR)
  • Trump Aide Warned Early on of Deadly US Coronavirus Outbreak (VOA NEWS)

(The italicized articles are completely debunked by information below – the others are highly questionable, the ones that have unnamed sources that is, and other portions of them are called into question by the timeline below.)

Besides the obvious question of, “which Western leader do you look to as a shining example of reacting in January to the crisis?” I could have easily responded to these papers who spread stories from a single anonymous source as if they are all different stories based on different [again, unnamed] sources, which, their practice of has undone almost all their stories [one example, another, and another] on the Russian Collusion Hoax, like this,

  • Memory Hole: What the Media Wants You to Forget About Their Biased Coronavirus Coverage (PJ-MEDIA)
  • The Media’s Top Lies and Spins About COVID-19 (REAL CLEAR POLITICS)
  • The Top 10 Lies About President Trump’s Response to the Coronavirus (PJ-MEDIA)
  • The China Virus Pandemic: COVID-19 Response and Recovery (PATRIOT POST)
  • Pollak: Democrats Pushed Impeachment While Coronavirus Spread (BREITBART)
  • China hid extent of coronavirus outbreak, US intelligence reportedly says (CNBC)
  • China deliberately hid coronavirus, admonished whistleblowers (WASHINTON TIMES)
  • Fauci points to China for late realization coronavirus was his ‘worst nightmare’ (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)
  • China admits to destroying coronavirus samples, insists it was for safety (NY POST)
  • China confirms US accusations that it destroyed early samples of the novel coronavirus, but says it was done for ‘biosafety reasons’ (BUSINESS INSIDER)
  • China pressured WHO to delay global coronavirus warning: report (NY POST)
  • China’s president Xi Jinping ‘personally asked WHO to hold back information about human-to-human transmission and delayed the global response by four to six WEEKS’ at the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, bombshell report claims (THE DAILY MAIL)

MY OWN SITE:

However, this does nothing to prove or disprove a point. So, I merely went to the first point made in his first linked article at AXIOS, quoting the NYTs:

AXIOS:

On Jan. 18, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar first briefed Trump on the threat of the virus in a phone call, the New York Times reports. Trump made his first public comments about the virus on Jan. 22, saying he was not concerned about a pandemic and that “we have it totally under control.”

NEW YORK TIMES:

…Even after Mr. Azar first briefed him about the potential seriousness of the virus during a phone call on Jan. 18 while the president was at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Mr. Trump projected confidence that it would be a passing problem.

“We have it totally under control,” he told an interviewer a few days later while attending the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. “It’s going to be just fine.”…

(NEW YORK TIMES)

Now, much like the Left’s favorite thing to do, they take Trump out of context and use this false context to create a straw man and then bludgeon it. Why did Trump say it was going to be fine? Because, according to the WALL STREET JOURNAL, Alex Azar “oversold his agency’s progress in the early days and didn’t coordinate effectively across the health-care divisions under his purview.” Trump could only report what Alex told him on the 18th.

But this January 18th discussion is not proven to have even taken place, all we have again are unnamed sources: Azar told several associates that Trump thought his warnings were ‘alarmist’, according to The Washington Post” (DAILY MAIL). And again, NEWSMAX discusses that WALL STREET JOURNAL article, saying:

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar waited weeks to brief President Donald Trump on the coronavirus threat and oversold the progress of developing an effective test for the virus, The Wall Street Journal is reporting.

The newspaper said that as of Jan. 29, Azar had assured Trump the coronavirus outbreak was under control. And during the meeting with Trump, Azar said the government had never mounted a better interagency response to a crisis.

But that isn’t the only story to the story. I do not think this even reported by anonymous sources actually happened. The same people that wrongly reported using anonymous sources are now the same people using anonymous sources.

News media figures advancing “Trump-Russia collusion” narratives are now spreading misinformation about President Donald Trump and the coronavirus outbreak as part of a “permanent coup,” […..]

The Washington Post, citing anonymous sources, recently alleged that Trump was issued repeated warnings about the coronavirus through a dozen classified daily briefings between January and February.

“An article in the Washington Post … said that in [his] presidential daily briefings, Trump repeatedly ignored warnings of the coronavirus,” Smith recalled. Acting DNI Richard Grenell tweeted at the authors of this piece. [He] said. ‘That’s not true. We told you this is not true, and yet you only included our denial in the ninth paragraph.’”

Smith continued, “So these two Washington Post journalists were a core Russiagate conspiracy team. Again, unfortunately, we’re seeing the same thing unfold again and again, and that’s why the title of the book is The Permanent Coup.”…

(BREITBART)

And the LEGAL INSURRECTION does a bang-up job on the same subject:

According to the Washington Post, the president’s classified daily briefings included “warnings about the novel coronavirus in more than a dozen classified briefings prepared for President Trump in January and February, months during which he continued to play down the threat.”

The unnamed sources were foregrounded, while an actual named source refuting the claim was not mentioned until paragraph eight:

A White House spokesman disputed the characterization that Trump was slow to respond to the virus threat. “President Trump rose to fight this crisis head-on by taking early, aggressive historic action to protect the health, wealth and well-being of the American people,” said spokesman Hogan Gidley. “We will get through this difficult time and defeat this virus because of his decisive leadership.”

As if that’s not bad enough, it’s only in the ninth paragraph that WaPo gets around to noting that the suggestion the president ignored his presidential daily briefing (PDB) has been denied by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the office responsible for the PDB.

