Joe Saunders


She’s even worse than Obama.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took to the friendly confines of ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, interviewer and former Clinton White House communications director George Stephanopoulos offered Pelosi a softball way to praise the protests in Iran this weekend.

“We’re seeing now demonstrations in the streets of Iran against the regime,” Stephanopoulos said.

“Do you support those protesters and would it be a good thing if they brought the regime down?”

Considering the past 40 years of unadulterated hatred for the United States from Tehran, most Americans would have no problem answering that question with a resounding “yes” — but Pelosi is clearly not most Americans.

Check out her answer here:

Pelosi’s problem, of course, is that the protests didn’t fit into the Democratic narrative that every problem in the Middle East is President Donald Trump’s fault.

Her Democratic Party and its presidential field is so blinded by hatred of the current presidency — a hatred better known as Trump Derangement Syndrome — that they couldn’t even acknowledge the importance, and necessity, of the drone strike that killed Iranian terrorist general Qassem Soleimani on Jan. 2.

And they can’t admit even so simple a truth as that the world would be a better place of the murderous people in charge in Iran were no longer in power.

So even when protesters took to the streets against a government that’s an avowed enemy of her own people, Pelosi tried to explain it away, simply explaining it as some college students upset that some fellow students had died in the apparently accidental downing of Ukraine Airlines Flight 752 shortly after it left Tehran’s Imam Khomeini International Airport on Wednesday.

“Well, the regime — the protesters are — are protesting, as I understand it, this brand of protesters, about the fact that that plane went down,” she said. “And many students were on that plane. And these are largely students in the street.”

But not even a Democratic lapdog like Stephanopoulos could let her get away with treating the demonstrations like they were Oberlin students upset that the cafeteria had appropriated Mexican culture by serving Tacos on Tuesdays.

“They’re calling out the regime for lying. They’re saying, ‘death to Khameini’ as well,” he said, referring to Iran “Supreme Leader” Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khameini.

“No,” Pelosi answer. “Well, whatever it is.

“But the fact is this, the — there were protesters in the streets before against the regime. After the taking out of Soleimani, there were protesters in the street, joined together, as you know, against us. That wasn’t good,” she continued.

“Taking down this plane is a terrible, terrible tragedy. And they should be held accountable for letting commercial flights go at a time that was so, so dangerous.

“But there are different reasons why people are in the street.”

In other words, Pelosi was equating the choreographed demonstrations around Soleimani’s death with the outraged anti-regime protests of the weekend that just passed.

Social media users weren’t buying Pelosi’s spiel.

But this one puts it perfectly:

The fact is, Pelosi and her Democrats loved the Iranian propaganda footage that showed throngs mourning the death of Soleimani because it fed the impression that Trump has infuriated a foreign country as much as he infuriates domestic Democrats.

She couldn’t acknowledge the weekend’s anti-regime protests because they helped justify Trump’s antagonism toward Tehran.

When the newly minted President Barack Obama greeted anti-regime protests in Iran with a perceived passivity back in 2009, it was interpreted as appeasement toward Tehran.

Considering the disastrous eight years that followed — including the now-essentially defunct Iran nuclear deal — even that interpretation might have been too generous, but a fair reading of Obama’s actions back in 2009 would have to include the fact that he could not know the future.

Pelosi doesn’t have to know the future.

She just has to know what the Tehran regime has done since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, in the years since Obama, and Iran’s constantly escalating provocations in just the past few months.

The reality is, she knows that as well as anyone, but chooses to disregard it for her party’s political purposes.

What Obama did was bad. But what Pelosi did on Sunday was even worse.

Author: Joe Saunders

Source: Western Journal: Trump Derangement Syndrome Has Nancy Pelosi Downplaying Pro-Freedom Protests in Iran

Clearly, it doesn’t take a lot of critical thinking to be a Capitol Hill reporter.

The establishment media has been peddling myths about its own stories fairness and objectivity for decades, but since the rise of Donald Trump in national politics, those claims have reached nauseating levels.

Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary — like the unrelentingly negative news coverage of the Trump campaign in 2015 and 2016 and every day since Trump was sworn into office — the media and its Democratic allies have sworn up and down that the idea of a media bias is a conservative boogeyman.

But one tweet showing Washington Post reporters apparently celebrating the House vote to approve articles of impeachment against Trump demolished that once and for all.

