How Fake News Works

Breitbart posted an article today that is a stunning example of how fake news works. Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel posted the following on Twitter to support his claim that the Trump rally in Pensacola was poorly attended:

What Mr. Weigel failed to mention was that the picture was taken before the Trump rally began.

President Trump called him out on his dishonesty with a Tweet:

I doubt the mainstream media made the correction (although Mr. Weigel’s tweet was deleted). This is the reason the President tweets–to get the truth out when the mainstream media lies.

The article at Breitbart concludes:

But how do Weigel’s elite colleagues respond? No reprimands. No embarrassment. No reaction that indicates in any way that they are concerned with holding on to whatever residual integrity might remain in their discredited institution. Instead, they all make excuses for the inexcusable and attack the president as though he does not have his own free speech rights, as though the elite media is exempt from criticism.

If you wanted to destroy the media by planting confederates in newsrooms all around the country, over this last week, none of your saboteurs could have been anywhere near as effective as the self-destructive Weigel, Maggie Haberman, Brian Ross, Alisyn Camerota; and everyone at CNN, the Washington Post, Reuters, and PolitiFact.

Protecting Voter Fraud

The Daily Signal posted an article today about the President’s election commission that is investigating voter fraud.

The article reports:

Many of the states refusing to cooperate with President Donald Trump’s election commission aren’t in compliance with federal law on maintaining voter registration lists, according to government watchdog groups.

So far, 18 states and the District of Columbia have declined or are still considering whether to provide election data to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, established in May to examine and prevent voter fraud, among other concerns.

The commission requested voter registration data from every state and the District and 14 states include counties where registered voters outnumbered eligible voters based on Census Bureau data, according to findings from Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group.

The 1993 ‘motor voter law‘ requires states to purge their voter rolls of ineligible voters periodically.

The article explains:

Kentucky, a decisively red state in previous elections, had the most counties where registered voters outnumber eligible voters. California, a strongly blue state, also had significant problems, according to findings from Judicial Watch and the Public Interest Legal Foundation, both conservative watchdog groups.

Other states that outright refuse to cooperate with the commission are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming.

The states of Arizona, Illinois, and Indiana are still undecided.

“Overall, in most of the states not providing information to the commission, there are a significant number of counties with problems,” Robert Popper, senior attorney for Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Project, told The Daily Signal.

Common sense tells us that if registered voters outnumber eligible voters in a county, there is a problem. Every fraudulent vote cast in an elections voids the vote of a legitimate voter. That is the true definition of voter suppression and needs to be stopped.

Fact Checking The Democratic Talking Points On Tax Reform

Guy Benson posted an article at Townhall today about the Democrat‘s claim that if the tax reform bill is passed, millions of people will lose their health insurance.

The article reports:

In spite of a torrent of liberal attacks, independent analyses have confirmed that the plan would boost economic growth, create nearly one million new full-time jobs, and reduce the tax burden on the vast majority of Americans; on average, taxpayers in every income group would receive a tax cut.  There will be a small percentage of Americans — many of them wealthier people who itemize deductions and exploit loopholes — who would be worse off under the proposal.  Republicans would be foolish to pretend that every single household and business would emerge as ‘winners’ if reform is implemented; that would echo one of the biggest lies Democrats peddled about Obamacare.  But the data has found that an overwhelming majority of Americans, including (or even especially) the middle and working class, would benefit from the House-approved bill.  

The article explains the impact of cutting the healthcare mandate:

Regardless of where the revised number lands, dumping the mandate liberates millions of Americans to not purchase healthcare plans that they do not want or cannot afford, without getting slapped with government fines.  People making that choice for themselves and their families is absolutely not equivalent to the government taking away coverage.  Healthcare policy expert Avik Roy puts a finer point on this important truth, which underpins liberals’ mendacious claim:

[Another] category of Democratic complaints revolves around the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that 13 million fewer people would have health insurance in 2026 if Republicans repealed Obamacare’s individual mandate. “We’re kicking 13 million people off health insurance to give tax cuts to the wealthy,” exclaimed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) on Wednesday. There are two problems with Schumer’s assertion. As Glenn Kessler, fact-checker at the Washington Post, notes, nobody is being “kicked off” their insurance. People are no longer being fined for not purchasing it. (Kessler gives Schumer two Pinocchios.) The second problem is that the CBO’s projections of the mandate’s magical powers are inaccurate, by their own admission.

The bottom line here is that Democrats do not want to cut taxes. A tax cut will stimulate the economy and undo (and expose) the economic damage done by the Obama Administration. The Washington establishment cannot afford a successful Trump presidency–it would come too close to draining the swamp. It will be interesting to see if the tax bill passes (and in what form). If the Republicans do not pass the tax bill, they will probably lose Congress in 2018. If the Republicans do pass the tax bill, the economy will grow, at least part of the Washington swamp will be drained, and Trump will be a successful President. Get out the popcorn.

