I just discovered that Wiki considers NO right-leaning outlet “reliable.” Not Fox News Politics, The Daily Wire, the Daily Caller, the FDRLST, or New York Post. What DOES Wiki consider “reliable?” CNN, MSNBC, Jacobin, Vox, and Buzzfeed! Give me a break!
Wikipedia Co-Founder Condemns WIKI: “Most Biased Encyclopedia in History” The entire opening/interview starting at the 10:37 is HERE.
….Sanger says he noticed a bias creeping in around 2006, particularly in areas of science and medicine. Around 2010, he started noticing that articles about Eastern Medicine were being changed to reflect blatantly biased positions, using “dismissive epithets” to paint this ancient tradition as quackery.
In 2012, evidence also emerged revealing a Wikipedia trustee and “Wikipedian in Residence” were being paid to edit pages on behalf of their clients and secure their placement on Wikipedia’s front page in the “Did You Know” section, which publicizes new or expanded articles — a clear violation of Wikipedia rules.
“It really got over the top … between 2013 and 2018,” Sanger says, “and by by at the time Trump became president, it was almost as bad as it is now. It’s amazing, you know, no encyclopedia, to my knowledge, has ever been as biased as Wikipedia has been …
I remember being mad about Encyclopedia Britannica and The World Book not mentioning my favorite topics, [and] presenting only certain points of view in a way that establishment sources generally do. But this is something else. This is entirely different. It’s over the top.”….
In 2007 a hacker and tech whiz named Virgil Griffith revealed that the CIA, FBI and a host of large corporations and government agencies were editing pages on Wikipedia to their own benefit (or the benefit of associates). Now Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is reporting that the intelligence agencies are still at it, routinely editing pages relating to the Iraq War body count, treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and China’s nuclear program. In the video below Jimmy mentions Aaron Maté. Jimmy Dore interviewed him regarding this incident of the Syrian chemical attack (HERE), and the article can be found on Aarons GRAYZONE.
The changes may violate Wikipedia’s conflict-of-interest guidelines, a spokeswoman for the site said on Thursday.
The program, WikiScanner, was developed by Virgil Griffith of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico and posted this month on a Web site that was quickly overwhelmed with searches.
The program allows users to track the source of computers used to make changes to the popular Internet encyclopedia where anyone can submit and edit entries.
WikiScanner revealed that CIA computers were used to edit an entry on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. A graphic on casualties was edited to add that many figures were estimated and were not broken down by class.
Another entry on former CIA chief William Colby was edited by CIA computers to expand his career history and discuss the merits of a Vietnam War rural pacification program that he headed.
[….]
It violates Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines for a person with close ties to an issue to contribute to an entry about it, said spokeswoman Sandy Ordonez of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia’s parent organization….
Over the past four years, President Biden has said that he did not know about, and did not benefit, from Hunter Biden’s business dealings.
BRIETBART has more on the exact dates these lies were spoke:
President Joe Biden “lied” at least 16 times about his family’s elaborate business schemes, the House Oversight Committee recounted Thursday.
The committee says Joe Biden lied in five different ways about his family’s foreign business endeavors:
1) That Joe Biden never spoke to his family about their business dealings; 2) His family did not receive $1 million through a third party; 3) Hunter Biden never made money in China; 4) Hunter Biden’s dealings were ethical; 5) and his son did nothing wrong.
This is a bit of a FLASHBACK PIVOT, but one worth making as it leads into a new talking point. Remember, the previous lkie told to get Biden across the finish line was that the laptop was Russian disinfo:
People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.
In confirming that federal prosecutors are treating as “authenticated” the Biden emails, the Times story applies the final dollop of clown makeup to Wolf Blitzer, Lesley Stahl, Christiane Amanpour, Brian Stelter, and countless other hapless media stooges, many starring in Matt Orfalea’s damning montage above (the Hunter half-laugh is classic, by the way). All cooperated with intelligence officials to dismiss a damaging story about Biden’s abandoned laptop and his dealings with the corrupt Ukrainian energy company Burisma as “Russian disinformation.” They tossed in terms thought up for them by spooks as if they were their own thoughts, using words like “obviously” and “classic” and “textbook” to describe “the playbook of Russian disinformation,” in what itself was and still is a wildly successful disinformation campaign, one begun well before the much-derided (and initially censored) New York Post exposé on the topic from October of 2020…..
Now that it has been confirmed, Democrat politicians and the MSM have switched gears, saying, that there is no evidence that Biden benefited from these [now proven] transactions. Let me re-word it how the MSM and Dems do:
“NO DIRECT EVIDENCE OF BENEFIT.”
BREITBART again notes this newest pivot by Dems and media:
….After Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s best friend in business, testified Monday before the House Oversight Committee, Democrats and members of the media used a joint talking point to try to discredit his testimony.
Archer told House investigators that then-Vice President Joe Biden spoke on speakerphone over 20 times with Hunter Biden’s business associates to promote the Biden “brand.”
Breitbart News reported that Archer’s testimony produced evidence implicating Joe Biden in a bribery scheme in which a foreign company paid Hunter Biden in return for use of the Biden “brand.”
“So far they [Republicans] have not been able to prove any evidence of wrongdoing,” a reporter said on ABC News’ Good Morning America.
“House GOP members continue to try and link Hunter’s business dealings to the president, though they have yet to produce any concrete evidence,” NBC News’ Today morning show claimed. “Now it is important to keep in mind while Republicans believe that there is a tie between Hunter Biden’s business dealings and the president himself, they have yet to provide any hard evidence that the president himself has done anything wrong.”
“Republicans have not tied the president, Joe Biden, to profiteering from them,” MNSBC reported. “They didn’t have the evidence yet.”
“Where’s the evidence?” Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) asked on CNN. “There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the President.”
“There is today zero evidence — zero evidence — that Joe Biden, the president United States, knew about what his son was doing,” Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) claimed.
“And if the President of the United States committed the kind of offenses that in the Republican fever dreams they’re saying he committed without any evidence,” he continued, “there is at this point zero evidence that Joe Biden is guilty of anything. What the Republicans are doing, of course, is they’re just very, very angry that their guy got impeached twice, and so they’re just casting about for a way of revisiting retribution on the Democrats and this is their latest fever dream.”
“Nothing shady is going on with Hunter Biden and his overseas business.”
“Hunter’s laptop is Russian disinformation.”
“Okay, the laptop is real but it doesn’t prove anything.”
Professor Turley make the most salient point when discussing the Democrats position:
“Being a crook doesn’t mean you’re a moron, and it would take a moron to do a direct deposit into an account to the Biden family or send him some Zelle transfer. It’s not done. The Bidens are very good at this,”
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said that the media and Democrats were offering “ridiculous” excuses about bribery allegations involving Hunter Biden.
“The media is now acknowledging that, sure, Hunter Biden was selling influence and access but it was an illusion and there’s no proof that Joe Biden got an envelope full of money or a direct deposit to his account; therefore, there’s nothing here,” Turley told Fox News host Laura Ingraham. “Democrats have constantly said stop asking questions because you don’t have that type of direct evidence of benefits. Well, that’s just ridiculous. I mean, obviously, all of these payments benefit Joe Biden. It’s going to the Biden family fund.”
[….]
