Author

Joe Saunders

Browsing

Leftist filmmaker Michael Moore has seen this movie before – and it doesn’t end well for Democrats.

The Michigan native and outspoken liberal, who predicted then-candidate Donald Trump would win the presidency in 2016, is raising the alarm for his fellow travelers again – citing polls in battleground states and noting that the Biden campaign doesn’t have Michigan on its list of stops yet.

“Are you ready for a Trump victory?” Moore wrote in a Facebook post on Friday. “Are you mentally prepared to be outsmarted by Trump again?”

“Sorry to have to provide the reality check again, but when CNN polled registered voters in August in just the swing states, Biden and Trump were in a virtual tie,” Moore wrote. “In Minnesota, it’s 47-47. In Michigan, where Biden had a big lead, Trump has closed the gap to 4 points.

“Are you ready for a Trump victory? Are you mentally prepared to be outsmarted by Trump again? Do you find comfort in your certainty that there is no way Trump can win? Are you content with the trust you’ve placed in the DNC to pull this off? The Biden campaign just announced he’ll be visiting a number of states— but not Michigan. Sound familiar? I’m warning you almost 10 weeks in advance.”

And he noted one huge difference between Trump supporters and likely Biden voters.

“The enthusiasm level for the 60 million in Trump’s base is OFF THE CHARTS!” Moore wrote.

Moore’s warning should sound familiar.

In 2016, he was virtually alone among supporters of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton who foresaw the defeat that was coming her way.

In a memorable speech from Moore’s documentary “TrumpLand,” released just before the election, as Breitbart reported at the time, Moore predicted a Trump victory.

“Whether Trump means it or not is kind of irrelevant because he’s saying the things to people who are hurting. And it’s why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump,” Moore told an audience in the film, as Breitbart reported.

“He is the human Molotov cocktail that they’ve been waiting for,” Moore added. “The human hand grenade that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them …

“So on November 8th, the dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot, close the curtain and take that lever, or felt pen, or touch screen and put a big f*cking X in the box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system that has ruined their lives: Donald J. Trump.

“Trump’s election is going to be the biggest ‘F*ck you’ ever recorded in human history,” Moore said. “And it will feel good.”

Moore’s warning went largely unheeded then – Trump’s victory in the early morning of Nov. 9, 2016, left the political world stunned.

On Sunday, Moore took to Twitter to emphasize his latest warning for liberals, listing a series of poll results that show former Vice President Joe Biden with a lead over the president — but with an important caveat:

Biden’s leads are smaller now than Clinton’s were at this point in 2016.

Coming out of last week’s Republican National Convention – The Morning Consult reported Saturday that polls show Trump cutting into Biden’s lead — Moore wasn’t the only prominent liberal to be worried about the election.

On Friday, HBO’s Bill Maher, an occasionally unorthodox voice in the liberal commentariat, also expressed concerns about Biden’s potential, according to Fox News.

“I am feeling less confident about this — maybe it’s just their convention bump got to me, but I’m feeling less confident than I was a month ago,” Maher said on “Real Time with Bill Maher.” “I feel very nervous, the same way I did four years ago at this time.”

Author: Joe Saunders

Source: Western Journal: Leftist Activist Michael Moore Says Trump Is on Course To Send Biden Down in Defeat in November

When it comes to ambitious Democrats, nothing is written in stone.

Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth took Democratic hypocrisy to new heights over the Fourth of July weekend when she seemed open to the possibility of getting rid of Mount Rushmore, with its 60-foot-high images of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.

But a 5-year-old Twitter post shows Duckworth hasn’t always felt that way. Funny how being a potential vice presidential pick can change a person’s mind.

During an interview with Duckworth on Sunday’s “State of the Union” on CNN, host Dana Bash asked the senator, according to a CNN transcript, if she supported tearing down statues of George Washington because the father of the country was a slave owner.

Such statues would presumably include the four-story likeness of Washington carved into the side of a mountain in South Dakota — and Duckworth’s answer made it clear she had that at least partially in mind. She framed the response as a reply to President Donald Trump’s speech at Mount Rushmore on Friday, during a visit that had been demonized by Democrats.