 

 

What Do You Do When You Get Caught With Your Hand In The Cookie Jar?

It’s been an interesting 24 hours.

Yesterday The Washington Post reported the following:

The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

It would be interesting to know who that Republican is. However, the bottom line here is that the Trump dossier was political opposition research funded by the Democratic Party.

We need to look at the history of this dossier. Fusion GPS was paid to come up with some dirt on candidate Trump. This political document was used as the basis for charges that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians and stole the election. This document was used as a basis for surveillance on the Trump campaign team and the Trump transition team before and after the election. Everyone involved in each of those decisions needs to be kicked out of Washington.

Please follow the link to The Washington Post article to see some of the other people involved and some of the other consequences of treating a paid, fabricated political hit piece as if it were reality.

The Daily Wire posted an article yesterday about the Democratic National Committee’s response to all of this.

The article reports:

Within hours of The Washington Post publishing a bombshell report alleging that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded the infamous Trump-Russia dossier, the Democratic National Committee issued a statement saying that the current head of the DNC (elected in February 2017) and the “new leadership” of the organization was not involved in any of the “decision-making” regarding the oppo research firm behind the dossier.

“Tom Perez and the new leadership of the DNC were not involved in any decision-making regarding Fusion GPS, nor were they aware that Perkins Coie was working with the organization,” reads the carefully phrased statement issued by DNC Communications Director Xochital Hinojosa Tuesday evening.

Note that the DNC is not denying the information that has come to light about the dossier–they are simply distancing the ‘new’ leadership from the actions connected to the dossier.

The Daily Wire article concludes with this reminder:

Just a few days ago, CNN’s Chris Cilizza mocked Trump for alleging that the Democratic Party was behind the dossier. While Trump’s suggestion that some sort of collusion betweeen the Democrats, the FBI and the Russians might prove to be a stretch, according to the Post, both the Democrats and the FBI were indeed involved on some level in the compilation of the “dirty dossier” that helped kickstart the Russia “collusion” narrative.

Get out the popcorn and stay tuned.

At Least They Are Correcting Some Of Their Fake News

President Obama has often accused the conservative media of fake news. I wonder if he will speak out against the latest example of fake news by the liberal media.

Fox News reported yesterday that The Washington Post has issued a correction of one of their ‘breaking news’ stories.

The article reports:

The Washington Post has made a correction to an explosive cover story that undermines the entire premise of Monday’s front-page article headlined, “Obama sought to prod Facebook on Russia role.”

The problem, according to a Facebook executive, is that when Obama reached out to the social media giant in 2016 to discuss political disinformation spreading on the site, he didn’t actually call out Russia – essentially making the Post’s headline misleading and inaccurate. Or, as President Trump would call it, “fake news.”

As first reported by Axios, the Post added significant information to the digital version of the story with the disclaimer, “This story has been updated with an additional response from Facebook.” The response from Facebook that didn’t make the paper’s print edition is vital and changed the story enough that the word “Russia” was removed from the updated headline.

The story detailed how then-President Obama gave Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg a “wake-up call” regarding fake news spreading on his social media platform. After reporting that Obama “made a personal appeal to Zuckerberg to take the threat of fake news and political disinformation seriously,” the paper has added that Obama “did not single out Russia specifically.”

The story reported that Obama and his top aides “quietly agonized on how to respond to Russia’s brazen intervention on behalf of the Donald Trump campaign without making matters worse.” 

Well, not quite.

This is the important paragraph in the article:

The paper also added a statement from Facebook’s vice president of communications, Elliot Schrage, which it received after the front-page story was published. Schrage told the Post that Obama’s talk with Zuckerberg was about “misinformation and false news” and “did not include any references to possible foreign interference or suggestions about confronting threats to Facebook.”

The Russian connection has been fizzling out for some time. What we can expect is to see Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller charge Paul Manafort with some sort of process crime or questionable act totally unrelated to the original reasons for a special prosecutor. The thing to remember here is that despite the fact that James Comey stated numerous times that President Trump was not under investigation to the Senate, some senators chose to mislead the American people into believing that President Trump was under investigation. What Robert Mueller is doing is conducting a very expensive witch hunt based on a story which has been proved questionable at best. The mainstream media is attempting to relive their glory days of bringing down Richard Nixon, and there is a group of people in America with little regard for the U.S. Constitution that is willing to use violence to bring about the change they want. We have a choice here. Either we believe in the U.S. Constitution, the elected government, and the rule of law, or we do not. If we want our country to stand, the rule of law has to stand. The media does not understand that if the government is brought down, they will also be destroyed in the chaos that follows.