  • The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is responsible for the PDB. In response to questions about the repeated mentions of coronavirus, a DNI official said, “The detail of this is not true.” The official declined to explain or elaborate.

So WaPo contacted the DNI about claims the president ignored Wuhan coronavirus warnings in Jan/Feb PDB’s, and the DNI responded that the “detail of this is not true.” What do they need to explain here?  Maybe WaPo needs to provide its list of questions so that we can make that determination ourselves?  I’m pretty sure the context would greatly improve our understanding of the DNI response… and undermine the WaPo smear, thus the absence of said context.

It’s not actually clear what the point of the WaPo article is except to smear the president with the false implication that his administration ignored the Wuhan coronavirus until March.  This smear is completely and demonstrably false.

Of course, the mindless, anti-Trump stenographers who make up the legacy and leftstream media “covered” the questionable story, all linking to this flimsy WaPo hit piece that provides no evidence to support—and that actually refutes—its own claim.

  • Business Insider: “Trump’s daily briefings warned about COVID-19 at least a dozen times before the US outbreak, but he ‘failed to register’ the threat”
  • CNN: “The intelligence community did its job, but Trump didn’t do his”
  • MSN: “Trump reportedly ignored intel briefings on coronavirus threat”
  • NYMag: “Trump Informed of Coronavirus Threat in January in Briefings He’s Known Not to Read: Report”
  • CNN (again): “Washington Post: US intelligence warned Trump in January and February as he dismissed coronavirus threat”

Setting aside for the moment the fact that a global pandemic of this sort is new to everyone in the world and that no one, including top virologists, has answers, keep in mind that the first U.S. death from Wuhan coronavirus was reported on February 29th in Seattle.

What was Trump doing about the Wuhan coronavirus in January and February when he was supposedly ignoring the potential crisis?

Oh, right, setting up a coronavirus task force and issuing travel restrictions on China, well before the first U.S. death occurred.  How did he know to take these actions if he was ignoring his daily briefings?  Weird, right?…

(READ THE REST – EXCELLENT POST – it includes a timeline as well)

Mollie Hemingway says it best:

Hemingway began by noting that the “Russia narrative” predates the Mueller probe, having begun circulating during the 2016 election after the creation of the infamous Clinton campaign-funded Steele dossier, which pushed the theory that then-Republican candidate Donald Trump was a “Russian agent.”

“We have, for the last three years … frequently [witnessed] hysteria about treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election,” Hemingway told the panel. “The fact [is] that there are no more indictments coming and the fact [is] that all of the indictments that we’ve seen thus far have been for process crimes or things unrelated to what we were told by so many people in the media was ‘treasonous collusion’ to steal the 2016 election.”

“If there is nothing there that matches what we’ve heard from the media for many years, there needs to be a reckoning and the people who spread this theory both inside and outside the government who were not critical and who did not behave appropriately need to be held accountable,” she added.

THE FEDERALIST has a printing of the HHS timeline for January that shows that the propositions made by these Leftist newspapers are not revealing the whole timeline to their readers:

…The Wall Street Journal should do a lot better; they asked Azar for the truth. He gave it to them. They chose not to report it. For those who want to know, here is HHS’s offical timeline of what happened in January:

December 31: CDC, including Director Robert Redfield, learns of a “cluster of 27 cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology” reported in Wuhan, China.
January 1: CDC begins developing situation reports, which are shared with HHS.
January 3: Director Redfield emails and speaks on the phone with Dr. George Gao, Director of the China Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
January 3: Director Redfield speaks with Secretary Azar, and HHS notifies the National Security Council (NSC).
January 4: Director Redfield emails Dr. Gao again and offers CDC assistance, stating, “I would like to offer CDC technical experts in laboratory and epidemiology of respiratory infectious diseases to assist you and China CDC in identification of this unknown and possibly novel pathogen.”
January 6: At the request of Secretary Azar, Director Redfield sends formal letter to China CDC offering full CDC assistance.
January 6: CDC issues a Level 1 Travel Watch for China.
January 6: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci begins doing interviews on the outbreak.
January 7: CDC establishes a 2019 nCoV Incident Management Structure to prepare for potential U.S. cases and to support the investigation in China or other countries, if requested.
January 8: CDC distributes an advisory via the Health Alert Network, which communicates to state and local public health partners, alerting healthcare workers and public health partners of the outbreak.
January 9: CDC and FDA begin collaborating on a diagnostic test for the novel coronavirus.
January 10: China shares viral sequence, allowing NIH scientists to begin work on a vaccine that evening.

JANUARY 11: FIRST DEATH REPORTED IN CHINA
JANUARY 13: 41 CASES IN CHINA, FIRST CASE REPORTED OUTSIDE CHINA

January 13: NIH shares their vaccine sequence with a pharmaceutical manufacturer.
January 14: The National Security Council begins daily Novel Coronavirus Policy Coordination Council meetings.
January 14: WHO tweets: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”
January 17: CDC and Customs and Border Protection began enhanced screening of travelers from Wuhan at three airports that receive significant numbers of travelers from that city, expanded in the following week to five airports, covering 75–80 percent of Wuhan travel.
January 17: CDC hosts its first tele-briefing on the virus, with Dr. Nancy Messonnier, Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, who emphasizes “this is a serious situation” and “we know [from the experience of SARS and MERS that] it’s crucial to be proactive and prepared.”
January 17: CDC posts interim guidance, updated regularly in the coming weeks and months, for collecting, handling, and testing clinical specimens for the novel coronavirus, includingbiosafety guidelines for laboratories.
January 18: CDC publishes interim guidance on how to care for novel coronavirus patients at home who do not require hospitalization.
January 20: The Chinese government confirms human-to-human transmission of the virus.