If even liberal Democrats could put aside politics for a moment, they might find the president’s speech was a deeply moving tribute to the men and women who built this country. But that’s not what Democrats do.

“I think we should listen to everybody. I think we should listen to the argument there,” she said.

“But remember that the president at Mount Rushmore was standing on ground that was stolen from Native Americans who had actually been given that land during a treaty.”

Those are pretty strong words about an American president and an American monument, and they fit the Democratic iconoclasm of the moment.

But Duckworth apparently felt considerably different about Mount Rushmore in 2015, when she posted a Fourth of July tweet just brimming with patriotic enthusiasm and a vow to visit the monument.

That was before Duckworth got elected to the Senate from the Land of Lincoln in 2016. And it was obviously long before she was being considered in the field of contenders as a running mate for the hyper-woke yet pitifully doddering Joe Biden of 2020.

Back then, Duckworth had to impress voters with her love of country — which shouldn’t have been difficult for a former Army combat pilot who lost both legs when her Black Hawk helicopter was shot down by an enemy rocket-propelled grenade over Iraq in 2004.

Now, however, she apparently has a different mission — to impress Biden and the leftists who’ve taken over the Democratic Party that she’s spiteful enough about her nation’s history to suit even the Black Lives Matter activists and assorted malcontents driving the party’s agenda in this election year.

The blowback was fierce.

As some social media users pointed out, Biden himself has tried to differentiate between statues of Founding Fathers such as Washington and Jefferson (which he thinks should be protected, according to Newsweek) and those of Confederate figures (which he apparently thinks should be left to the lawless mercy of the lawless mob).

Still, Duckworth knows the audience she’s playing to is bigger than Biden.

As The Washington Post noted in an article published Sunday (headline: “Duckworth emerging as a contender to be Biden’s running mate”), she already checks off the necessary boxes on the Democratic VP list — she’s a woman, she’s “of color” (she has Thai and Chinese heritage through her mother), and as a bonus, she’s a military veteran and a Purple Heart recipient, which could at least provide some cover to the Democrats’ radical left.

But she needs to convince the increasingly restive Democratic activist base, the statue topplers, the Black Lives Matter radicals and the rest of the disaffected rabble that she’s a fitting partner on the Democratic ticket in 2020.

And she needs Biden and the long-term care nursing team that’s managing his campaign to know they know it, too.

If that means she has to accept the smearing of the Founding Fathers, if it means she has to be open to the idea of getting ride of images of American heroes carved into a mountain and expected to last forever, then so be it.

Because when it comes to an ambitious Democrat in 2020, nothing is set in stone.

Author: Joe Saunders

Source: Western Journal: Biden VP Contender’s Hypocrisy Exposed: She Loved Mt. Rushmore Until Trump Went There

Democrats who’ve spent the past month salivating as mobs attacked symbols of American history might want to think about the rocks heading for their own glass house.

As much as hypocrites like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi won’t face it, their own party’s legacy of “systemic racism” — the literal kind that includes brutal slavery and Jim Crow segregation — makes it a prime candidate for the kind of ahistorical purge they’re cheering on.

And a resolution Monday night by the Republican Party of Connecticut’s central committee is calling them on it.

The resolution came the same day that a Christopher Columbus statue in the Nutmeg State’s capital of Hartford was removed because, according to The Associated Press, critics portrayed him as a “as a symbol of white supremacy.”

But as the Connecticut GOP’s resolution made abundantly clear, as symbols of white supremacy go, Columbus had nothing on the American Democratic Party.

In a long and historically accurate recitation, the resolution noted that it was the Democratic Party that:

  • Was the driving force behind the Confederacy’s secession from the Union — to protect the institution of slavery;
  • Tried desperately to block the “Reconstruction Amendments” to the Constitution, which were written to ensure the slaves freed by the Civil War had full rights of citizenship;
  • Were behind the organized terror of the Ku Klux Klan in the Civil War’s aftermath and instituted the rigid segregation of the Jim Crow era.
  • Was opposed to the civil rights movement even into post-World War II America.