And hastily deleting it — with apparent shock that it had been “misinterpreted” — didn’t help matters at all.

As Fox News reported, the tweet was published late Wednesday by Washington Post reporter – and CNN political analyst — Rachael Bade.

It showed Bade and Post colleagues Paul Kane, Mike DeBonis, Seung Min Kim and Karoun Demirjian – who also moonlight for the anti-Trump CNN – celebrating after a long day of watching the House impeach the president liberals loathe.

It wasn’t well received.

Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale called the tweet another example of media bias on open display.

And media professionals agreed.

Shortly after publishing the offensive post, Bade took it down, with an explanation that bordered on unbelievable. There was nothing wrong with the post itself, it seemed, just that it had been “misinterpreted.”

“I’m deleting a tweeting tonight that is being misinterpreted by some as an endorsement of some kind,” Bade wrote. “To be absolutely clear, we at the Post are merely glad we are getting a break for the holidays after a long 3 months. I will retweet the group photo w/ a better caption!”


Even if that were true, it wouldn’t take a lot of thinking to realize there are better ways to explain being relieved that a long story is finally over.

For someone who makes a living creating words, after all, a little clarity on that score wouldn’t seem that difficult.

It also shouldn’t have taken a lot of brainpower to realize exactly how a Twitter post of journalists from an openly anti-Trump news organization — who make regular appearances on an avowedly anti-Trump “news” network — wishing readers a “merry impeachment” would be taken by the public.

This Twitter post from KTTV reporter Bill Melugin summed it up pretty well.

Anyone who’s worked in a newsroom knows that even honest journalism breeds its own kind of dark humor — a kind that generally won’t translate well into the normal world. But even accepting the weak explanation at face value — that the drinks were a harmless celebration — it’s difficult to see how anyone who wasn’t utterly self-absorbed couldn’t predict how a tweet like this would go over.

And the anti-Trump track record of media outlets like The Washington Post and CNN don’t exactly engender trust — which makes the apparent surprise that the tweet was “misinterpreted” absurd.

The Trump impeachment was a disturbing day in American history, it could likely be a disaster for the Democratic Party in the polls. But those WaPo reporters — and CNN analysts — were out, to all appearances, celebrating what they saw as a setback to the president Democrats despise.

And they now expect Americans to believe that it was nothing of the kind.

Clearly, it doesn’t take a lot of critical thinking to be a Capitol Hill reporter.

Author: Joe Saunders

Source: Western Journal: WaPo and CNN Journalists Show True Colors with ‘Merry Impeachment’ Tweet, Give Absurd Explanation

All the Democratic buzzwords disappeared — and Kimberley Strassel thinks she knows why.

Since September, the air on Capitol Hill and liberal cable networks has been full of Democratic jargon aimed at sliming President Donald Trump:

“Quid pro quo,” “bribery,” “extortion.”

But when it came time for actual articles of impeachment, Nancy Pelosi & Co. settled on the much more amorphous terms of “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.”

To Strassel that means one thing: They are trying to protect Joe Biden, the party’s current front-runner for its presidential nomination.

The watering down of the accusations might have been surprising. After all, it was only last week that the odious Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told NPR: “I don’t think there’s any question that the uncontested facts show this president solicited a bribe.”

But putting the accusation into an actual article of impeachment could have led to uncomfortably close questions for former Vice President Biden and his own behavior when it came to Ukraine when he was point man on the country for the Obama administration.

“It suddenly occurred to some members of the Democratic Party that that incredibly widespread definition — this very broad definition that they had to manufacture in order to ensnare Donald Trump in it — could ensnare, for instance, their own front-runner for the Democratic nomination,” Strassel, The Wall Street Journal columnist and Fox contributor, said on Fox Nation’s “Reality Check” on Tuesday.

Check it out here:

“This is a problem because if you’re going to define bribery the way Adam Schiff was defining it over the last couple of weeks, where it’s supposedly anytime you asked for anything that could help you politically, you’ve engaged in bribery, well, of course Joe Biden is guilty of the exact same thing. In fact, half of Washington probably engaged in an act like that yesterday,” Strassel said.

Strassel didn’t elaborate, but she could well have been referring to Biden’s boast in 2018 about a 2016 encounter he had with Ukraine officials where he demanded that a federal prosecutor be fired before Ukraine could receive $1 billion in loan guarantees. The prosecutor had investigated a company where Biden’s son, Hunter, enjoyed a lucrative position.