“Being a crook doesn’t mean you’re a moron, and it would take a moron to do a direct deposit into an account to the Biden family or send him some Zelle transfer. It’s not done. The Bidens are very good at this,” Turley said. “They have been in the influence peddling business for decades. There’s been articles, not just Hunter but the president’s brother openly selling his access according to critics, so they have been at this a long time.”
“Here’s the weird thing is that you have got this labyrinth of accounts, right? Two dozen different shell companies’ accounts that have no discernible pursuance except to hide the money transfers going to the Biden family and, yet Democrats are demanding the one thing that is the least likely to appear,” Turley added. “Despite that whole apparatus to transfer money, someone was giving a direct deposit slip to Joe and Jill Biden. I mean, how crazy is that? So we have to, I think, deal with the reality that this is what influence peddling is.”
Eric Schwerin, a former business partner of Hunter Biden who visited the White House at least 19 times during the Obama administration when President Joe Biden served as vice president, will testify before the House Oversight Committee, Republican Rep. James Comer told Fox Business host Larry Kudlow earlier Thursday.
Much like their other positions, this narrative is [grudgingly] starting to [have to] conform to evidence.
It’s so bad that like the “trump called NAZI’s good” lie, CNN has caved again to facts after a long holdout:
Maybe this fact will someday make the MSM?
9 VS. 6
Remember, Democrats challenged more states electors in 2016 with the election of President Trump in 2020, which is that in 2017 Democrats challenged nine state’s electors and in 2021 Republicans challenged six state’s electors:
…In the 2016 presidential election, Trump won 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton‘s 227. During the joint session on January 6, 2017, seven House Democrats tried to object to electoral votes from multiple states.
According to a C-SPAN recording of the joint session that took place four years ago, the following House Democrats made objections:
Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objected to Alabama’s votes.
Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) objected to Florida’s votes.
Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) objected to Georgia’s votes.
Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) objected to North Carolina’s votes.
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) objected to the votes from North Carolina in addition to votes from South Carolina and Wisconsin. She also stood up and objected citing “massive voter suppression” after Mississippi’s votes were announced.
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) brought up allegations of Russian interference in the election and malfunctioning voting machines when she objected following the announcement of Michigan’s votes.
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) rose and said, “I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask ‘Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?'” after the announcement of Wyoming’s votes.
[….]
In 2017, House Democrats objected to votes from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Objections also were made after the announcement of votes from Mississippi, Michigan and Wyoming, adding up to nine states. None of the nine objections was considered because they lacked the signature of a senator.
[….]
In total, Republicans made objections to votes from six states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. By the end of the joint session, Biden’s 306 electoral votes were certified, just as Trump’s votes had been certified in 2017….
The NEW YORK TIMES notes the following about the Democrats 21st century strategy:
…Few objections were filed in accordance with the Electoral Count Act in the 20th century. But starting with George W. Bush’s victory in the 2000 presidential election, Democrats contested election results after every Republican win.
In January 2001, Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida objected to counting his state’s electoral votes because of “overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout.” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas referred to the “millions of Americans who have been disenfranchised by Florida’s inaccurate vote count.” Representative Maxine Waters of California characterized Florida’s electoral votes as “fraudulent.”
Vice President Al Gore presided over the meeting in 2001. He overruled these objections because no senator joined them. Part of the reason they didn’t join, presumably, was that Mr. Gore conceded the election a month earlier.
In January 2005, in the wake of Mr. Bush’s re-election, Democrats were more aggressive. Senator Barbara Boxer of California joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio to lodge a formal objection to Ohio’s electoral votes. The objection compelled Congress to spend two hours in debate, even though Mr. Bush won Ohio by more than 118,000 votes.
Representative Barbara Lee of California claimed that “the Democratic process was thwarted.” Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York said that the right to vote was “stolen.” Ms. Waters objected too, dedicating her objection to the documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, whose 2004 movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” painted a dark (and at times factually debatable) picture of the Bush presidency.
The motion failed, but not before 31 members of the House, and Ms. Boxer in the Senate, voted to reject Ohio’s electoral votes — effectively voting to disenfranchise the people of Ohio in the Electoral College.
In January 2017, after Donald Trump’s victory, Democrats in Congress once again challenged the election outcome. Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts cited “the confirmed and illegal activities engaged by the government of Russia.” Ms. Lee of California argued that Michigan’s electoral votes should be thrown out because “people are horrified by the overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in our elections.” She also cited “the malfunction of 87 voting machines.”
There were objections against the votes in at least nine states. To his credit, Vice President Joe Biden rejected each objection on procedural grounds, stating that “there is no debate” and “it is over.”
Then as now, each member of Congress was within his or her rights to make an objection. But the objections were naïve at best, shameless at worst. Either way, the readiness of members of Congress to disenfranchise millions of Americans was disconcerting…..
The NYT article went on to say Hillary conceded, but so did Trump — as much as Hillary did:
“Rigged” Election Claims | Trump 2020 vs Clinton 2016
GATEWAY PUNDIT did what I wanted to do… and GP notes the following: “…Hillary Clinton lost more electors than any politician in the last 100 years. Not since 1912 has a candidate lost more electors.” The Final Count:
8 Clinton defectors
4 WA (successful)
1 HI (successful)
1 MN (attempted)
1 ME (attempted)
1 CO (attempted)
2 Trump defectors
TX (successful)
Gateway Pundit goes on to list past “unfaithful electors” of the past, a great summary of our history in this regard, here’s the list:
The popular belief was that many electorates were going to defect (called, “unfaithful”) from Trump. In the end, more “unfaithful electorates” defected from Hillary Clinton than from Donald Trump. I find this HILARIOUS! Why? Because Trump even came out a winner in this arena as well. As Powerline notes, only two electors were “unfaithful” to Trump. Four ignored Clinton’s win in their states. In fact, there would have been more unfaithful electorates for Hillary if state law didn’t prohibit it, like the “chaos” over state rules in Colorado:
Katie Phang is still [April 2023] saying that Trump stole the election!
RPT FLASHBACK
DEMOCRATS WERE FOR CHALLENGING ELECTORS BEFORE BEING AGAINST IT
The last three times a Republican has been elected president — Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 — Democrats in the House have brought objections to the electoral votes in states the GOP nominee won. In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs, D-Ohio, objected to Bush’s 2004 electoral votes in Ohio.
Over the past 20 years, Democrats have on three separate occasions objected to the validity of electoral votes on the floor of Congress. Wednesday, Jan. 6, will mark the first time Republicans choose do so in the past two decades.
My sons and I have discussed the January 6th issues, and, some historical aspects as well. Firstly, people saying Trump should be impeached are just as radical as the people breaking into the Capital. The throwing around of the “sedition” label is funny, and shows how people are not aware of the recent history of the lawful process of debate in Congress about just such topic. Here is one blogger noting Chuck Todd’s biased lack of awareness:
…NBC host Chuck Todd, who is always in the running to overtake CNN’s Brian Stelter as the dumbest newsman in the news media, had it out with Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) over a number of Republican members of Congress who are planning to dispute the certification of Joe Biden winning the 2020 election due to questions of massive election fraud.
After being accused of trying to thwart the democratic process, Johnson hit back by telling sleepy eyes Todd that they are trying to protect it.
“We are not acting to thwart the democratic process, we are acting to protect it,” Johnson said to Todd.
[….]
Todd and others in the Fake News media are acting like the Republicans contesting the election results is an unprecedented affair.