“If we are to hold Christopher Columbus accountable for over 500 years after the fact, it’s our duty and our moral obligation to hold the Democratic Party accountable,‘’ state Republican Party Chairman J.R. Romano said during a Zoom call Monday morning, according to the Hartford Courant.

Well, yes.

As conservative radio host and author Mark Levin pointed out during a June 11 broadcast, the Democratic Party is practically synonymous with the oppression of black Americans in the United States.

“If we are to purge all vestiges of slavery and racism, it seems to me the most obvious target must be the Democrat Party. It stood for slavery and segregation and birthed the KKK,” he said.

“Any sporadically redeeming policies of the more recent past are of no relevance. It’s in that party’s DNA, as they say.”

Even into the 21st century, Levin noted, Democrats held a place of reference for the now-late Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, a former Ku Klux Klansman who held the post of “Exalted Cyclops” in the racist group before he left it in the late 1940s.

It’s true that by the time of his death in 2010, Byrd had renounced his Klan past. But considering the civil rights revolution in American society that had taken place over the preceding 50 years — a revolution he had fought along with the rest of his party in its first decades, it’s unlikely Byrd would have served in the Senate for decades if he hadn’t outwardly changed his tune.

In short, his conversion — whatever its sincerity — was remarkably useful to his political career.

The current Democratic Party, which had good reason to worry at the start of this year about the possibility it might not amass its usual huge majority of black voters to try to unseat President Donald Trump in November, is in a similar situation with its pandering submissiveness to the Black Lives Matter movement.

In a remarkable public relations sleight of hand, abetted by a sympathetic mainstream media, the party that truly represents centuries of literal “systemic racism” — racism written into law and enforced with the lash — has managed to cast its political opponents, the party literally founded on abolishing slavery, as the enemies of equality.

And all of this without a blemish to the “Democratic Party” brand.

That’s what makes the Connecticut GOP’s resolution so in-your-face newsworthy.

It’s about time the party that preaches so loudly about the United States’ failure to live up to the lofty ideals of the founding gets called to account for its own past.

The idea had plenty of support on social media:

It got some jokes, too:

And this one had some reminders that the Democratic Party’s sins are far from confined to the past:

Democrats have controlled the nation’s largest cities for decades, and the results of their misrule are apparent for anyone to see.

Inner-city public schools are the creatures of Democrat-supporting teachers’ unions, and disasters for educating students — many, sometimes most, of them black.

Unwed motherhood, a virtual guarantee of poverty, as a Heritage Foundation report noted in 2012, is rampant in the black community after decades of Democratic government programs. (According to a Center for Immigration Studies report in 2017, an astounding 77 percent of American black babies were born to unmarried women).

Even Democratic claims about being concerned about “police brutality” ring hollow in the knowledge that the police departments where incidents take place are almost always run by Democratic officials (who infuriate police with their backstabbing).

None of that is important to Democrats — and they hope none of it is important to voters.

As recently as the 1970s, then-Sen. Joe Biden, the former vice president who’s amassed enough votes to secure the party’s presidential nomination against Trump in November, was working with openly segregationist Democrats in the Senate to advance his own career.

If summer 2020 is a time when progressives are going to demand the country answer for its past problems, it’s well past time for Democrats to start answering for their own hypocrisy.

And they could start by dropping a name that’s been irredeemably disgraced.

The mobs on the streets have been hitting symbols of America’s past while Democrats cheered.

One of these days, those same mobs might get around to the Democrats’ disgraceful past too, as well as the party’s disgraceful present.

As the rampant looting that followed the protests over the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis showed, glass houses don’t stand up to riots very well.

Author: Joe Saunders

Source: Western Journal: Official Resolution Calls for Democratic Party To Change Name Over Racist Past

This is the kind of logic liberals are afraid of.

But it’s exactly the kind of clear thinking Americans need to hear at a time when the country’s fundamental values are being challenged by mobs in the street.