“Now instead, we get this watered-down abuse-of-power charge, which is equally mystifying, in that it’s not even attached or related to any statute that I know of,” Strassel said.

The nebulous charges might be mystifying, but the rationale for avoiding anything more serious like “bribery” is fairly obvious.

Charging the president with bribery would mean Democrats would have to prove it in a Senate trial.

And that would open the door to all kinds of questions about what was happening in Ukraine when Biden’s son, Hunter, was being paid $50,000 a month to serve on the board of Burisma Holdings, an energy company that did business in a field where he had no experience and whose language he didn’t even speak.

And with Biden as the only candidate for the Democratic nomination who comes across as even halfway palatable to many of the Democratic Party’s own voters, much less to the general electorate, Democrats know they can ill afford to smear him in the Trump character assassination.

Plenty of social media users saw the point, too:

Strassel is one of the few Washington reporters — like John Solomon, formerly of The Hill — who does not toe the Democratic line when it comes to covering the Trump administration.

She’s established a solid record of journalism in a time and place where reporters and once-reputable news outlets have disgraced a once-proud profession by becoming shills for the liberal agenda, and knee-jerk opponents of the Trump White House.

The rest of the national media might be infatuated with the seemingly weighty words in the “abuse of power” accusation, but Strassel took note of the words — like “bribery” — that were no longer being used so much.

And she knew why.

Author: Joe Saunders

Source: Western Journal: WSJ Columnist: Democrats Tailored Trump Impeachment Charges To Protect Joe Biden

One day, Rep. Adam Schiff may come to symbolize the Washington swamp.

He’s been the main ringmaster of the “impeachment inquiry” circus attacking President Donald Trump in the nation’s Capitol.

He failed to fully disclose his staff’s contact with the “whistleblower” who helped spark that inquiry.

And now, according to Breitbart, it turns out Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee has at least two staffers with ties to a think tank partially funded by Burisma Holdings — the Urkraine energy company that paid an obscene amount of money to Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, mainly while Biden was the Obama administration’s point man for Ukraine policy.

And one of those staffers is reportedly a friend of Eric Ciaramella, the man suspected of being the “whistleblower” behind the whole impeachment effort.

According to a Breitbart report Tuesday, Intelligence Committee staffer Sean Misko signed on with the Democrat-run panel in August, about the time the “whistleblower” filed a complaint with the intelligence community inspector general about a phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.

According to Breitbart, Misko in 2015 was a “millennium fellow” for the Atlantic Council, a think tank partially funded by Burisma Holdings, which has become infamous for its connection to Hunter Biden.

Burisma paid Hunter Biden a $50,000 per month salary to serve on its board from April 2014 to April 2019.

Misko is the second Intelligence Committee staffer to have ties to the Atlantic Council, according to Breitbart. Thomas Eager, another member of the Intelligence Committee staff, is currently a fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Congressional Fellowship, a program that “educates staff on current events in the Eurasia region.”

And just to dig a little bit deeper into the swamp:

During the 2016 election year, according to Breitbart, other funders of the Atlantic Council included Google, liberal billionaire George Soros’ Open Society network, and the law firm of Perkins Coie, which represented the Hillary Clinton campaign in hiring Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that produced the Steele dossier. Small world, huh?

In October, Breitbart reported that Eager was part of an Atlantic Council trip to Ukraine in August that included a meeting with acting Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, who in November was a key witness in Schiff’s impeachment hearings.

That trip took place 10 days after the “whistleblower” complaint was filed, Breitbart reported.

If that wasn’t all chummy enough, it sounds like Misko and Eric Ciaramella, the suspected “whistleblower,” were on very friendly terms, according to Breitbart.

Before working for the House Intelligence Committee, Misko was the director for the Gulf States at the National Security Council from 2015 to mid-2018, according to the Washington Examiner.

At the time, Ciaramella, who is now an analyst with the CIA, was also a part of the NSC.

The men had “had similarly antagonistic attitudes toward the Trump administration and were witnessed by a former National Security Council official, like Ciaramella, a nonpolitical appointee, to frequently be around one another,” the Washington Examiner reported.

So, Schiff has already acknowledged that his staff’s contacts with the so-called “whistleblower” were closer than he let on.

If Ciamarella really is the “whistleblower” — and attorneys for the “whistleblower” have never denied it — then it sounds like those contacts were closer than previously reported.