Let me remind them that the last three times a Republican won a presidential election the Democrats in the House brought objections to the Electoral votes the Republican won.
Lest they forget that the House Democrats contested both elections of former President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 and President Trump’s win in 2016.…
PJ-MEDIA however has an excellent notation of this history when they point out Democrats outrage that Republicans objected to the certification of electoral votes. “It’s ‘conspiracy and fantasy,’ says Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.” PJ further states,
“The effort by the sitting president of the United States to overturn the results is patently undemocratic,” the New York Democrat said. “The effort by others to amplify and burnish his ludicrous claims of fraud is equally revolting.”
“This is America. We have elections. We have results. We make arguments based on the fact and reason—not conspiracy and fantasy,” he added.
There’s only one problem with Chucky’s “argument based on fact and reason.” Democrats have been challenging the electoral vote certification for two decades.
The last three times a Republican has been elected president — Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 — Democrats in the House have brought objections to the electoral votes in states the GOP nominee won. In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs, D-Ohio, objected to Bush’s 2004 electoral votes in Ohio.
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin appears to be even more incensed at Senator Josh Hawley’s plan to object to the Electoral College vote.
“The political equivalent of barking at the moon,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said of Hawley joining the challenge to electoral slates. “This won’t be taken seriously, nor should it be. The American people made a decision on Nov. 3rd and that decision must and will be honored and protected by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.”
Brave Sir Dick seems to forget he was singing a different tune in 2005. Then, it was Democrats questioning the results of the Ohio vote, which went narrowly for George Bush.
Durbin had words of praise for Boxer then:
“Some may criticize our colleague from California for bringing us here for this brief debate,” Durbin said on the Senate floor following Boxer’s objection, while noting that he would vote to certify the Ohio electoral votes for Bush. “I thank her for doing that because it gives members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one State but in many States.”
In fact, the Ohio electoral vote challenge was only the beginning. Rumors and conspiracy theories swirled around the outcome on election night that saw Bush winning Ohio by a close, but the surprisingly comfortable margin of 120,000 votes. So why are so many of these headlines familiar to us today?
Mother Jones: “Recounting the Election: Was Ohio stolen?”
And THE BLAZE also referenced it’s readers to the same issues in their post (BTW, these are the two videos I used for my upload):
TheBlaze’s Chris Enloe noted this weekend that while Democrats are rebuking Republicans for planning Wednesday to oppose the Electoral College certification of Joe Biden’s presidential victory due to fraud concerns, Democrats themselves have a robust history of doing that very thing.
And a damning, resurfaced video underscores what’s already on the public record.
The video is a compilation of clips from congressional sessions following the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, both won by Republican George W. Bush — and in the clips Democrats launched protests against Bush’s electoral votes.
[….]
That wasn’t all. The Washington Post reported that during the January 2001 session, words such as “fraud” and “disenfranchisement” were heard above Republicans calling for “regular order.”
More from the paper:
The Democratic protest was led by Black Caucus members who share the feeling among black leaders that votes in the largely African American precincts overwhelmingly carried by [then-Democratic presidential nominee Al] Gore were not counted because of faulty voting machines, illicit challenges to black voters and other factors.
“It’s a sad day in America,” Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) said as he turned toward Gore. “The chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois, but . . . ” Gore replied.
At the end of their protest, about a dozen members of the Black Caucus walked out of the House chamber as the roll call of the states continued.
Tony’s point is that if you take that number (42,918) and essentially half it, the election would have gone to Trump. There was easily that many votes that should have been rejected due to fraudulent ballots.
I combine a couple segments of Larry Elder showing that to say this election was close and maybe it was so close that small court cases would have changed the outcome. Which is why I include Rand Paul mentioning the crazy amount of mail-in-ballots with only a name and no address. Wow! That alone would have almost turn Wisconsin red….
Arizona: 10,457 votes
+
Georgia: 11,779 votes
+
Wisconsin: 20,682 votes
=
Total margin: 42,918 votes
….Kornacki noted that last month’s election of Joe Biden over President Trump could have easily gone the other way, despite a 7 million vote margin for the Democratic ticket.
“If you flipped about 20,000 votes in Wisconsin, about 13,000 in Georgia and 10,000 in Arizona, that’s just over 40,000 votes collectively,” said Kornacki. “In those three states, the electoral vote count would have been 269 to 269 and it would have gone to the House of Representatives. Republicans would have been able to elect Trump.
“The way that I look at this election is, Donald Trump came within about 43,000 votes of getting re-elected. We came very close to one of the biggest disconnects we’ve ever seen in terms of the popular vote and the Electoral College,” he said….
I mentioned the following in a conversation with a friend, and he asked a question which I will respond to here. Enjoy. I said:
Sean Giordano — Biden won Wisconsin by just over 20,000 votes. There were 10s of thousands of ballots that only had a signature and no address, in all previous elections these were not accepted.
He asked simply,
B.A.M. — where did you get your info? I looked this up and couldn’t verify.
So, here are a few articles that build a related case that Senator Paul mentioned in the video above. First up is the earlier April election. Wisconsin Public Radio notes an issue that would have had consequences if the [illegal] change in laws hadn’t of happened before the November 4th election.
But an APM Reports analysis of voter data from Wisconsin’s April primary shows a far more measurable and consequential effect of mail-in voting — rejected ballots. Slightly more than 23,000 ballots were thrown out, mostly because those voters or their witnesses missed at least one line on a form.
To wit, some counties changed ballots in 2020 to try and make them legal, but as retired Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman (who worked as a poll watcher in Milwaukee on Election Day), “The statute is very, very clear. If an absentee ballot does not have a witness address on it, it’s not valid. That ballot is not valid” (RED STATE).
Before going on to my next point — I want to drive home the issue made by the Public Radio in another article via REVEAL.
…But an analysis of voter data from the April primary in the swing state of Wisconsin shows that mail-in voting may pose the opposite risk – rejected ballots. Slightly more than 23,000 ballots were thrown out in the primary, according to an analysis by APM Reports, mostly because those voters or their witnesses missed at least one line on a form.
That figure is nearly equivalent to Trump’s 2016 margin of victory in Wisconsin of 22,748 votes. And with Wisconsin voter turnout expected to double from April to more than 3 million in November, a proportionate volume of ballot rejections could be the difference in who wins the swing state and possibly the presidency…..
[….]
Taken together, the analysis serves as a case study of what may lie ahead for a presidential battleground state overwhelmed by applications and without the experience or systems to cope. Other battleground states such as Georgia and Pennsylvania saw increased by-mail voting in their primaries, as well as problems managing an increase in absentee ballots.
In the 2016 and 2018 Wisconsin general elections, by-mail absentee ballots made up no more than 6% of all ballots counted. In April, the portion jumped to more than 60%, the result of Gov. Tony Evers’ stay-at-home order because of the pandemic.
And while state officials stress the percentage of rejected ballots in the April primary is consistent with rejection rates in past elections, it’s little comfort to voters who learned that their ballots were rejected months after they thought their votes were counted.
More importantly, while the rate may be similar, raw numbers will make the difference when it comes to winning or losing an election.
One of the main issue I see is the equal protection of voters. There were not clerks fixing all the ballots evenly. It seems that this happened in more inner-city areas and not in the more conservative suburbs. RED STATE notes the last minute change to laws that also allowed more opportunity for fraud and ballots that have not been counted in the past.