Because a black scholar is challenging one of the fundamental claims being made by rioters and their mainstream media propaganda artists.

In an interview with conservative talk show host Mark Levin, Kentucky State University political science professor Wilfred Reilly brought cold numbers into the heated debate over alleged “systemic racism” in the United States.

And going by the numbers, Reilly said, the allegations just don’t add up.

Reilly is clearly under no illusions about the country’s past — no one who can read or has even a passing acquaintance with American history can deny that racism has played a disgraceful role in many, many ways — but he’s talking about the contemporary United States, more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In particular, the professor has a problem with the idea of “systemic racism” that leftists from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to violent protesters in the streets are claiming afflicts modern American society.

In the interview recorded for Fox News’ “Life, Liberty and Levin” on Sunday night, he used one of the country’s biggest sports to illustrate his points.

“Obviously, if we want to be honest about some of this country’s history, there have been systems like criminal sentencing where until quite recently, you did see discrimination at kind of a broad, group-targeted level,” Reilly said.

“But very often this phrase simply means there is a difference in performance between two groups [that] ‘we’re going to attribute to racism.’”

As an example of that performance difference, Reilly cited the National Basketball Association, a league where the majority of players are black in a country where African-Americans make up only about 13.4 percent of the population, according to the Census Bureau.

“I don’t think any serious person would believe that [is] because white jocks just don’t get a fair shake in American society,” Reilly told Levin.

“The reason is that there’s what you might call a cultural variable.

“African-Americans play basketball more, and so, on average, at the median, with all due respect to the Hick from French Lick [Boston Celtics legend Larry Bird], we’re better at it.”

Check out the interview here:

The NBA wasn’t Reilly’s only argument, of course.

He also took aim at some of the left’s most common tropes, such as the fact that black Americans have more confrontations with police officers.

Since the black population has a higher rate of violent crime — crimes where the victims are black as well as the perpetrators — it stands to reason there’s going to be more police interaction, Reilly said.

Prosecutions for white-collar crime target white Americans, Reilly said. (Does that mean the Securities and Exchange Commission is biased against whites?)

No thinking American can deny that there is a history of discrimination against black people in the United States, but we’re living in the here and now, and the country is being judged today by the actions of the past.

Now, more than 150 years after the end of a Civil War to eradicate slavery, more than six decades after the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, decades where affirmative action became part of the social fabric — however rightly or wrongly — those accusations don’t stand up to the cold light of logic.

The death of George Floyd while in the custody of the Minneapolis police doesn’t change that — no matter how much pointless rioting and lawless looting it spawned.

But logic and liberalism don’t go well together.

And when it’s logic coming from a black scholar such as Reilly or Shelby Steele or Thomas Sowell, it’s exactly the kind of thing liberals are afraid of.

Author: Joe Saunders

Source: Western Journal: Black Scholar Points to NBA To Prove Libs Are Wrong About ‘Systemic Racism’

Even Joe Biden should know better than this.

The man who’s spent the past three months in the basement, trying to convince his fellow citizens that he deserves to be president of the United States, seems to think the rest of the country isn’t aware of the coronavirus crisis that crashed a booming American economy starting earlier this year.

But not even Democrats can be this dumb.

A campaign video Biden tweeted on Thursday includes a series of depressing images documenting how badly economic lockdowns caused by fears of COVID-19 have affected ordinary Americans. It openly tries to blame President Donald Trump for a catastrophe every sentient human knows came from a foreign country and exploded in the U.S. like a bomb.

Biden’s caption was just as deceptive as the video.

Advertisement – story continues below

“Donald Trump inherited a growing economy from President Obama and me,” the former vice president wrote. “And just like everything else he has inherited in his life, he has squandered it.”

As the social media responses showed, though, he wasn’t fooling anyone. (The responses supporting the ad, like most liberal efforts these days, were much more geared toward attacking Trump than defending the Democrat.)

And more than a few commenters were looking forward to seeing Biden try to pull this argument on a stage with Trump when presidential debates roll around.

It might be technically true that the economy was in “recovery” during the latter half of former President Barack Obama’s administration, with Biden as the number two man.