“My understanding was that they were friendly with one another,” a former NSC official, described as “senior” to Ciaremella, told the Washington Examiner. “They would walk around the halls. Get lunch together and stuff like that.”

He told the Examiner they were “very much cut from the same cloth,” and their friendship was “bro-like.”

So, this sham of an impeachment inquiry was not only sparked by a complaint from a “whistleblower” based on second-hand information, but it is also being handled by a staff with at least two members who have ties to a think tank financially supported by a company at the heart of an important part of the whole affair.

And to top it all off, one of those staffers could well have a “bro-like” friendship with the “whistleblower” that includes shared “antagonistic attitudes toward the Trump administration.”

Who’s playing a leading role in all of this?

None other than the odious Adam Schiff.

It’s practically a picture of the Washington “swamp” in action — and exactly the kind of swamp Donald Trump was elected to drain.

Author: Joe Saunders

Source: Western Journal: 2nd Schiff Committee Staffer Linked to Think Tank Funded by Burisma: Report

It’s been pretty clear for years now that Donald Trump has driven liberals crazy, but a CNN segment over the weekend put an end to any doubt.

CNN’s Brian Stelter, a man who hosts the laughably named “Reliable Sources” program, trotted out a former Moonie and author to regale his viewers with “proof” that President Trump is not only leading a cult, but that he’s exercising “mind control” over his followers in the process.

On an intelligence scale, it was about on par with Stelter’s usual anti-Trump drivel, and peddling ideas about Republican shortcomings is pretty much a standard of CNN programming.

But for a look at the sheer hypocrisy of what passes for liberal politics in the Trump era, it was a standout.

Because while virtually nothing author Steven Hassan and Stelter said about Trump and his supporters was true, it all sounded a lot like former President Barack Obama’s hold on liberals and the Democratic Party.

“So, I define a destructive cult as an authoritarian pyramid-structured group with someone at the top who claims to have total power and total wisdom that uses the deception and control of behavior, information, thoughts, and emotions to make people loyal and dependent and obedient followers,” Hassan said.

Trump uses a form of “mind control,” he said.

Check it out here:

For anyone who remembers the creepy rise of Obama from his post as the junior senator from Illinois to being called an “enlightened being” and “Lightworker” in 2008, it sounded vaguely familiar.

For those who recall the hagiographic coverage of the 44th president by the supposedly mainstream media — the rainbow halo on the cover of Newsweek in 2012, the controversial “halo” picture published by The Associated Press in 2015 — it rang a bell.

But what it didn’t sound anything like was how Trump supporters actually see the president.

No matter what liberals like The Washington Post’s Trump-hating Eugene Robertson might write, CNN’s talking heads like Stelter might say, or ex-Moonies might pontificate about, the vast majority of Trump supporters are far more grounded than the Democrats who were in thrall to Barack Obama.

They’re more realistic than the followers of any of the clown car candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination, and when it comes to the party’s far-left wing of lemmings behind the likes of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, it’s not even close.

No doubt with an eye toward ruining Thanksgiving dinners across the fruited plain, Stelter, of course, actually asked Hassan, “what’s the first step of deprogramming” a Donald Trump supporter.

“Cult leaders want to isolate their people,” Hassan answered. “They want — they want family and friends to just disappear rather than keep engaged.”

He recommended conversation starters like, “Hey, did you read this article? What do you think of it? You know, I’ll watch one of your shows, watch one of my shows.”

“In other words, appealing to the person’s true self, their authentic self, that wants to be a good person, that wants — that believes in America and democracy and truth,” he said.

“For the people who are dreading Thanksgiving, you’re saying it’s an opportunity to get together?” Stelter asked.

“Exactly,” Hassan answered. “Let’s — we’re family. We’re friends, let’s talk. And you know, truth will come out. Truth will stand up to scrutiny.”

There’s not a Trump supporter who would disagree with him.

The truth is that the economy is roaring under the Trump presidency (unlike the malaise of the Obama years.)

The truth is that unemployment rates are at or near historic lows, including for blacks and Hispanics.

The truth is that Democrats who’ve pursued Trump since his upset win in 2016 are embroiled in an impeachment fight that is dividing the country for literally no good reason beyond political rancor.

It’s not Republicans who’ve been acting irrationally during the Trump presidency, and it’s not conservatives who are prone to falling into lockstep obedience behind a charismatic figure.