…In Wisconsin, a federal judge extended the deadline for receiving absentee ballots during the primary election cycle by a period of six days. No one objected to that extension in the early days of state “lockdown” orders to address the outbreak of the COVID 19 virus. But, five days before the scheduled election, the same judge clarified the order to state that ballots postmarked on or before the extended day for receipt of ballots could be counted even though that violated Wisconsin election law which required that they be postmarked no later than Election Day, and no party in the case had asked for the Court to grant the additional relief. The Supreme Court reversed that provision of the district court’s order, writing as follows:
Nonetheless, five days before the scheduled election, the District Court unilaterally ordered that absentee ballots mailed and postmarked after election day, April 7, still be counted so long as they are received by April 13. Extending the date by which ballots may be cast by voters—not just received by the municipal clerks but cast by voters— for an additional six days after the scheduled election day fundamentally alters the nature of the election… This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election…. The District Court on its own ordered yet an additional extension, which would allow voters to mail their ballots after election day, which is extraordinary relief and would fundamentally alter the nature of the election by allowing voting for six additional days after the election.
The four liberals on the Court, including the late Justice Ginsburg, dissented from this order and would have allowed votes to be cast and counted after the deadline imposed by state law in Wisconsin, basing their judgment on the complications of the COVID 19 pandemic. So, you can see where the lower court judges are finding their “justification for rewriting election rules more to the liking of plaintiffs who — in every case I’ve looked at — are Democrat party interest groups….
The WASHINGTON POST agrees with the above by pointing out that [in the April election in Wisconsin] “more than 30,000 votes arrived after voting day in 11 cities where that information was available, more than 10 percent of all votes cast in those cities. In Brookfield, a western suburb of Milwaukee in conservative Waukesha County, the figure was closer to 15 percent.”
So Wisconsin changed laws on the fly (against their state’s normal [legal] constitutional process), or improperly applied others.
MAIN POINT
As JUST THE NEWS noted, an order from the election commission (passed in 2016) that went out in this election “permits local county election clerks to cure spoiled ballots by filling in missing addresses for witnesses even though state law invalidates any ballot without a witness address.”
This is part of the reason that 3-of-the-4 justices in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court wanted to see the evidence, the three dissenting conservative justices, led by Chief Justice Patience Roggensack, said the court should have decided whether votes should have counted in each of the four categories, and clarified the law for future elections.
“A significant portion of the public does not believe that the November 3, 2020, presidential election was fairly conducted,” Roggensack wrote. “Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast.”
Because of the ruling, procedural wrongs:
absentee ballots filled in in one county to fix missing information by local county election clerks, and not in other counties (votes treated different) — probably 10’s of thousands via past numbers of ballots rejected and the increase of voting this time;
and the more than 28,000 votes counted from people who failed to provide identification by abusing the state’s ‘indefinitely confined status’
The liberal justices went on to say there was no evidence of fraud.
Dumb.
This is a red herring.
The above are not about fraud at all, but the invalidation of ballots because voters ballots were treated differently across the state, and, failure to follow the new regulation for voting from home by Wisconsin officials.
“Fraud,” it just sounds good and the press runs with the same narrative.
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton wade through the left’s lies about our interview with Donald Trump. These journos have nothing else left but to gaslight and demonize Trump.
BUCK:Mr. President, in the last 24 hours we know Russia has said that they are recognizing two breakaway regions of Ukraine, and now this White House is stating that this is an “invasion.” That’s a strong word. What went wrong here? What has the current occupant of the Oval Office done that he could have done differently?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, what went wrong was a rigged election and what went wrong is a candidate that shouldn’t be there and a man that has no concept of what he’s doing. I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, “This is genius.” Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.
So Putin is now saying, “It’s independent,” a large section of Ukraine. I said, “How smart is that?” And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force… We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I know him very well. Very, very well.
By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened. But here’s a guy that says, you know, “I’m gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent,” he used the word “independent,” “and we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.” You gotta say that’s pretty savvy. And you know what the response was from Biden? There was no response. They didn’t have one for that. No, it’s very sad. Very sad.
Marco Rubio says of the interview:
Former President Donald Trump was being “sarcastic” when he referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “genius,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said Tuesday.
“I heard that interview,” Rubio said during an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” “I’m not going off the press reports. I heard the interview. I didn’t hear him say that. I heard what I heard. A guy who was being sarcastic. He was saying, Oh, look at this guy, he’s a genius, this, that and the other.”
Trump came under fire last week after his comments on the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton radio show, on which he referred to Putin as being “savvy” and a “genius.”
[….]
“If it wasn’t for what the Trump administration did and laid the groundwork for, there’s no way Ukraine would still be able to hold out today,” Rubio said.
RED STATE rightly notes what Clay and Buck did when speaking about what the Left and Press has run with counters basic English context when “referring to someone as a ‘genius’ can carry with it, alternative meanings.”
…Certainly, Trump’s talk on Putin has been at times sycophantic, something this author will not discount. However, referring to someone as a “genius” can carry with it, alternative meanings.
For instance, when it comes to people like David Axelrod or Rahm Emanuel, I can admire their genius within politics and hold them in utter contempt because of how they choose to use their gifts. Adolf Hitler was a genius as an orator, but a genocidal sociopath. I do not presume to understand Trump’s motivations in his less-than-polished statements about the Russian leader; however, I simply state that Trump can believe Putin is a genius and a sociopath. While I can think Trump is a genius in manipulating the media (and trust me… he is), I can disagree with him on things like increasing deficit spending and his lowest-common-denominator rhetoric.
When it came to Putin though, the left and the media (but I repeat myself) did their damnedest to tie Trump to Putin and Russia, despite the total lack of evidence of such a connection. Whether it was Russia-gate, in which Trump and his officials were never charged, or lofty stories of Trump and his behavior with Russian prostitutes, or even flat out fabrications, like was spun regarding Russian bounties on American servicemen in Syria, the media went to all lengths to make Trump appear weak against Putin and the Russians.
Yet one stark reality cannot be ignored: Putin took no action against any of his neighbors during the Trump Administration.
Regardless of Trump’s statements (which I often took issue with), the result of his foreign policy led to the lack of the entry of the US in any additional foreign conflicts for the first time in decades. That includes saber-rattling with any foreign powers.
Meanwhile, when you look at Trump’s predecessor, the same cannot be said.
Beginning immediately in 2009, Obama faced Russian games in Crimea in Ukraine. Russia, which had been exerting influence in the region towards the end of 2008 (after Obama’s election but before he took office) thrust the new leader (Obama) into a place many felt he was unprepared to be. Obama sat idly by and watched as Putin and the Russians pushed the area to the brink of war.
In the months leading up to the conflict, the Russians had been issuing Russian passports to residents of other countries, an act which granted those people the rights of other Russian citizens, including the protection of the Russian military, should they need it. Protests, largely organized and funded by Russia, began popping up in Crimea, sending the region into chaos. Of course, this was the goal of the Russians, so they could use this conflict as a reason to enter Ukraine to reestablish peace on behalf of the (new) Russian citizens living in that region.
Hillary Clinton jumps into the fray and gets walloped! PJ-MEDIA has a great post in which I will steal two tweets from:
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton break down Hillary Clinton’s lies about our interview with Donald Trump. How much wrong can the Democrats fit into just one year?
Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report shares a clip of MSNBC host Tiffany Cross using her show the Cross Connection to condemn ESPN host Sage Steele, Van Jones, and Carlos Watson for not being “real” black voices and accuse them of internalized racism. Their crime was simply not having the correct official black opinions that Tiffany thinks all black people should have.
Larry sets the record straight. Joy Reid effectively lied to her viewers. Let’s look at the actual history here.
PART ONE
Larry corrects Joy Reid’s ridiculous tirade where she inaccurately accuses Mitch McConnell and the Republicans of engaging in immoral, rotten behavior and blowing up the Filibuster Rule.
Government Agent Whose Altered Email Enabled the Russia Hoax Won’t Spend a Day in Jail or Pay Any Fine
The Russia hoax undermined a duly elected president and continues to divide the nation. But one of the key figures who abused the trust of the people will not face prison time, reports Fox News.
Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was sentenced to 12 months probation and 400 hours of community service Friday after pleading guilty to making a false statement in the first criminal case arising from Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.
That false statement had major consequences. The altered email cast suspicion on Page and thereby Trump, and created a false justification to wiretap Page.
[….]
What about the abuse of trust, the destruction of the FBI’s reputation, undermining the FISA court system, and the Russia hoax Clinesmith enabled and which still infects millions of American minds to this day?
“Altering the email has forever changed the course of my life,” Clinesmith said. “I have lost the means to provide for my growing family…lost the ability to give back to my nation… the shame and remorse will stay with me forever.”
The Trump presidency was not allowed to get off to anything like a normal start and was undermined by this case for most of its four years. Trump never truly overcame it despite being exonerated by the Mueller report, which found no American anywhere colluded with the Russians to impact the 2016 election.
Politico reports the prosecutors wanted Clinesmith to spend time in jail.
While prosecutors urged the judge to send Clinesmith to prison to send a message to others in government not to try something similar, Boasberg said he believed that message had already been sent.
Another message has been sent. Clinesmith will be the only Russia hoax figure prosecuted and he need not worry. Some left-wing foundation will give him a do-nothing job before long. Or CNN or MSNBC will give him an on-air analyst role.
POLITICO noted the judge saying “he believed that message had already been sent.” I doubt anyone in my own family — bedsides me and my boys and wife — knows that the Russian Collusion case has been shown to be a hoax. These are like retractions in a paper… front-page headlines splash the New York Times or the Washington Post, and then a month later a retraction is given on D3… which no one sees… so they think the headlines are still true. Trump was correct when referring to it as a witch hunt.
Recent declassified documents do not add information to the issue, they merely show that the above authors of books and columns to be 100% vindicated!
People making decisions based off of the NYTs, CNN, NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS, Washington Post, MSNBC, and the like… were LIED to for 3-years. The result?
Gallup Poll Shows 78% Of Democrats Mistakenly Believe Russia Changed Election Results
Not one intelligence agency or even Obama’s head of the Homeland Security Dept has supported that. I bet a lot of people (I would say almost all except for my sons) know the following:
President Donald Trump rejects the narrative that Russia wanted him to win. USA Today examined each of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by the Russian-based Internet Research Agency, the company that employed 12 of the 13 Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for interfering with the 2016 election. It turns out only about 100 of its ads explicitly endorsed Trump or opposed Hillary Clinton. Most of the fake ads focused on racial division, with many of the ads attempting to exploit what Russia perceives, or wants America to perceive, as severe racial tension between blacks and whites…. [RPT addition: about 50 were pro-Hillary]
Democrats and “Republicans” just continue to believe nonsense based on some late-night talk show comedians and CNN/NPR. (I say “Republicans” because many who claim to be “Reagan Republicans” would today think his favorite publication [HUMAM EVENTS] is for white supremacists.) The L.A. Times use to carry columns by Dennis Prager and other conservative thinkers. No more are they carried by the paper.
Frankly, it’s sad. And dangerous… they are ripe to believe BIG LIES about Republicans and Trump.
Poll: 61 Percent of Democrats Say Republicans Are ‘Racist,’ ‘Bigoted,’ ‘Sexist’ (2016)
49% of Democrats think Trump voters are racist…. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of self-described political liberals believe those who vote for Trump are racist. (2019)
86% of Democrats think Trump is a racist
How do you make headway with these corporate news feeders of CNN/MSNBC?? I imagine Trump gaining in almost every major demographic means nothing to them? Trump gained more in these categories than in 2016…
Male Hispanics;
Female Hispanics;
Male Blacks;
Female Blacks;
Female Whites.
The only category he lost numbers in since 2016 were white males. Like I say, Trump needs to go back to racism school. But the tactics of the Left have not changed a bit… just more people truly believe it. And they expect us to be civil, and unite — exactly when did Democrats practice the “civility” to which they wish to return?….
When Barry Goldwater accepted the 1964 Republican nomination, California’s Democratic Gov. Pat Brown said, “The stench of fascism is in the air.”
Former Rep. William Clay Sr., D-Mo., said President Ronald Reagan was “trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from ‘Mein Kampf.'”
Coretta Scott King, in 1980, said, “I am scared that if Ronald Reagan gets into office, we are going to see more of the Ku Klux Klan and a resurgence of the Nazi Party.”
After Republicans took control of the House in the mid-’90s, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., compared the newly conservative-majority House to “the Duma and the Reichstag,” referring to the legislature set up by Czar Nicholas II of Russia and the parliament of the German Weimar Republic that brought Hitler to power.
About President George Herbert Walker Bush, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said: “I believe (Bush) is a racist for many, many reasons. … (He’s) a mean-spirited man who has no care or concern about what happens to the African American community. … I truly believe that.”
About the Republican-controlled House, longtime Harlem Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel, in 1994, said: “It’s not ‘s—-‘ or ‘n——-‘ anymore. (Republicans) say, ‘Let’s cut taxes.'” A decade later, Rangel said, “George (W.) Bush is our Bull Connor,” referring to the Birmingham, Alabama, Democrat segregationist superintendent of public safety who sicced dogs and turned fire hoses on civil rights workers.
Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s presidential campaign manager, in 1999, said: Republicans have a “white boy attitude, (which means) ‘I must exclude, denigrate and leave behind.’ They don’t see it or think about it. It’s a culture.” The following year, Brazile said: “The Republicans bring out Colin Powell and (Rep.) J.C. Watts, (R-Okla.), because they have no program, no policy. … They’d rather take pictures with Black children than feed them.”
About President George W. Bush, former Vice President Al Gore said: “(Bush’s) executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations, from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. … And every day, they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President.” Digital “brownshirts”?
About George W. Bush, George Soros, the billionaire Democratic donor, said: “The Bush administration and the Nazi and communist regimes all engaged in the politics of fear. … Indeed, the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and communist propaganda machines.”
Former NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, in a 2006 speech at historically Black Fayetteville State University said, “The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side.”
Former Gov. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2005, described the contest between Democrats and Republicans as “a struggle between good and evil. And we’re the good.” Three years later, Dean referred to the GOP as “the white party.”
After Hurricane Katrina, Democratic Missouri Senate candidate Claire McCaskill said George W. Bush “let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were Black.”
Feminist superlawyer Gloria Allred, in 2001, referred to Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as “Uncle Tom types.”
Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, in 2006, said, “The (Republican-controlled) House of Representatives … has been run like a plantation. And you know what I’m talking about.”