But if the economy had been in a real recovery — the kind of that puts dollars in the pockets of blue-collar workers in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — it’s a good chance that the 2020 election would be shaping up right now into how well President Hillary Clinton was doing cementing the Obama “legacy.”

(Thank God and the Electoral College that that nightmare isn’t upon us.)

But the reality is, most Americans had watched for eight years while the economy lurched along in laggard fashion, weighed down with burdensome regulations.

In a 2010 interview, in his second year in office, Obama said the country was in danger of becoming a place where high unemployment was the “new normal,” according to The Wall Street Journal.

In a June 2016 piece, halfway through Obama’s last year in office, The Washington Times had this damning summation of the Obama years:

“The previously bullish Fed finally and openly acknowledged that sluggish growth is the long term new normal for America. Secular stagnation is here to stay. The growth rate has limped out of the 2008-09 recession at a 2 percent pace now for seven years. The Joint Economic Committee of Congress tells us a normal recovery gives us about 3.5 percent growth and the Reagan and JFK booms were closer to 4 percent. So the GDP today thanks to President Obama is about $2 to $3 trillion smaller than it should be. This is roughly the equivalent of losing the entire annual output of every business and worker in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana combined.”

In other words, not much had improved.

During the Trump years, meanwhile, spurred by a pro-business administration, a foreign policy that wasn’t seeing the United States as evil and defeated at every turn, and the all-important Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the pre-coronavirus economy was booming, with record-setting unemployment for the black and Hispanic populations Biden needs desperately to win the White House.

Liberals should know by now that an economic attack is going to backfire — like Chris “Fredo” Cuomo’s did on CNN a week ago. Biden’s campaign team should know better than to try to make a weapon out of Trump’s strongest argument for retaining the presidency (other than keeping the Supreme Court in sane hands).

But the whole country knows that Trump’s economy was thriving before the coronavirus crisis brought it grinding to a halt.

And the whole country knows that it’s Republican-run states that are most interested in opening up again to restart their economies — Georgia and Texas for instance — while Democratic governors seem to enjoy the power the coronavirus crisis brought. (Though it might have cost Gretchen Whitmer a vice presidential slot.)

The rank hypocrisy of liberals who condemned Americans protesting the death of the economy as dangerous in a pandemic but suddenly made allowances for mass protests in the wake of the death of a man in police custody in May hasn’t been lost on anyone either.

But when it comes to the economy, Americans aren’t going to be gaslighted into believing the booming Obama times were merely inherited by Trump until time caught up with him.

Even the doddering Joe Biden should know better than to try that.

Author: Joe Saunders

Source: Western Journal: Biden Attempts To Capitalize on Pandemic Job Loss with Wildly Misleading Ad

Some Jack Dorsey tweets aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

The CEO of tech giant Twitter, finding himself in a hole after his company took the unusual move of “fact checking” two of President Donald Trump’s posts on Tuesday and labeling them as misleading, tried to defend himself Wednesday with an explanation of the company’s decision.

Unfortunately for Dorsey, the explanation was so weak it only got him in deeper — and showed Americans how deeply dishonest the opposition to Trump actually is.

Dorsey’s Twitter post apparently came in response to criticism by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg — of all people — who told Fox News host Dana Perino in an interview to be aired Thursday that even giant tech companies shouldn’t set themselves up as judges of truth and falsehood.

“I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online,” Zuckerberg said, according to Fox News.

“Private companies probably shouldn’t be, especially these platform companies, shouldn’t be in the position of doing that,” he said.

First, Dorsey sounded just a little too defensive to be believable.

Then, his actual explanation simply wasn’t believable at all.

Twitter had taken its action, he wrote in a tweet, because Trump’s tweets about the potential for fraud in mail-in voting — Democrats’ latest holy grail — implied that Americans didn’t need to register to vote in order to receive a mail-in ballot.

“Per our Civic Integrity policy (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/election-integrity-policy…), the tweets yesterday may mislead people into thinking they don’t need to register to get a ballot (only registered voters receive ballots). We’re updating the link on@realDonaldTrump’s tweet to make this more clear.”