JANUARY 21: FIRST U.S. CASE CONFIRMED (FROM TRAVEL)[1]

January 21: CDC activates its Emergency Operations Center.
January 21: The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA, part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, or ASPR) begins holding market research calls with industry leading diagnostics companies to gauge their interest in developing diagnostics for the novel coronavirus and to encourage initiating development activities.
January 21: CDC holds its second tele-briefing on the virus, with officials from Washington State, to discuss the first U.S. case, and Dr. Messonnier, who notes “CDC has been proactively preparing for an introduction of the virus here” and that a CDC team was deployed to Washington.
January 21: CDC posts interim guidance, updated regularly in the coming months, on how to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus in homes and other settings.
January 21: Secretary Azar discusses coronavirus with Lou Dobbs on Fox Business Network, noting “we have been heavily engaged at the outset” of the outbreak, with the CDC and the rest of HHS working under the President’s direction to develop testing and alert healthcare providers.
January 22: Secretary Azar signs a memorandum from CDC Director Redfield determining that the novel coronavirus could imminently become an infectious disease emergency, which allows HHS to send a request to the Office of Management and Budget to access $105 million from the Infectious Disease Rapid Response Reserve Fund.
January 22: FDA, working with test developers, shares an authorization application template with a diagnostic test developer for the first time.
January 22: ASPR stands up an interagency diagnostics working group with BARDA, CDC, FDA, NIH, and the Department of Defense (DOD).
January 22: HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement began flagging any children referred from China for risk assessments and, if indicated by their travel and exposure history, for quarantine for up to 14 days before being placed in the general community of the shelter. Screenings expanded to children referred from Iran, Italy, Japan and South Korea on March 2.

JANUARY 22: ALL OUTBOUND TRAINS AND FLIGHTS FROM WUHAN CANCELED

January 23: ASPR convenes a Disaster Leadership Group (DLG), to align government-wide partners regarding the outbreak situation, communications strategies, and the potential medical countermeasure pipeline. The same week, conversations begin with manufacturers of N95 masks, enabling mask production on U.S. soil to rise from about 250 million a year in January to about 640 million a year in March.
January 24: ASPR forms three government-wide task forces—on healthcare system capacity and resilience, development of medical countermeasures (diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines), and supply chains—as part of work under Emergency Support Function 8 of the National Response Framework.
January 24: CDC hosts its third tele-briefing on the virus, with Dr. Nancy Messonnier and officials from Illinois, where CDC has deployed a team to respond to the second U.S. case, from travel. Dr. Messonnier notes, “We are expecting more cases in the U.S., and we are likely going to see some cases among close contacts of travelers and human to human transmission.”
January 24: CDC publicly posts its assay for the novel coronavirus, allowing the global community to develop their own assays using the CDC design.
January 25: Five days before WHO’s declaration of a public health emergency of international concern, Secretary Azar preemptively notifies Congress of his intent to use $105 million from the Infectious Disease Rapid Response Reserve Fund.

JANUARY 26: FIVE U.S. CASES CONFIRMED, ALL TRAVEL-RELATED

January 26: ASPR holds first meetings of healthcare resilience, medical countermeasure development, and supply chain task forces, which continue several times a week or daily in the coming weeks.
January 27: In a Washington, D.C., speech, Secretary Azar shares that HHS is “proactively preparing for the arrival of the novel coronavirus on our shores,” noting that “the novel coronavirus is a rapidly changing situation, and we are still learning about the virus.” “While the virus poses a serious public health threat, the immediate risk to Americans is low at this time,” Azar says, noting that he spoke on the morning of January 27 with China’s Minister of Health and WHO Director-General Tedros speak to discuss the novel coronavirus.
January 27: CDC hosts a tele-briefing with Dr. Nancy Messonnier, who notes that new travel recommendations are coming and that “there may be some disruptions” to Americans’ lives as a result of the public health response, but that “this virus is not spreading in the community” in the U.S.
January 27: CDC and State Department issue Level 3 “postpone or reconsider travel” warnings for all of China.
January 27: FDA begins providing updates about processes for approval and authorization to developers of vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and other countermeasures for the novel coronavirus.
January 27: CDC’s Deputy Director for Infectious Diseases, Jay Butler, holds a call with the nation’s governors on the novel coronavirus.
January 28: HHS hosts press briefing by Secretary Azar, Dr. Fauci, Director Redfield, and Dr. Messonnier. Azar says, “Americans should know that this is a potentially very serious public health threat, but, at this point, Americans should not worry for their own safety.” He underscores, “This is a very fast moving, constantly changing situation…. Part of the risk we face right now is that we don’t yet know everything we need to know about this virus. But, I want to emphasize, that does not prevent us from preparing and responding.”
January 28: CDC posts interim guidance, updated regularly in the coming months, for airline crews regarding the novel coronavirus.
January 29: The White House announces the establishment of the Coronavirus Task Force, which begins daily meetings.
January 29: CDC hosts a tele-briefing with Dr. Messonnier, who notes that “despite an aggressive public health investigation to find new cases [in the U.S.], we have not.”
January 29: CDC posts infection prevention and control recommendations for novel coronavirus patients in healthcare settings, updated regularly in the coming months.
January 29: The Chinese government sends email to HHS acknowledging offer of U.S. expert assistance; HHS begins soliciting nominees for mission from across the department.
January 29: ASPR, CDC, FDA, NIAID, and DOD host a listening session with industry—1,468 participants—on medical countermeasure development, health system preparedness, supply resilience, and medical surge needs.
January 29: The first repatriation flight from Wuhan, China arrives at March Air Reserve Base in California, beginning the safe repatriation of Americans and marking the first use of federal quarantine power in more than 50 years. The operation eventually totals more than 3,000 repatriations, with citizens from Wuhan and passengers from cruise ships. Repatriated Americans praise the work of the quarantine teams—including a couple who spent an extended honeymoon at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas.