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic National Committee chairwoman in 2011, said “Republicans … want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws.”……
I bet almost all of my family believes Trump mocked a disabled man’s handicap; think that when he said “there are fine people on both sides” he was saying there were “fine Nazis or white supremacists;” or think that racists and white supremacists have voted Republican in general; or that the bodies natural defenses in immunity are non-existent and only “vaccines” can bring immunity.
These are dangerous lies to believe.
Here is more regarding the latest declassified documents… one of the biggest lies the media has pushed in it’s life
The First Trump Declassified “Russia Document” Christopher Steele’s 2017 Confession To The FBI — Steele told FBI he leaked Russia collusion story to help Clinton and Great Britain, and was connected to his primary dossier source by former NSC staffer and impeachment witness Fiona Hill. (JUST THE NEWS)
….The FBI report of an interview agents conducted with Steele in September 2017, nearly a year after he had been terminated as an informant, provided explosive information about his motives in working simultaneously for the FBI and the opposition research firm for Clinton’s campaign. The document was obtained by Just the News and at times reads like a confession from the now-infamous former MI6 agent and author of the anti-Trump dossier.
Steele told agents that then-FBI Director James Comey’s decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation in fall of 2016 became his tipping point for leaking the anti-Trump collusion research that his company Orbis Intelligence had gathered and given to the FBI.
“STEELE explained that as the election season went on, they as a company were riding two horses — their client and the FBI — and after FBI Director James Comey’s reopening of the Hillary Clinton investigation, they had to pick one horse and chose the business client relationship over the relationship with the FBI,” the interview report stated.
“They followed what their client wanted, and they spoke to the press,” the report noted.
Steele and his partner Christopher Burrows even suggested the FBI deserved some of the blame for the decision to leak to the news media and Sen. John McCain’s office.
“STEELE and BURROWS described the overall situation as being one where it was ‘your [FBI] fault’ and ‘our fault,'” the memo reported, adding that Burrows was also upset the FBI had not paid Steele for his anti-Trump work.
The two British citizens told the FBI that concerns about the impact of a Trump presidency also motivated them…..
Mainstream Media before Trump was President and immediately when he set foot into the Oval Office was creating false stories about him. For instance, MLK’s Bust story an hour after Trump was elected: “On the evening of January 20, TIME White House correspondent Zeke Miller incorrectly reported that the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. had been removed from the Oval Office.” Most major news outlets carried it right away, and this was the beginning of 16 fake stories by early February that people ate up: Hence #FakeNews
The same people lapped up the phony Russia investigation, helping push the false narrative of Democrats for almost 3-years:
…McCabe’s own notes from the May 16, 2017 meeting don’t mention that Rosenstein had been discussing firing Comey since January. But five days later in a new meeting, McCabe quoted Rosenstein as confirming the termination had been in the works for months and was not really driven by the Russia probe…. (Obstruction Boomerang: FBI Knew DOJ Was Preparing To Fire Comey Long Before Trump Ordered It)
People who believed in this stuff and made decisions based on it ARE the problem with our body-politic. More than Trump. Spreading lies that were bigger than Obama’s Iran Deal thingy and bigger than any Trump lie. Seditious lies cooked up by Hillary in 2016.
So we’ve all been talking a lot about the investigation into Hunter Biden and how the mainstream media seems to have finally caught up to the fact that yes, it’s real and it’s Russian disinformation as some tried to claim before the election.
Now that they think Joe Biden won, they’re free to just say “oh, well, here’s this thing.”
Never mind that they consciously suppressed it from the American people and completely failed in their supposed job prior to the election.
We saw a lot of conservatives chastising the media today for what they did.
But I wanted to talk about another group.
We expect the Democrats to cover for Biden. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) told CNN it was a “smear” straight from the Kremlin. CNN’s Jeff Zucker said in his morning conference call to impress upon people this stuff about Hunter was just more “Russian disinformation.” A lot of mainstream media has become little more than Democratic operatives at this point.
There’s a group that we don’t expect and for sure shouldn’t be playing this game and that’s the intelligence community.
But they have and they did in this instance as well.
There were 50 former senior intelligence officers who signed a letter saying that Hunter Biden’s emails had all the signs of a Russian disinformation campaign……
(Posted April 2014, Updated December 2017 and Today)
This comes via THE BLAZE, and is merely a confirmation of what many fair minded people already know, these are some quotes from Sharyl Attkisson during an interview on CNN. I think that CNN was a bit late to the party, maybe, feeling the hit to their ratings for not doing what Fox had already done with Miss Attkisson, that is, interview her:
Attkisson added in her interview with CNN’s “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter that while she never was discouraged from hard-hitting reports on the George W. Bush administration, when it came to her critical coverage of the Obama White House, CBS regularly balked.
[….]
“There are very sophisticated efforts to manipulate the images and the information that you see every day, in ways that you won’t recognize,” she said. “And I think we can all be a little more savvy about that.”
[….]
As for the differences between how CBS News brass treated and covered the Bush compared to the Obama administration, Attkisson noted that she “didn’t sense any resistance to doing stories that were perceived to be negative to the Bush administration by anybody ever.” But as for the Obama White House, she said “I have done stories that were not received well because people thought they would reflect poorly upon this administration.”
Attkisson went further, noting a “fairly well-discussed” topic inside CBS News “that there are some managers recently who have been so ideologically entrenched that there is a feeling and discussion that some of them, certainly not all of them, have a difficult time viewing a story that may reflect negatively upon government or the administration as a story of value.”
“So you’re saying they are liberal or Democrats?” Stelter asked.
“I don’t know what their registered party is, I just know that the tendency on the part of some of these managers who have key influences has been they never mind the stories that seem to, for example — and I did plenty of them — go against the grain of the Republican Party, but they do often seem to feel defensive about, almost, personally defensive about stories that could make the government look bad. Even if it’s something as simple as a government waste story that doesn’t pinpoint anybody in particularly and it takes on both parties. It seems as though some of them were sensitive about any story that might appear as though it criticizes the government.”
THE BLAZE continues the story with the video interview:
UPDATED WITH CURRENT GRAPHS (12-6-2020)
This brings us back to some older news, but refreshing it in our minds helps us remember the uphill battle we face. Lets compare the first 100-days of each of our recent presidents. And as you will see, the media was most fair (down the middle, so-to-speak) with Clinton. But as the Left gets more entrenched due to brainwashing at the university, you see a slide to one end:
Overall, roughly four out of ten stories, editorials and op ed columns about Obama have been clearly positive in tone, compared with 22% for Bush and 27% for Clinton in the same mix of seven national media outlets during the same first two months in office, according to a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.HOT AIR mentioned the Pew Poll a while back, noting: “In their 100-day look released last week, Pew notes that Obama got twice as much good press as Bush and 50% more than Clinton.” They continue by quoting Pew:
The study found positive stories about Obama have outweighed negative by two-to-one (42% vs. 20%) while 38% of stories have been neutral or mixed.
When a broader universe of media—one that includes 49 outlets and reflects the more modern media culture of 2009, is examined, the numbers for Obama’s coverage are similar, though somewhat less positive and somewhat more negative. In this expanded universe of media—which includes news websites, additional regional and local newspapers, plus cable news, network morning news, and National Public Radio, 37% of Obama’s coverage has been positive, 40% neutral and 23% negative.