That’s actually not a bad excuse. An exceptionally naive — or intellectually dishonest — liberal might even take it as a responsible decision on the part of an upstanding company that was intent on making sure American voters have the information they need to fully participate in the world’s oldest democratic republic.

The problem is, the evidence indicates that’s not at all what Twitter was objecting to about the president’s tweets.

In reality, the company placed a link on Trump’s tweets that led to a note with the headline: “Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud.”

The note cited two rabidly anti-Trump news outlets — CNN and The Washington Post — to back up its criticism.

It didn’t say a word about voter registration.

But there is literally nothing “unsubstantiated” about Trump’s statement. Logic and common sense say mail-in votes are more open to questions about fraud than the normal, in-person kind. (Who’s actually casting the vote? Are they really acting of their own volition? There’s no interference anywhere?)

In fact, back in 2012, The New York Times published an article demonstrating conclusively that mail-in and absentee ballots were extraordinarily open to fraud.

(The Times was worried then that mailed-in absentee ballots skewed Republican. Now that it’s a Democrat issue and Trump is against vote-by-mail, The Gray Lady isn’t so concerned.)

It was only late Wednesday that Dorsey’s company published its “voter confusion” explanation.

“We added a label to two @realDonaldTrump Tweets about California’s vote-by-mail plans as part of our efforts to enforce our civic integrity policy,” a Twitter Safety post stated. “We believe those Tweets could confuse voters about what they need to do to receive a ballot and participate in the election process.”

That’s not bad, it’s just more than 24 hours too late.

It sounds less like the reasoned explanation for Twitter’s course of action and more — much more — like an excuse someone came up with to deal with the heat that came down from the company’s inexcusable decision to push itself into the election process by smearing the president of the United States and denigrating one of his primary methods of communicating with the American people.

And now that Twitter’s “head of site integrity” has been exposed as a rabidly anti-Trump activist who’s referred to the Trump administration as “ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE” (among other leftist social media posts), it’s clear that Twitter’s explanation was cooked up.

Coming off like a bald-faced liar, a teenager scrambling for an excuse about why his homework wasn’t completed or was completed badly, isn’t a good look for any CEO.

And the future could look worse. On Thursday, Trump announced he plans some kind of action against social media companies, though the details weren’t clear, as ABC News reported, it could put the companies at more risk for legal liability.

The liberal bent of social media titans such as Facebook and Twitter is too well established for any sensible person to doubt that it was politics — not some phantom concern for “integrity” — that led to Twitter’s decision on the Trump posts.

As the November election gets closer by the day, Trump supporters — and all Americans interested in an honest political process — need to remember that the deception on display this week with Twitter is one of the left’s biggest tools to try to win back the White House.

Dorsey and his minions can tweet all the explanations they want, but they aren’t worth much.

Their claims of “integrity” are worth even less.

Author: Joe Saunders

Source: Western Journal: Twitter CEO Tries To Explain Labeling Trump’s Tweets, Ends Up Digging Himself In Even Deeper

It was the Obama holdovers who mattered — but the media’s still doing the dirty work.

As more details spill out about the administration of former President Barack Obama and its efforts to derail President Donald Trump’s tenure in its infancy, a meeting at the White House two weeks before the Trump’s inauguration is taking on greater significance.

In fact, according to Mollie Hemingway, the journalist, author and senior editor at The Federalist, it was where Obama and then-FBI Director James Comey began “hatching” the plot that would turn into the “Russia collusion” probe that ate up so much of Trump’s first years in office.

In an appearance Monday night on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle,” Hemingway discussed that meeting – and slammed the mainstream media’s slanted coverage of an issue that’s at the heart of the Democratic Party’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election.

The eventually infamous Jan. 5, 2017, meeting in the Oval Office started as a larger meeting, Hemingway told host Laura Ingraham.

Check it out below.

As Hemingway described it, the meeting got down to nuts and bolts after Obama asked those present who would be departing office when his administration ended to leave the room, keeping then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and Comey behind.