JANUARY 30: SIXTH AND SEVENTH CASES CONFIRMED IN THE U.S., CLOSE CONTACTS OF TRAVEL-RELATED CASE

January 30: CDC hosts a tele-briefing with Director Redfield, Dr. Messonnier, and officials from Illinois, where a sixth case is identified, in a spouse of a confirmed case who had traveled to China. Director Redfield notes that most cases around the world outside of China are close contacts of travelers, and “the full picture of how easy and how sustainable this virus can spread is unclear.” (A seventh case is identified later that evening.)
January 30: Department of State issues Level 4 warning, “do not travel,” for all of mainland China.
January 30: The Trump Administration hosts a call with Secretary Azar, Director Redfield, Dr. Fauci, and others with the nation’s governors to present the Administration’s action plan on responding to the outbreak.
January 30: In an appearance on Fox News, Secretary Azar notes that, whether the WHO declares a public health emergency of international concern (declared January 31), “That doesn’t change anything about what we are doing here in the United States. … The President is ensuring that we are proactively preparing and also taking the necessary steps to prevent or mitigate any potential further spread here in the United States.”
January 30: Trump Administration budget officials begin discussions about funding needed for development of vaccines and therapeutics, purchases of Personal Protective Equipment for the Strategic National Stockpile, surveillance and testing, and state and local support.
January 30: ASPR launches a coronavirus portal to receive market research packages and meeting requests from industry stakeholders interested in developing or manufacturing medical countermeasures.
January 31: At the recommendation of his public health officials, President Trump issues historic restrictions on travel from Hubei and mainland China, effective February 2.
January 31: Secretary Azar signs a declaration of a nationwide Public Health Emergency, which allowed HHS to begin using a range of emergency authorities and flexibilities, and, together with other subsequent declarations, would allow emergency flexibilities for healthcare providers. At a White House briefing, he notes, “The risk of infection for Americans remains low, and with these and our previous actions, we are working to keep the risk low. It is likely that we will continue to see more cases in the United States in the coming days and weeks, including some limited person-to-person transmission.”
January 31: CDC hosts a tele-briefing with Dr. Messonnier, who notes possible reports of asymptomatic transmission and says, “We are preparing as if this were the next pandemic, but we are hopeful still that this is not and will not be the case.”
January 31: FDA holds a virtual meeting with American Clinical Laboratory Association about the emergency use authorization application process.

Yes, Trump acted as soon as the news of the virus was available. And as we know from the results, stringency of lockdowns did not translate into how many deadly infections there were:

(Click Graphic To Enlarge)


While not a gauge of whether the decisions taken were the right ones, nor of how strictly they were followed, the analysis gives a clear sense of each government’s strategy for containing the virus. Some — above all Italy and Spain — enforced prolonged and strict lockdowns after infections took off. Others — especially Sweden — preferred a much more relaxed approach. Portugal and Greece chose to close down while cases were relatively low. France and the U.K. took longer before deciding to impose the most restrictive measures.

But, as our next chart shows, there’s little correlation between the severity of a nation’s restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities — a measure that looks at the overall number of deaths compared with normal trends.

(BLOOMBERG)

Inject Disinfectant? Really?

Published by Papa Giorgio

I added a conversation to this post that was started due to my posting this on my sites FACEBOOK. I have a VERY LONG introduction to the actual conversation. So if you plan to read it be ready to “dig-in.” 

...GO TO...

You can jump to the sections:

It really worries me that people think that Trump mentioned ingesting or injecting in any way or form — over the counter disinfectants. But this is the state of affairs in our country, unfortunately. Granted, Trump is not the best orator, but CONTEXT IS KING. I understand that due-diligence is required to discover Trump’s context, but, too many people wait for far-Left comedians to do it for them (or far-Left pundits). Invariably, these sources hide the context to make their far-Left audience laugh in order to make the corporations they are paid by, money.

The information below is married to my Facebook video (a 1-minute and 50-seconds long video – I will post my YouTube video below)… it is important because this is the part where Trump mentioned patients getting medical expertise for any such procedure, as well as the *UV light cleaning the lungs (part of the CONTEXT missing from late-night comedians and MSNBC, CNN, NPR, the New York Times, The Washington Post, etc):

The HEALIGHT (which has been banned from the internet because “Orange Man Bad” — NOQ REPORT) was mentioned by President Trump… You see, the President and his people probably got inundated with companies contacting them with technology they have been working on to combat such viruses. If you take this into account, the portion where Trump said Dr. Birx and others would look into that — makes more sense in context. The President’s people have probably been brainstorming on all this stuff.