Trump supporters supported Trump in the election because of what he promised. They’ve kept supporting him because of what he’s delivering.

And he’s been roundly vilified in the news media, in Hollywood and in academia.

In short, it’s exactly the opposite of the Obama years, but for CNN, that makes Trump a cult leader?

Even for liberal hypocrisy during the Trump era, it was astonishing.

Author: Joe Saunders

Source: Western Journal: CNN Peddles Idea That Trump Supporters Are Under ‘Mind Control’ and Stuck in a ‘Destructive Cult’

Who says civility is dead?

President Donald Trump’s re-election team put partisanship aside (and tongue firmly in cheek) with a tweet Wednesday congratulating Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden on the latest apparent addition to his family.

As first reported by The Western Journal, a DNA test has shown that Biden’s son, Hunter, is the father of a 1-year-old child born to an Arkansas woman, according to the woman’s attorney.

Lunden Roberts, 28, is a former college basketball player. While living in Washington, she had an intimate relationship with Hunter Biden, said her attorney, Clinton Lancaster of the Lancaster Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas.

“There is a Biden in Arkansas,” Lancaster told The Western Journal. “Ms. Roberts wants Mr. Biden to support his child. … We want people to do the right thing.”

Lancaster filed a motion with the results in an Arkansas court on Wednesday, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported.

If Hunter Biden truly is the father, the child’s age indicates the vice president’s son was involved with Roberts at the same time he was in a relationship with Hallie Biden, the widow of his brother, Beau.

Considering that Biden’s relationship with his deceased brother’s widow came at the cost of his own marriage, that didn’t sit well with some social media commenters.

Hunter Biden, 49, is currently married to Melissa Cohen, a South African woman he knew for only 10 days before tying the knot in May, according to the New York Post’s Page Six.

There were plenty of other comments, too — many of them referencing the now-infamous $50,000-a-month job Hunter Biden landed on the board of the Ukraine energy company Burisma Holdings while his father was only a heartbeat away from becoming president of the United States.

Now, on a serious note, it’s important to remember that the birth of a baby is always good news, and children aren’t responsible for how they’re brought into the world.

If Hunter Biden is the father, he owes it to the child, to the child’s mother and to himself to provide every means of support.

But he’s shown a special talent for embarrassing himself — and embarrassing his father to the point of potentially endangering the former vice president’s bid for the top job.

“We want people to do the right thing,” Lancaster told The Western Journal.

Neither Joe Biden, in his long career in Democratic politics, nor Hunter Biden, in a lifetime supported by his father’s fame, has given the country much reason for hope in that regard.

It’s not uncivil to point that out.

Author: Joe Saunders

Source: Western Journal: Team Trump Trolls Joe Biden over Hunter Biden Paternity Bombshell

Call it a split decision — but President Donald Trump is in the lead.

A poll of voters in six states sure to play a key role in the 2020 presidential election showed Americans oppose Trump’s impeachment and removal from office by a margin of 52 to 44 percent.

That would be a clear win for Team Trump except for another part of the poll, which showed that by the same 52-44 percent margin, voters approve of an “impeachment inquiry,” which the House voted to approve on Thursday.

Finally, when given the option of either supporting or opposing both the impeachment inquiry and impeachment itself, those opposed were ahead by a slight 1 percent of the vote (a statistical tie, given the 1.7 margin of error).

But contradictory as it is, The New York Times Upshot/Sienna College poll could well be a good sign for the White House.

First of all, just look at the numbers.

The poll questioned voters in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. On the topic of removing the president from office, solid majorities of 51 to 53 percent were opposed.

On the topic of the inquiry, the numbers were similar in support, but it’s important to remember that they include those who support the inquiry but not Trump’s removal from office. In other words, that percentage was padded.

Finally, when voters were given the option of either opposing or supporting either impeachment or the impeachment inquiry the numbers were almost equal — 42 percent opposed to 41 percent. Eight percent were opposed to Trump’s removal while supporting the inquiry. (An additional 9 percent came under the heading of “other.”)

Obviously, a lot is going to depend on how the Democrats — under the leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff handle themselves as it progresses. But that doesn’t bode well for the liberals.

Given the fact that the ham-handed way Democrats have tried to railroad Trump is about to come out from behind the closed doors of Schiff’s Star Chamber, it’s a good bet public support will start building for Trump before too long. Schiff is the kind of Democrat that can make Elizabeth Warren look cozy.