Both Yates and Comey would be serving after Trump took office.

Also present were then-Vice President Joe Biden and then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice.

“And that’s where they started hatching their plan to make sure that the incoming administration would not find out what they had been doing or what they planned to continue doing in terms of spying on the Trump campaign and people affiliated with it,” Hemingway said.

And the primary objective of protecting those secrets was targeting then-incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, a man whose prosecution on an absurd charge of lying to the FBI was dropped last week in a dramatic decision by Attorney General William Barr.

Hemingway also used the Ingraham appearance to slam the mainstream media’s coverage of the whole “Russia collusion” story.

In particular, NBC’s disgraceful Chuck Todd disgraced himself and his profession — again — on Sunday by using a deceptively edited video of Barr as material for discussion about the Flynn case.

Considering Todd’s show is called “Meet the Press,” the clearly deliberate deception was more than a little ironic.

Todd’s comment was worse: “I was struck … by the cynicism of the answer.”

And alert Americans are floored by the cynicism of the media.

Hemingway’s comment to Ingraham about the video summed it up perfectly.

“This is an example of what has been going on for years, where the exact opposite of the truth keeps on getting reported. And they just keep on suppressing information,” she said.

“This idea that Attorney General Barr, by caring transparently about the rule of law, doesn’t care about the rule of law while the people who lie on 302’s [FBI interview report forms] or destroy 302’s … who destroy evidence, who illegally spy on the Trump campaign with these warrants that were ill-gotten, who illegally interview people. That’s not rule of law. That is a problem.”

The events of the past three years prove her point.

As it turned out, Yates and Comey were not to remain in office long under the Trump administration.

Yates was fired at the end of January 2017 for refusing to enforce Trump’s executive order banning immigration from seven Muslim countries with deep ties to terrorism.

Comey, of course, was fired in May 2017 over his handling of the Russia collusion probe.

But the seeds had been planted by then.

Understandably enough, Trump is using his considerable Twitter following to get the word out about the new revelations.

There’s no downplaying how much the distraction of the Mueller probe hindered Trump’s first years in office — and there’s no downplaying the extent of the anti-Trump media’s collusion in the Democratic Party smear job.

If there had been no Mueller probe, there might well be no House Democratic majority today, since the Mueller probe was still very active during the 2018 midterms.

And with no House Democratic majority, there would have been no ludicrous impeachment of the president.

Those are developments that haven’t just slowed Trump’s agenda — they’ve hurt the country, both at home and in the eyes of the world.

It all goes back to that Jan. 5 White House meeting, and the Obama administration holdovers who got their orders there.

But it couldn’t have gone far without the support of the mainstream media, “where the exact opposite of the truth keeps on getting reported.”

That’s the real dirty work — and it hasn’t stopped for a second.

Author: Joe Saunders

Source: Western Journal: Reporter Calls Out Meeting Where Obama, Comey Were ‘Hatching’ Plot Against Trump

Anyone who needs one more reason not to trust today’s Democrats needs to look no further than Sen. Chris Murphy.

The Connecticut senator is probably best known for being a radical gun-grabbing liberal and ardent opponent of President Donald Trump’s administration (even by today’s lunatic Democratic standards).

But when it’s suited his purposes, he’s also gone out of his way to criticize interference in a president’s foreign policy outside regular outside channels — unless the president being interfered with is Donald Trump and the guy who wants to interfere is Sen. Chris Murphy.

As hypocrisy goes, it’s tough to beat.

Back in the early months of 2017, Murphy was one of the loudest voices calling for Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn to resign following reports that he’d met with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak before Trump was sworn into office.

That would make Flynn party to conducting foreign policy outside the Obama administration’s control, which the Chris Murphy of 2017 thought was appalling.

“Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy — even during a transition period — may be illegal and must be taken seriously,” a self-righteous Murphy stated in a news release issued by his office.

That was then, this is now.

Thanks to reporting by The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway on Monday, Americans are aware that Murphy took advantage of his attendance at the annual Munich Security Conference over the weekend in Germany to participate in a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.