[….]
Pew also notes that the types of coverage Obama receives seems designed to cast a halo on him. Unlike Bush (22%) and Clinton (26%), almost half of all news stories on Obama (44%) focus on his personal and leadership qualities. Those are the kinds of stories that usually take a soft focus, work in generalities, and put public figures in the best possible light.
Obama’s coverage differs in another key way. Much of the Obama coverage (31%) reports on what can only be called Obama’s campaign mode, in which Obama communicates directly with the American people. Only 8% of Bush’s coverage focused on those efforts. The media focused much more on Bush’s relationship with Congress and his legislative agenda.
In other words, the media has given us a heapin’ helping of fluff in the first 100 days, and very little in specifics. They’re allowing Obama to manipulate them into campaign coverage rather than shine a light on his governance….
Well, Sharyl Attkisson, a 21-year vet at CBS confirms to us what Bernie Goldberg years ago already did. That CBS (obviously not the only network) has sold its soul to the gods of progressivism. While Fox should remain center-right, they should always allow the other voice an opportunity to speak. Scott Whitlock at NEWSBUSTERS, for instance, noted that “as of April 3, 2014, it’s been 140 days since the once-vaunted Nightline covered ObamaCare or any of the problems associated with it. Instead, the ABC News program has mostly avoided hard news, focusing on tabloid-heavy topics such as a city in Brazil that has become known as the “model factory.” So it isn’t just WHAT you report as it is what you choose to ignore that affects the public’s perception. Sad.
…with GATEWAY PUNDIT’S erudite [not always mind you] fishing into what was just revealed (that I missed):
What has not been widely known until today was the Democratic Party front group’s role in actually producing the news.
Attkisson: “Media Matters, as my understanding, is a far left blog group that I think holds itself out to be sort of an independent watchdog group. And yes, they clearly targeted me at some point. They used to work with me on stories and tried to help me produce my stories, and at some point…”
After Sunday’s broadcast, CNN posted a follow-up story that included a response from Media Matters. The response does not mention previous collaborations with Attkisson and CBS News in producing news reports for the network.
“We also sought comment from Media Matters; Attkisson said she thought it was possible that the liberal media monitoring group had been paid to discredit her. Media Matters responded:
‘Sharyl Attkisson is continuing a pattern of evidence-free speculation that started at the end of her tenure at CBS. We have never taken contributions to target her or any other reporter. Our decision to post any research on Attkisson is based only on her shoddy reporting’.”
There was no mention of Media Matters working with Attkisson to produce news reports for CBS News in the recent hit piece by David Brock’s Senior Fellow attack poodle Eric Boehlert posted at Media Matters on April 17th with the laughably dishonest headline (if Attkisson is to be believed):
CBS News should disclose which reports by the network were done in collaboration with the Democratic Party front group Media Matters. Attkisson should also disclose on which stories she collaborated with Media Matters.
“It appears the real assault on ‘history’ can be found at CNN, where pundits compare a presidential administration they simply don’t like to one of the evilest and most violent regimes in human history” (LEGAL INSURRECTION)
More can be found at THE DAILY WIRE. Christiane Amanpour compared the Trump administration to Kristallnacht, a horrifying event that took place in November 1938 when Nazis “torched synagogues, vandalized Jewish homes, schools and businesses and killed close to 100 Jews,” according to History .com.
So, the only people “burning books” today (besides Muslims in Arab countries) is the Left. Here is a excerpt from a previous post:
🆀🆄🅾🆃🅴
Dennis Prager discusses Amazons attempt to silence freedom in banning Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s books. The son of the author in question calls into the show. Maybe the updated edition to the book, “120 Banned Books,” can have a “Jeff Bezos” chapter. In fact, If Barnes and Noble were smart, they would have a “Jeff Bezos Box-Set” of banned books during “Banned Books Week.” At any rate, I find it fascinating that Freud was a book burned by Nazis in Germany, and now we have another psychologist’s work being burned. The attack on free speech by the Egalitarian Left since the New Left’s birth is now being “fast tracked” via the WWW. These groups of activists are essentially no different than the jack-boot brown shirts of pre-war Germany: shouting down those who they disagree with, violently attacking those who merely hold another opinion, banning books, and the like…..
….Here are some stories detailing the above:
Amazon Bans Books on Conversion Therapy for Homosexuals Who Want to Change Their Lives (RED STATE);
Amazon Bans Books on Gay ‘Conversion Therapy’ – Is the Bible Next? (LIFESITE);
Amazon Bans Books On Gay ‘Conversion Therapy’ (DAILY WIRE);
Amazon Stops Selling Books by Catholic Psychologist Amid LGBT Activist Pressure (CHRISTIAN POST);
Amazon Bans Books On “Conversion Therapy” (DENNY BURK).
I just wish to note that I am as conservative of an Evangelical as can be. I am a young-earth creationist, believe the Biblical when it self-ascribes literalness, etc., etc. In my extensive library is the Satanic Bible (LaVey), the Book of Laws (Crowley), most anti-creationist books, most books by atheists, the Communist Manifesto, Mao’s Red Book, Margaret Sanger’s “Pivot of Civilization,” etc., etc…..
🆄🅽🆀🆄🅾🆃🅴
I would like to note as well the only people tearing down history are Leftists:
Are conservative ideas allowed at American colleges? Protestors routinely try to shut down speeches by conservatives, like Heather Mac Donald, a Contributing Editor of the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. She also wrote the book “The War on Cops,” which argues that Americans are less safe because police, for fear of being called racist, back off.
Dennis Prager sheds some thinking and light on the recent issue of the fascist left shutting down free speech. While I may parse a little of his position – for instance Cruz should have come out and have been clear on the main issue that this is a tactic of the left, to shut down freedom of speech while at the same time noting just how un-presidential Trump has been – Dennis Prager is still correct in his overall premise.
AND REPUBLICAN missed an opportunity to separate what conservatism “is” – the protection of all sides being heard; versus only one side using brown shirt type tactics:
Free Speech loses to Rollkommandos again:
JIHAD WATCH chimes in with the example from Richard Evans:
…Although this violence and brutalization of political opponents is a new phenomenon in American politics, it has a historical antecedent: the Nazi Brownshirts. In The Coming of the Third Reich, historian Richard J. Evans explains how, in the early days of National Socialist Germany, Stormtroopers (Brownshirts) “organized campaigns against unwanted professors in the local newspapers [and] staged mass disruptions of their lectures.”
To express dissent from Nazi positions became a matter of taking one’s life into one’s hands. The idea of people of opposing viewpoints airing their disagreements in a civil and mutually respectful manner was gone. One was a Nazi, or one was silent (and fearful). That is just the kind of public arena that the Left has been trying to bring to the United States for years, and is bringing to us now….
You can see a recent upload in this regards HERE. Free Speech is not a value of the Democrats…
(Just some reminders of how I am — and those Trump voters — are thought about by many) After more than 4-years of relentless attacks on Trump and those who voted for him (me)… calling us NAZI’s, racists, bigots, and the like — now the MSM and Democrats are calling for unity. Really?