Here are two posts of mine discussing these issues:

MORE CONTEXT

Moments after the President mentioned disinfectants, ABC News’ Jonathan Karl asked Bryan, “The president mentioned the idea of a cleaner, bleach and isopropyl alcohol emerging. There’s no scenario where that could be injected into a person, is there?”

He responded: “No, I’m here to talk about the finds that we had in the study. We don’t do that within that lab at our labs.”

The president then added:

“It wouldn’t be through injections,

you’re talking about almost a

cleaning and sterilization of an area.

Maybe it works,

maybe it doesn’t work,

but it certainly has a big effect

if it’s on a stationary object.”

QUESTION: Have you seen ANY mainstream media company or late-night comedian mention this portion of the same speech?

People prefer to be told what to think… I am convinced of this more and more everyday.

One of my favorite cousins (by marriage) opined well about his frustrations regarding the whole issue – after posting the earlier version of this on my site’s FACEBOOK:

Oh man, I have had to give some variation of your exact explanation to people who were over reacting to this. Ultimately I left all of those conversations with an ultimatum. Either you are severely lacking in critical thinking skills, which if you went through the public education system is no fault of your own, OR you are doing something to emotionally make yourself feel better at the expense of your intellectual honesty… which is it?

Yep . . . .

POISON CONTROL

Not only this, but the media even spread another malicious lie about a spike of calls to Poison Control because of Trump’s remarks. No. I have been trying to find Clorox, Lysol, Handi Wipes, and other disinfectants in the store for almost 2-months. They have been completely out (I am sure most Americans share my frustration). And since this so-called “spike” happened before Trump’s remarks, it just makes sense that because of increased usage comes increased fears of misuse. Dumb. But people believed it (or still do). Here are two articles/posts on the issue I recommend to the brain dead:

  • The media is lying about increased emergency calls about drinking bleach in order to blame Trump (RIGHT SCOOP)
  • No, Poison Control Calls Aren’t Suddenly Spiking After Trump’s Disinfectant Comments: Calls to U.S. poison control centers are up. They have been since March (REASON.COM)

I will end with Larry Elder spending almost 14-minutes playing related audio and discussing the issue.

INTRODUCTION TO CONVO

The below is a conversation at the Facebook version of the above. It is with a guy I love and dig very much. But as you can see, he allows — maybe… just maybe — a visceral dislike for Trump to guide his thinking. You will see that I note that it takes digging to at times to see what Trump is saying, but to just say he is saying “a” [accusing someone] when in fact he said “b” is not the best road for him, or anyone. I sympathize with how Trump may be thinking one thing and then put to words a less than full picture of what he has in his mind. Any married couple can sympathize with this disease. And I wish we had a good communicator in office… but we don’t. And this has allowed those who dislike him have an easy time with taking him out of context and using this for political hit jobs. The Leftist media, the Leftist voter, the #NeverTrumper.

BTW, a lot of people may not know but up until a month-and-a-half before the 2016 election, I was a #NeverTrump guy. I was — at the time — hoping David French would hop in. I wrote two pieces regarding Trump and my decision to vote for him, and close down my “anti-Trump” site: The Constitutional Federalists of America (CFA). One was this:

I start out thus:

An open letter to friends and those I respect… depravity vs. permanence.

I feel I have to write this as an open letter to my Christian friends who do not want to vote for Trump based on a sense of loyalty to their Christian convictions. I wish to thank a friend (Shane H.) for aligning this last piece of the puzzle for me. I wish to thank as well Dennis Prager for challenging my position on this as well.

We have – essentially – a choice between two candidates. I would have considered voting for the Libertarian party if their candidate was not wanting to use the state to jail and fine people for not baking cakes or taking photographs of same-sex weddings. He even said on stage that he would use the power of the state to force a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi type celebration. He is an open borders guy – just publicly, not secretly like Hillary, and he has more in common with Bernie Sanders than any of the other candidates. In other words, an anti-Libertarian is leading the Libertarian Party to a record win for them in this election. Nightmare!

Hindsight of-course is 20/20. No other candidate could have won the “Rust-Belt,” nor taken the heat from the Left which has been solidifying the media since Goldwater; nor would we have judges of the caliber we have had put into offices across this nation.

My second post reminded me of all the attacks against “Dubya” and Cheney: war for oil, racist, liar, evil, making profits for old companies, drunk, AWOL, murderer, etc., etc.

So, because I can tell the difference between dumb and evil, I can succinctly distinguish between a politicians ego claim (biggest inaugural crowd in the history of our country) and an evil compliance (“Iran might have been given as much as $33.6 billion in cash, gold, and other valuable metals,” Mark Dubowitz, the executive director for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, testified before Congress according to the Free Beacon – AMERICAN LIBERTY REPORT). The lies given to the American public leading to the fallacious Iran deal pales-in-comparison to Trump’s classical political fairy tales that most politicians tell. And so I deal with what were the three biggest hurdles people mentioned were their reasoning for rejecting Trump as a bigot, racist, xenophobe, and the like.

The three are:

  1. Is Mexico Allowing Rapists Across the Border?
  2. Did Donald Trump Mock a Disabled Man?
  3. Are Racists Voting for Republicans?