Now, look at the source. The New York Times is one of the most virulently anti-Trump news organizations in the United States. If the best it can come up with is a solid majority opposed to removing Trump from office, and reasonable support for the Democrats’ inquiry, it’s almost a given that Trump’s support is stronger than is being portrayed.

It was The New York Times, remember, that was predicting a Hillary Clinton win on Nov. 8, 2016, with an 85 percent certainty rate.

In a news release, Siena College Poll Director Dan Levy said the poll showed the percentage of the country that will likely be deciding the fate of the Trump presidency next year.

“These six states – Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — deserve the name ‘battleground,’” he said in the release.

“Across the six states, 41 percent of all voters support both the inquiry, and impeaching and removing Trump from office, while 42 percent oppose both the House probe and impeaching and removing the President.

“The remaining 17 percent, including about 8 percent of all battleground voters that support the inquiry while currently opposing impeachment and removal, may ultimately decide the next election.”

The poll was taken Oct. 13-26, according to the Sienna College news release, long before Thursday’s sharply divided vote in the House.

Judging by the evidence that has been leaked out of the closed-door hearings so far, the case Democrats are trying to build against Trump over his dealings with Ukraine looks like a reprise of their spectacular failure with the Russia “collusion” investigation.

Remember those Democratic hopes that then special counsel Robert Mueller’s appearance in Congress was going to turn the tide of American public opinion against Trump?

It didn’t happen then. And, considering poll numbers, Democrats could have an even rougher road ahead of them now. Given their recent history, it’s not looking good.

Author: Joe Saunders

Source: Western Journal: Battleground Poll Shows Voters in Critical States Oppose Trump’s Removal from Office

He still doesn’t enough savoir faire.

If Democrats and the establishment media want to see a Republican rebellion against President Donald Trump, they’d like nothing better than for Utah Sen. Mitt Romney to be leading it.

When he was challenging President Barack Obama in 2012, Romney was an object of hatred for Democrats — a supposed racist trying to defeat the country’s first black president.

In the era of Trump, though, Romney is billed as a courageous Republican — just the kind of guy to take on the man in the White House.

Unfortunately for liberal fantasies, a recent Rasmussen poll of Republicans finds precious little support for the Romney, according to The Washington Times.

And that was even before Americans knew about Romney’s secret identity.

In a survey taken Oct. 15 and 16, Rasmussen found that 63 percent of likely Republican voters think the party should be “more like Trump than like Romney,” the newspaper reported Wednesday.

The numbers were basically the same as those found in a January poll, The Times reported, which means Romney’s 10 months in the Senate and the accompanying fawning media coverage hadn’t given him any traction in the party he claims to be a part of.

American Republicans got a look at a hitherto undiscovered part of Romney’s personality this week, when Slate and The Atlantic revealed that Romney was the man behind a Twitter account using the made-for-The-Onion name of Pierre Delecto.

There’s no telling yet how that embarrassing bit of information has affected Romney’s popularity, but if a smattering of social media responses to the poll’s findings are any indication, it didn’t do him any good at all.

The poll hasn’t gotten much play at all, but considering the results that’s hardly surprising. If the numbers were reversed, or even somewhat close, it’s a solid bet that the establishment media would be touting the threat the “Romney wing” of the Republican Party poses to Trump.

No end of column inches and airtime would be given to how the poll could affect the anemic challenges of former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, or former Reps. Joe Walsh and Mark Sanford.

But the reality is the Mitt Romney who challenged Obama seven years ago long ago broke his ties to the mainstream of today’s Republican Party.

There’s no doubt Romney would have been a better president for the United States in 2012 — if nothing else, the country would have been spared the final four years of the Obama presidency, and the utter ineptitude and arrogance that helped give rise to the Islamic State group, signed a disastrous deal with the mullahs of Iran, and continued a period of economic stagnation that didn’t lift until Trump won the White House.

Romney’s return to public office in the Senate this year was marked even before it began by his arrogant, antagonistic column in The Washington Post that attacked Trump’s character. (Considering Trump had endorsed Romney’s Senate bid, it said more about Romney than it did about Trump.)

In almost a year since, he’s only worsened his relations with the White House and Trump supporters.

Republicans backed Mitt Romney in 2012 because he was the best defense against the lunacy Democrats were throwing at the country. He lost.