Hemingway reported the meeting Monday, citing a source who’d been “briefed by the French delegation to the conference.”

Murphy’s office would not comment on the report — in fact, “tried to stonewall” sounds like a good way of putting it — until Tuesday, when the good senator released a description of it as part of a Medium post about the rest of his activities on the trip.

(There’s no way of knowing for sure, but it’s at least possible that, without Hemingway’s reporting, Murphy might never have told Americans — his fellow citizens — about his meeting with a top official of a country that has been at war with the United States for more than 40 years now.)

In the Medium post, and in self-serving tones that would be embarrassing to any non-politician, Murphy first acknowledged using his participation in a public forum at the conference to be publicly critical of the Trump administration’s Middle East policy of confronting the murderous mullahs of Iran — the senator apparently still wants to resurrect the Obama-era appeasement of the Iran nuclear deal.

“I am the sole U.S. figure on the panel, and I use the spotlight to make the case that the overriding U.S. interest in the region should not be trying to help Saudi Arabia gain preeminence over Iran, as is the policy priority under Trump,” Murphy wrote. “Our goal instead should be reducing, not ramping up, tensions between these two regional powers, not on trying to make sure one side eventually prevails.”

Now, that might be a discussion worth having on the floor of the Senate, or maybe from Murphy’s perch as ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but making that point in a room full of officials from other countries — some of them potentially deadly adversaries of the United States — comes a little close to trying to conduct a foreign policy separate from the one decided on by the president of the United States.

And if a public speech denigrating Trump’s foreign policy is bad, how does a secret meeting, conducted in a hotel room with no prying eyes, sound?

In his Medium post, Murphy claimed he had three goals: to see if there would be more violence stemming from the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani; to convince Zarif that Iran should stop helping rebels in Yemen; and to win the freedom of Americans being held prisoner by Iran.

“I don’t know whether my visit with Zarif will make a difference,” Murphy wrote. “I’m not the President or the Secretary of State — I’m just a rank and file U.S. Senator. I cannot conduct diplomacy on behalf of the whole of the U.S. government, and I don’t pretend to be in a position to do so. But if Trump isn’t going to talk to Iran, then someone should. And Congress is a co-equal branch of government, responsible along with the Executive for setting foreign policy. A lack of dialogue leaves nations guessing about their enemy’s intentions, and guessing wrong can lead to catastrophic mistakes.”

Actually, that sounds like someone making an extraordinary effort to — in the words of Chris Murphy in 2017 — “undermine our nation’s foreign policy.”

A “lack of dialogue” between nations isn’t nearly as big a problem as an arch-rival like Iran hearing different messages from different officials — a message of strength from the Trump White House and what is all too likely a message of craven, cowardly appeasement from Democrats.

Murphy’s adventure drew scorn on social media.

And it doesn’t make anything look better that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo knew nothing about Murphy’s decision to hobnob in private with a top official of one of his own country’s most bitter adversaries on the world stage.

“If they met, I don’t know what they said,” Pompeo said at a news conference Tuesday, according to The Federalist. “I hope they were reinforcing America’s foreign policy and not their own.”

Yes, the rest of the country would hope so, too.

But the reality of the past three years hasn’t been encouraging.

The endless “Russia collusion” hoax turned up empty, but not before acting as a shadow over the White House for years.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry has been known to have been conducting meetings with Iranian officials — as a private citizen — and actually suggested to Fox News’ Dana Perino in 2018 that it was possible he was giving a message to Iran to “wait out Trump.”

And, of course, the farce of a presidential impeachment over military aid withheld to Ukraine gets more ludicrous with every passing day.

Now comes Sen. Chris Murphy, secretly meeting with the Iranian foreign minister and putting a brave public face on it when word of the meeting got out.

Democrats have given Americans an infuriatingly long list of reasons for Americans not to trust them since Nov. 8, 2016.

Chris Murphy just gave us one more.

Author: Joe Saunders

Source: Western Journal:

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!”

Really?

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

Ad Blocker Detected!

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