Here is the introduction to that post. Sorry, I chose to include the entire opener — it is long:

Okay, we are a few days AFTER this contentious election for ALL involved… both sides went with horrible choices for their nominee and caused not only contentious attitudes with the opposing nominee but an internal struggle as well. That is, the Democrat base did not like Hillary Clinton, and the Republican base did not like Donald Trump. In fact, in the hopes this will give me some credibility for at least what is to follow, I even started a website to defeat Trump and his rise to be the GOP nominee. Trump is not a conservative? He is a Blue-Dog Democrat.

In conversation with a person I respect highly, he said [partially in jest], that, “You can still love Trump. It’s okay with me….” Not realizing that I do not love Trump and started a site to defeat him. I even made it clear out of the 16-other candidates, Trump was my 18th choice. (Get it?)

…Continuing

So, we are a few days after the election and I read posts like:

  • I’m in mourning, again. I’m sad and disgusted that sexism and racism are still alive and kicking in this country. Color, not qualifications were voted into the White House last night.
  • I could sit here and sob about how devastating and pathetic this is. I’m just too pissed. Disappointed. Shocked. Fucking livid. Years of progress diminished in one night. This is not the country I thought I lived in.
  • Everyone better order their tamales now. There won’t be any by Christmas.
    • … another person asked this person: Are you making them?
    • … here is the response: Nope. I’m afraid if I do I will be deported.
    • … the humorous comeback was: Nobody is getting deported till January 20 2017, Christmas tamales are safe.
  • Another person I know posted the graphic to the right:

These are just a few of examples of raw emotion that should be sympathized with. But like in many-a-Facebook post this idea that if people do not agree with my position, they are one of the SIXHIRBs: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted.

One of the best turnarounds I saw from a family member is this:

  • So in class today I finally cried. This presidential unveiling has caused such a stir of emotions for the past 48 hours and it has all been bottled up until this point. We keep playing the blame game and it’s time to stop. Right now I blame myself because I was ignorant to the rest of the country. I didn’t think that everyone didn’t think like me. I lived in a bubble and now I feel like the different one. Because of this huge division right now the last thing we need to do divide it even further….

Wow! What a mature statement. THAT made my heart glad. She even went on to state she wished she had expressed this as clearly in an earlier class as she did on her FB. I agreed, hindsight is 20/20 and we all have said stuff that upon further reflection we could have said better.

All of us. (Especially Bush, and now Trump… NIGHTMARE!)

So, how do I explain some positions my friends and family probably think about a man they seem to fear, and I heard one psychotherapist yesterday say that the reaction of many millennials is like that of a loved one dying. In other words, this is deeply emotional to some. And while I love posting videos of people sobbing like the next dude, this gets us nowhere. So I decided to discuss three main points about Trump and this election to get people to think about what they say. Because it can be misunderstood as calling a friend or family one of those SIXHIRB labels, wounding both our Republic (because who would want to learn or discuss political matters with a racist?), as well as causing misunderstandings between friends.

It makes our political life too easy. A healthy Republic should be tough. Those labels are a cop-out for doing heavy liftin’. One very progressive leaning professor makes the same point about how this thinking harms his students:

Here, for example, is my sister noting her election day experience… and take note, she will never make her vote public:

  • In my 32 years as a registered voter, I have never left the polls feeling so disgusted and embarrassed by my choice. Not that my other option would have made me feel ANY different. I need a shower!

The point here is that people are more complicated than these few labels society has chosen to use. Another example (a few years back) of a dear friends mom smearing people like me is in a post discussing Judge Judy. I know, it’s a pop-culture Baby Boomer thing. Here is what she said with my response:

(She said) “Black people and white people weren’t allowed get married years ago either… if small minded, bigoted people had their way it would still be that way. Gay marriage Is NO different…. religious folks who believe and support same sex marriage ?? They must not be real religious people.”

(I Responded) In other words, a discussion to you is calling me and other readers here “bigots,” and impugning the character of religious gays by creating straw-man arguments of what I (we) say/mean? And when I politely point this out by not pointing out how you name call and use “cards” (sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted ~ S.I.X.H.I.R.B.)….

People need to understand what they are saying. I make mistakes all the time. It’s in our nature. You apologize, grow, learn, and move on trying to keep friendships and family close to you. The friend’s mom unfriended me. So in response to my family member I noted something we all do, and it is this:

This election has brought to mind the now famous quote by elite Manhattanite and New Yorker columnist Pauline Kael after Richard Nixon’s sweeping presidential victory in 1972:

  • “I don’t know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don’t know anybody who voted for him.”

There is a tendency to build sound rooms around one’s belief and where they choose to get their information from. WE ARE ALL susceptible to this.

So, part of our journey is allowing in other sources of information…

The conservative has no choice but to encounter leftist ideals. For instance, out of the top twenty most influential sources of news in our country, only two lean right (Fox News and the Washington Times). All the others lean left in their journalism and view of the world. In fact, Rachel Maddow noted her politics are to the left of Mao Zedong. She is more of a commentator though, and the study I am referring to only included straight news sources.

…Continuing.