A politician with an ounce of class would at least return the favor in 2019 and 2020, when the lunacy the Democrats are throwing is even worse.

But Romney clearly intends to be done with the Republican Party as long as Trump is president.

There are a good many Republicans, the Rasmussen poll shows, who apparently feel the same way about Romney.

It might be time to say “au revoir,” Pierre.

Author: Joe Saunders

Source: Western Journal: Landslide Poll Shows Republicans Want Party To Be More Like Trump Than Romney

Conservatives disgusted by the daily doses of propaganda from American mainstream media outlets might sometimes think the networks wouldn’t tell the truth if you paid them to.

When it comes to CNN, as it turns out, that’s literally true.

The liberal network is refusing to air an advertisement from President Donald Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign because it describes the kind of coercion Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden used on the government of Ukraine while he was vice president.

And it describes CNN personalities such as Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo as “lapdogs” to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Oddly enough, the network is claiming there’s something about the spot that isn’t true.

From a factual viewpoint, there’s not much to argue with here.

As anyone who’s been following the current controversy over Trump’s dealings with Ukraine knows by now, Biden actually bragged to an audience on camera that in 2016, while he was vice president in the Barack Obama administration, he linked $1 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine getting rid of a prosecutor who was investigating a Ukraine energy company that had Biden’s son Hunter on its payroll at an obscene salary of $50,000 a month.

Also, in the now-infamous July 25 telephone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump sought his counterpart’s help in looking into potential corruption, both involving Ukraine officials and the events surrounding the 2016 presidential election that swept Trump into office.

(It’s true the word “corruption” doesn’t appear in the transcript of the phone call released by the White House, but it’s hard to argue that “corruption” doesn’t cover what Trump is describing.)

And as the world knows by now, of course, the Democrats are, in fact, trying to impeach Trump.

Still, CNN is declining to run the ad.

“CNN is rejecting the ad, as it does not meet our advertising standards,” a CNN representative said, according to The Daily Beast. “Specifically, in addition to disparaging CNN and its journalists, the ad makes assertions that have been proven demonstrably false by various news outlets, including CNN.”

Well, there are no assertions that have been “proven demonstrably false” by CNN or anyone else.

So what CNN likely is objecting to is its employees being referred to as Democrats’ “media lapdogs.” The ad features video of CNN’s Jim Acosta, Cuomo and Lemon as well as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. (Fox News’ Shepard Smith somehow didn’t make the cut.)

Simply put, if the network didn’t wish its biggest names to be referred to as “lapdogs” of the nation’s opposition party, it would behoove its executives not to allow their biggest names to behave like Democratic lapdogs.

Tim Murtaugh, the Trump 2020 communications director, fired back at CNN in a statement, according to The Daily Beast.

“CNN spends all day protecting Joe Biden in their programming, so it’s not surprising that they’re shielding him from truthful advertising too, and then talking to other media outlets about it,” Murtaugh said.

“Our ad is entirely accurate and was reviewed by counsel, and CNN wouldn’t even describe to us what they found objectionable,” he said. “This isn’t a cable news channel anymore, it’s a Democrat public relations firm.”

As The Daily Beast noted, it’s not the first time CNN has rejected an ad from the Trump White House. In May 2017, it turned down another spot celebrating Trump’s first 100 days in office, because it called mainstream media outlets “fake news.”

So, it’s happened before, and it’s likely to happen again.

In fact, Deadline reported Thursday afternoon that CNN had rejected a second Trump campaign ad.

“The spot, ‘Coup,’ attacked the whistleblower process as a ‘coup,’” the report said. “It features a clip of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Fox News claiming that the complaint is based on a hearsay and that it is a ‘set up.’ ‘It’s nothing short of a coup and it must be stopped,’ a narrator says.”

Hard as it might be to believe, there’s still more than a year to go before the 2020 election, but the marker CNN put down with this decision is tough to miss.

It is willing to forgo money from Trump’s re-election team. And it’s shameless enough to cite utterly spurious grounds to justify keeping the president’s messages from getting out in situations where it has the power to do so.

In the end, though, CNN is just proving what conservatives have long suspected.

The network wouldn’t tell the truth if you paid it.

Author: Joe Saunders

Source: Western Journal: CNN Refuses To Run Trump Re-Election Ad That Hammers Biden on Ukraine Situation

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!