Using The Government To Punish Political Opposition

It seem as if under the Obama Administration that if you held the wrong political opinion you might be wiretapped, charged with a crime you didn’t commit, or harassed in some way.  Unfortunately the ‘deep state’ is continuing that practice. They are organized and prepared to fight. There are some real questions as to whether those who oppose the ‘deep state’ had any idea how extensive it is or and idea of how to fight it.

Yesterday Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review about the FBI raid on Paul Manafort‘s home. There are a number of aspects of that raid and of the timing of the reporting of that raid that need to be understood.

First of all, the raid took place in late July, why is the mainstream media suddenly putting it in the headlines? Could it be that the Russia story needs to be revived with all the fuss about North Korea?

Andrew McCarthy has a few observations about the raid:

Here’s the thing to bear in mind about the Washington Post’s report that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had the FBI execute a search warrant against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in late July: Prosecutors don’t do pre-dawn raids on the home of a cooperating witness.

…There are two possible rationales for a search warrant under the circumstances. First, the legitimate rationale: Investigators in good faith believed Manafort, who is either a subject of or witness in their investigation, was likely to destroy rather than surrender relevant evidence. Second, the brass-knuckles rationale: The prosecutor is attempting to intimidate the witness or subject — to say nothing of others who are similarly situated — into volunteering everything he may know of an incriminating nature about people the prosecutor is targeting.

The article concludes:

Moreover, in light of the fact that Manafort has ostensibly been cooperating with congressional committees, and that Mueller has a grand jury that would have enabled him to compel Manafort to surrender evidence by subpoena, I wonder if the Justice Department would shed some light on (a) why it was thought necessary to conduct a raid on Manafort’s home and (b) whether the special counsel and the FBI sought permission to conduct the search before 6 a.m. (i.e., in what the Post reports as the pre-dawn hours).

Finally, I wonder whether the deputy attorney general or the special counsel would inform the public whether the president of the United States is a suspect in a criminal investigation.

It has become very obvious that the Washington establishment is willing to do pretty much anything to stage a coup to undo the November election. I wonder if they realize the damage they are doing to America by their efforts, or if they care, or if their goal is to change the very nature of America. It is time to put a stop to this nonsense. We know about the pay-to-play in the last administration that the Justice Department was totally not interested in investigating. It is time to get back to the idea of equal justice under the law. All of the people in the Washington establishment involved in the effort to unseat President Trump need to be fired immediately. They need to find other jobs to do. If they are elected, the voters need to make sure they are unelected at the first opportunity. The American people can preserve their representative republic, but they will need to be looking past the mainstream media headlines in order to do it.

I Think We Are Investigating The Wrong People

One of the worst things that can happen to a representative government is for a political leader to use the power of his position to spy on his political opposition. Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more obvious that under President Obama that was the norm.

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about the latest leak from the Washington establishment.

The article reports:

Since that time (March 2017) we now know that the FBI was investigating the Trump Tower servers during the election.

We also know Susan Rice lied at first but then admitted when she got caught that she was unmasking her political opponents phone calls. Rice blamed racism after she got caught.

Ex-officials said what Susan Rice’s unmasking requests were not routine and “never done.” And… she was not alone in her unmasking requests.

Obama officials later moved the unmasking documents to the Obama library.

Tonight Deep State leaked documents to the Washington Post that show the Obama administration were spying on Republican senator Jeff Sessions before the election.

Russian envoy Sergey Kislyak’s accounts of two conversations with Jeff Sessions, who was at the time a Senator from Alabama, were intercepted by U.S. spy agencies, according to the far left Washington Post.

Once again this proves President Trump was right.
Barack Obama was spying on his political opponents.

Robert Mueller is investigating the wrong people. I suspect that is by design.

Anonymous Sources And Leaks

To anyone watching what is going on in Washington, it is becoming very obvious that The Washington Post has become an arm of the Democratic Party’s political campaigns. The current campaign is aimed at removing President Trump from office. Those leaking information to The Washington Post need to be reminded that what they are doing is a criminal act. I would suggest that if the Democrats plan impeachment hearings, they might want to look at the impact the impeachment of President Clinton had on the Republican Party–it cost them dearly. If the Democrats were to impeach President Trump, they would have the media on their side, but I seriously doubt the voters of America would be impressed.

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review today that asks the question, “Can You Obstruct a Fraud?” In the case of the special prosecutor Robert Mueller, that is a valid question.