So if a person is surprised at the outcome, maybe they should engage friends or family and ask questions. The key to doing this is the following, if it is not face-to-face,.and this is something I will at times start out a conversation with:

“By-the-by, for those reading this I will explain what is missing in this type of discussion due to the media used. Genuflecting, care, concern, one being upset (does not entail being “mad”), etc… are all not viewable because we are missing each other’s tone, facial expressions, and the like. I afford the other person I am dialoguing with the best of intentions and read his/her comments as if we were out having a talk over a beer at a bar or meeting a friend at Starbucks. (I say this because there seems to be a phenomenon of etiquette thrown out when talking through email or Face Book, lots more public cussing and gratuitous responses.) You will see that often times I USE CAPS — which in www lingo for YELLING. I am not using it this way, I use it to merely emphasize and often times say as much: *not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*. So in all my discussions I afford the best of thought to the other person as I expect he or she would to me… even if dealing with tough subjects as the above. I have had more practice at this than most, and with half-hour pizza, one hour photo and email vs. ‘snail mail,’ know that important discussions take time to meditate on, inculcate, and to process. So be prepared for a good thought provoking discussion if you so choose one with me.”

Again, we all put into other people’s typed words our own emotional state at that time. The trick is to step away from this tendency… and this can be hard.

I shared what others wrote on election day, can I share mine? I went and cast my ballot for Trump and wrote this afterwords:beer

I voted. It was really hard to overcome my original emotions of dislike for Trump with reason (mind). But this IS the essence of being human… To think and reason beyond our emotive states…

Again, people are complicated and to label them as sexist or racist without really knowing is a travesty to our Republic.

OKAY… I will now post three responses to items of discussion that my guess is those who are very distraught over Trump’s win and view either him or a large segment of the population who voted for him as racist or bigoted, or mean to disabled persons, is more complicated than these labels.

Wow, so with that set-up and how I came to slowly evolve into a defender of Trump (as I was for Dubya against the lies of the Left), here is the conversation I had with my friend/family member. And keep in mind my ability to go back and comment on the conversation and add media to expand my context may seem unfair… but I am not trying to make the person I dig look bad. And I will note what I correct or add.

FACEBOOK CONVO

TS, my friend, linked an article from the The Chicago Tribune that made my point that I had already laid out, which was,

  • Have you seen ANY mainstream media company or late-night comedian mention this portion of the same speech?

I have already noted Trump does not communicate well, and his response to a challenge is just another example of this, nor is the proper context from the original FULL briefing considered. In fact, when you come across sites that say full transcript/video of Trump, it is only the minute clip of Trump. Not the real, FULL briefing that has William Bryan’s full remarks so people can hear the words he used and that Trump took to sound like he knew what he was talking about.

Again, I do not fully endorse President Trump’s demeanor at times, but all in context… his saying people should inject themselves was based off of the guy who just preceded him.

OKAY, right after the article was posted this was said, and I will post the back-n-forth::

  • TS
    So let’s be clear, you are suggesting that his context meant that we should research injecting UV light into our lungs?

ME

TS, his team has seen companies from Colorado, Santa Barbara, and others, who think they have the magic bullet to help defeat The Rona. I document some of what Trump must have seen on my site, but this is one example (which I do not think works as well as the others I mention after this process):

More via RPT

But after you realize this and what his Coronavirus team members have probably brainstormed over, his comments here:

Which now makes perfect “Trump sense”

The [Chicago Tribune] article doesn’t give the full context (Trumps own words before and after the excerpt) — in other words TS, you are making my point. The only person mentioning injecting this stuff was Jonathan Karl — “The president mentioned the idea of a cleaner, bleach and isopropyl alcohol emerging. There’s no scenario where that could be injected into a person, is there?”

Keep in mind the speeches earlier by the experts they used MULTIPLE times”injecting UV light” into the controlled specimens of Covid-19. TO WIT

  • TS
    So then yes you are saying we should agree with him that researching putting UV light inside the body is a good idea. Below the largest organ of the body that is there to protect our insides from those UV rays. I’m definitely not a scientist or a doctor and am a product of the public school system, but that sounds just as dumb as putting a man made chemical like bleach into my veins.

ME

What did the President say right after that?

Also, in my post on my site and elsewhere around FACEBOOK, I note this:

…AGAIN, just because I am posting this does not mean I am endorsing this… AND, in fact, I include a warning.

[….]

Here is the WARNING about the above:

  • The idea of using UV light to treat infections started with a Nobel Prize – using UV light to treat tuberculosis infection of the skin. This, of course, is an external use. Using UV light to treat the blood had its heyday in the 1950s, but fell out of favor without leaving much of a paper trail behind….. UV light can cause tissue damage, as anyone who has suffered a sunburn can attest. What damage is being done with the UV light from this device, and can it have any clinically significant effect on infections at a dose that is safe for the tissue? These are unanswered questions. (SCIENCE BASED MEDICINE)

(“Disinfecting the Media’s Narrative With Light!“)

I continue on with a challenge of sorts, keeping my thoughts organized and TS on track.

So I asked a question above. [And] I set the record straight regarding your wondering if I endorse such things… I also have a 2nd question for you:

I also play video/audio (“Larry Elder Sanitizes The Left” – YOUTUBE) of Trump saying he isn’t a doctor and recommends medical advice. So like your context, Trump also said the same thing.