Here is a small sample of what NEWSBUSTERS could probably have posted but chose just a few examples: “The Media’s ‘Unity’ Chickens From 2016 Coming Home to Roost”
….After spending four years assailing Donald Trump, suddenly the media wants to give peace a chance. Fox’s Greg Gutfeld astutely observed this the other night on Fox’s The Five. Said Greg:
GREG GUTFELD: “It’s like a miracle! The media and Democrats converge on one message! It’s time to just move on. Time to heal! Here’s how the president-elect and some in the liberal media described it over the weekend:
JOE BIDEN ON SATURDAY: This is the time to heal in America!
CNN ANCHOR DON LEMON: America needed a release valve at that moment. Finally, the relief came.
MSNBC ON SUNDAY: We’re getting decency back in our country.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: [It’s] a time to heal America but a time to heal the world as well.”
And I would add The Washington Post’s columnist Alexandra Petri headlined her post-election column this way: “It’s time to unite, but if it’s not too big a bother, could you accept the results?”
Then there’s MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “It’s time for us to take a deep breath and move forward.”
Really? Really? These media figures and oh so many more want us to “unite”, “heal” and “accept the results”?
Let’s take a look back at the media’s idea of healing and moving on over the last four years after the 2016 election won by President Trump.
Here is CNN’s Brian Stelter in 2019 as reported by The Daily Caller:
“CNN’s Brian Stelter speculated Sunday on President Donald Trump’s mental health and called for more media coverage of the issue.
‘So something is wrong,’ Stelter said in the opening monologue of his show, Reliable Sources.
‘There are lots of theories about what it is. There are some doctors who think they know,’ he said. ‘Others say we shouldn’t speculate. There are ethical questions about having this conversation at all, but we can’t tiptoe around it anymore. We’ve got to talk about this.’”
Here is CNN’s Chris Cuomo in 2019 interviewing Kayleigh McEnany: The President, he said, is “patently racist.”
Here is The Washington Post headline on an Op-Ed by one Erika Lee, the director of the Immigration History Research Center at the University of Minnesota. “Trump’s xenophobia is an American tradition — but it doesn’t have to be
Here is The Washington Post on January 20, 2017 at 12:27 pm – a mere 27 minutes after Trump was sworn into office. “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.”
Here is the editorial board of The New York Times on February 17, 2017, 29 days after Trump was inaugurated: “Bring On the Special Prosecutor.”
Got all that? The media spent their time after Trump was elected demanding a special prosecutor and impeachment, calling the president mentally unstable, a racist, xenophobic and more. They were utterly unwilling to accept the 2016 results, and made it their mission to overturn those results in whatever way feasible.
One could go on and on and on with examples like this from the mainstream media over the last four years.
And now they demand Americans come together in a kumbaya moment?
Somehow, in someway, I suspect the answer from most if not all 70-plus million Trump voters will listen to all this be a resounding, decidedly emphatic no.
Or put another way? I suspect that the liberal media’s last four years of chickens are about to come home to roost.
MORE EXAMPLES AND ARTICLE’S HERE:
Liberal Opponents ‘Trashed’ Trump’ s Presidential Transition In 2016 (WASHINGTON TIMES)
Democrats Labeled Me and Now They Want Unity? No Way (TOWNHALL)
How Do Democrats Dare Demand Unity Now? (LIBERTY NATION)
Dear Democrats: Here’s What You Can Do With Your Unity Candle (PJ-MEDIA)
Biden And Dems’ Version Of ‘Healing And Unity’ Means Bowing To Their Policies (WASHINGTON TIMES)
LARRY ELDER notes some of the “unity” proffered by Democrats:
…Yes, nearly all polls show Biden ahead both nationally and in the battleground states. Imagine where Trump would rank in the polls but for the constant, relentless negative media coverage and deranged opposition that would have suffocated the average politician. Nearly one-third of the Democratic caucus boycotted Trump’s inaugural address. Several Democrats never attended a single State of the Union speech.
Immediately after Trump’s election, Democrats attempted to invoke the 25th amendment, arguing that the real-estate-developer-turned-politician lacked the mental fitness to hold a job. To counter this perception, Trump allowed his personal physician to hold a press conference to assure the country and the world that yes, this man is actually sane.
For nearly three years, a special counsel investigated thin and, in retrospect, virtually baseless allegations of collusion, conspiracy and/or coordination with Russia to win the election and to then, presumably, become a Russian stooge. Critics called Trump “soft on Russia.”
Never mind that it was the Obama administration that, to curry favor with the Iranians and Russians, turned its back on missile agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic negotiated during the previous administration. At the beginning of the Obama administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced their “reset” policy, a major policy redirection to change what President Barack Obama perceived as President George W. Bush’s dangerously hawkish relationship with Russia.
It was Obama who, during the 2012 presidential debate, ridiculed opponent Mitt Romney for calling Russia our biggest geopolitical threat. It was Obama who, on a “hot mic,” told then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, “This is my last election … After my election, I have more flexibility” to negotiate a missile defense treaty between our two countries.
Oh, and Trump was impeached on grounds so weak that neither Biden nor running mate Sen. Kamala Harris even bring up impeachment while campaigning….
AMERICAN SPECTATOR has a great post I will clip the numbered portion of:
…You want unity? That’s fair. We will give you unity:
1. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and deny the legitimacy of the 2020 election for the next four years.
2. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and investigate the Biden family’s every business dealing at home and abroad.
3. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and question Biden’s mental fitness to hold office.
4. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and question Biden’s physical fitness to hold office.
5. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and blame Biden for every person who dies from the coronavirus.
6. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and blame Biden personally for every Black person who is shot anywhere in America.
7. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and never stop publicizing that Biden has been accused of grabbing a woman’s crotch against her will.
8. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and emphasize that, any time a woman makes a claim of sexual harassment against Biden, she must be believed.
9. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and continue publicizing that Kamala Harris, like Evita Perón, slept her way into public life.
10. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and remind people that, no less than Stormy Daniels, Kamala Harris was a public figure’s mistress.
11. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and accuse Biden of treason for consorting with enemies like the wife of the Moscow mayor, who gave the Bidens $3.5 million, the Chinese who put the Bidens on their payroll, and the Ukrainians of Burisma.
12. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and investigate the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, and if and when those photos can be released, they will be distributed to the tune of Maurice Chevalier’s “Thank Heaven for Little Girls.”
13. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and demand that Biden condemn racism, anti-Semitism, and misogyny every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every month of every year.
14. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and remind the American public that, even with dead people casting votes for Biden — Democrats just dying to oust Trump — and with Republican poll watchers kept outside of range in the counting rooms of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin; and with mail ballots without postmarks being accepted after election deadlines … Biden still did not receive 50 percent of the vote, so lacks the mandate that would have come from winning support from at least a majority of the living electorate.
15. In unity with you, and to advance the national healing, we humbly will acknowledge that Biden indeed won the coveted Obituary Vote, as Democrats, shrouded amid grave circumstances, emerged furtively from their plot to flock in from their cemeteries and mausolea to cast ballots for the candidate to whom they most related in style and substance — and the the one with the most skeletons in the closet. Biden knew how to urn every dead voter’s ballot by invoking the ultimate rule of social distancing: every extra needed Democrat vote must come from a distance of six feet … under. Perhaps on Memorial Day, Biden will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Voter.
16. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and will work to disrupt and slow down every cabinet appointment and every nomination that requires Senate advice and consent. However, we will make one small exception and will not impeach. Just as Richard Nixon knew precisely what he was doing when he made Spiro Agnew his running mate (aka his life insurance policy), so did Biden by running with his.