  • TS
    The context of every one of his “speeches” that I’ve heard is to iterate one idea multiple times, then say maybe it wont/it’s not a good idea/I’m not a doctor or some antithesis of what he just said, but right after that he reiterates it again to emphasize that it is what he thinks. So he doesn’t really have a good context. It would be like me saying there will be an earthquake tomorrow for sure… definitely an earthquake tomorrow…I guarantee [an] earthquake tomorrow…we’ll see the earth shake tomorrow… but who know I’m not a seismologist so it might not shake tomorrow… but I’m pretty sure it will. How do you contextualize what I just said? Those that choose to believe in what he says and knows it’s not a good idea sees that he said he’s not a doctor but hey maybe there’s a good idea in there somewhere. Those that don’t hang on his every word hear let’s research injecting UV light into our lungs, why because that is what he was reiterating over and over. In any form of learning or conveying a message if you reiterate something that is the main point that is trying to get across, not the disclaimer. His poor attempts at back-peddling by putting in his tiny disclaimer isn’t a free pass to say stupid things.

ME

WHAT IS THE CONTEXT?

…through the skin or …ahh… in some other way – and I think you said you were going to test that out…
…injection inside, or, or, almost a cleaning – as you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, it will be interesting to check that….
…you are going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me…
…but the whole concept of the light the way it kills in one minute…

…suppose we did this…
…supposing we hit the body with a tremendous … ultraviolet light…
…hasn’t been checked, you said you would test it…
…is there a way to do something like that….
…gotta use medical doctors…

[….]

…I would like you to speak to the medical doctors to see if there is any way you can apply light and heat to cure…
…maybe you can, maybe you can’t, again, I say, maybe you can, maybe you can’t, I’m not a doctor…
…you ever heard of the heat or the light…

TWO UPLOADS OF MINE via YOUTUBE:

  • TS
    The context is that he has no idea what he is saying, but it sure looks and sounds like he just said we need to research UV light into the lungs because light outside the body kills bad things. This is where the divide is between those that hear what he says and those that interpret what he says. There is no common ground, because neither side will admit that they are wrong. So there will always be this he said/he said. This also translates to most political/religious/ethical/emotional/intellectual ideas. There will always be at least two sides and neither the two shall meet.

ME

Which is why he said, LIKE YOU,

“…maybe you can, maybe you can’t, again, I say, maybe you can, maybe you can’t, I’m not a doctor…“

Do you not understand that? ?

  • TS
    Why would someone say that?

ME

“I’m definitely not a scientist or a doctor and am a product of the public school system…”

Because they are an Architect or a Business Project Manager.

  • TS
    No not why would he say he’s not a doctor. Why would he say maybe you can, maybe you can’t.
  • ME
    Because they have looked at all the new possibilities many companies are probably contacting his Coronavirus team with.
  • TS
    I’m not a doctor is a disclaimer, his waffling is what I’m asking about. Why do you think he waffles back and forth? So if I was able to get a scientist…maybe even a holistic healer to contact his team and say inhaling sage into the lungs has been proven to help cure viruses, then maybe he’ll say that on TV. Is that what being well informed is all about?

ME

He is not an eloquent purveyor of his ideas in conversation. And? In no way did he tell people to inject themselves with “Lysol” type products. I understand that people who dislike him for whatever reason find it easy to malign him (due to how poorly he expresses himself), but in almost all the attacks against him I have come across, I have come to the conclusion people are misapplying to him their own bad motives.

I wrote a long post a month before the 2016 election deciding I would vote for him three such attacks that upon reflection (a closer look) do not hold water: “Some Trump Sized Mantras“

This is the same.

He wasn’t spitballing ideas out of the blue. Him and his team were being made aware of this very recently. Which is why, TS, Trump spoke in a past tense: “…and I think you said you were going to test that out…“

  • TS
    I agree he didn’t specifically say inject bleach into your veins, but his overlying context is that maybe we should look into getting things that shouldn’t be under our skins, under our skins.
  • ME
    Right, UV light. Remember, he had just heard William Bryan speak about injecting light as a disinfectant of sorts. He was trying to sound smart while expressing ideas about what his team was probably already discussing.
  • TS
    Exactly. I don’t want that under my skin. Heck I hardly want on my skin. You went the correct way of getting rid of UV damage on your skin by using the cream, I don’t think the UV light treatment I got was a good idea.

ME

Take note that the Colorado company working with Cedars-Sinai to disinfect the lungs (with light) is separating the waves to just “A” I believe.

But I may be wrong, I am not a doctor or scientist, or engineer.

So, TS, could I be so bold as to say maybe you would — if Joe Biden said this to you like he did in his Tweet — you might politely correct him?

TS

ME

Hahaha, Biden wins!

[….]

And BTW TS, thank you for engaging. It keeps me on top of my game, and allows others to see how polite conversation is done. While we know each other well, I want others to take my idea that I often share with people I engage with that I do not know all that well — the following:

“By-the-by, for those reading this I will explain what is missing in this type of discussion due to the media used. Genuflecting, care, concern, one being upset (does not entail being “mad”), etc… are all not viewable because we are missing each other’s tone, facial expressions, and the like. I afford the other person I am dialoguing with the best of intentions and read his/her comments as if we were out having a talk over a beer at a bar or meeting a friend at Starbucks. (I say this because there seems to be a phenomenon of etiquette thrown out when talking through email or Face Book, lots more public cussing and gratuitous responses.) You will see that often times I USE CAPS — which in www lingo for YELLING. I am not using it this way, I use it to merely emphasize and often times say as much: *not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*. So in all my discussions I afford the best of thought to the other person as I expect he or she would to me… even if dealing with tough subjects as the above. I have had more practice at this than most, and with half-hour pizza, one hour photo and email vs. ‘snail mail,’ know that important discussions take time to meditate on, inculcate, and to process. So be prepared for a good thought provoking discussion if you so choose one with me.”