The article reminds us:

On March 20, over a month after the Flynn conversation, Comey gave his stunning congressional testimony, pronouncing publicly that the FBI was conducting a counterintelligence probe of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, and that the probe included scrutinizing both the ties of Trump associates to the Putin regime and “any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian efforts.” The FBI, he darkly added, would make “an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.”

Clearly, this led the media and much of the country to assume the FBI director had confirmed that the president was a suspect in what appeared to be a criminal investigation. It similarly alarmed lawmakers. Comey thus privately assured members of Congress that the president was not a suspect in any FBI investigation.

But he would not correct the misimpression being formed by the public, relying on his testimony.

The fact that James Comey would not correct the misimpression he created is telling. A more principled man would not have let that false impression stand.

The article then reminds us of the purpose of all this:

What the president appears to have objected to, and to have sought help refuting, was what he saw as the fraudulent claim — subtly advanced by Comey and perhaps others in the intelligence community — that he personally had colluded with Russia in connection with the election, and that he was a criminal suspect.

That is not obstruction of an investigation. It is objection to a narrative — a narrative that the intelligence agencies knew was false yet refused to correct, no matter how much it was, and is, damaging Trump’s capacity to govern.

We need to remember that the success of President Trump’s policies is a serious threat to those entrenched in the federal government. President Trump’s goal of deregulation is a threat to those who want to maintain their power and want to maintain big government. It is becoming very obvious that they are getting desperate.

 

 

How Media Bias Works

Mike Adams posted an article at Townhall today illustrating how the media can slant a story, provide totally false information, and convince people that they are telling the truth. The article was written by Dr. Mike Adams, a professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, author of Letters to a Young Progressive, and host of www.RightlyOffended.com. Dr. Adams holds a Ph.D. in Sociology/Criminology.

The article chronicles how The Washington Post totally misrepresented an event that Dr. Adams was involved in.

The article at Townhall reports:

Washington Post reporter Cleve Wootson was recently given the responsibility of reporting on a lawsuit in which I am involved. The story he was assigned to write is actually quite simple. A California university unconstitutionally denied a student group’s request for funding to host a conservative speaker (me) on their campus. The decision to deny funding was a blatant case of viewpoint discrimination that is supported by a mountain of evidence. Thus, Wootson had an easy story to write if he simply stuck to the facts. Instead, his article wound up being a masterpiece of bad journalism.

Wootson begins his article with an image of campus violence that is totally unrelated to the group that invited me to speak. He then provides a list of “white nationalists” who have recently spoken on other campuses. He continues his journalistic hit piece by characterizing Charles Murray as a person who “has been called a white nationalist” – because, of course, anonymous accusations define the man. Only after sufficiently poisoning the well does Wootson get around to mentioning the point of the article.

The paragraph above is Mr. Wootson’s attempt to link a conservative speaker with the white nationalists group. That has recently been the tactic the political left has been using to try to squelch conservative speech. There is a local example of this that I hope to report on in the near future.

Dr. Adams then explains how this works:

Here is a newsflash for Cleve Wootson: Cleve Wootson has also been called a white nationalist!

Of course, I don’t have to say who called Cleve Wootson a white nationalist because I am using the journalistic standards of Cleve Wootson and The Washington Post. Nor do I need to mention the fact that Cleve Wootson is actually black. I’m not interested in accuracy. I just know that calling someone a white nationalist is the best way to impugn his character and to shut him down when he is trying to speak. What’s good enough for the Washington compost and Cleve Wootson is good enough for me!

An unsuspecting reader of the Washington Post story comes away with the idea that a white nationalist (aka racist) was not allowed to speak on campus. Since racism is ugly and does no one any good, that seems like a good thing. However, I am reminded of the time that the American Nazis marched in Skokie, Illinois, a town that included a number of Holocaust survivors. There were very few people in the town that supported their march, but they obtained a permit, and under the First Amendment, they were allowed to march. I hate that, but it is necessary to allow such things in order to insure the freedom of speech and assembly for everyone. The First Amendment protects our right to free speech. It says nothing about limiting the speech of those whose ideas we find offensive.

The article at Townhall concludes with another statement by Cleve Wootson and Dr. Adams’ response:

“Most recently (Adams) wrote an article outing a young woman, using her full name, and mocked her sexuality and religion. Adams’s followers have since begun sending death threats to the student.”

A little research would have shown that the woman I “outed” was the president of an LGBT club who regularly did media interviews on LGBT issues and publicly identified herself as a “queer.” Those are not my words. Those are her words. A little more research would have shown that the accusations of inciting violence were thoroughly investigated. Unsurprisingly, they were proven to be false. No one’s “followers” threatened the fragile social justice warrior. It was just another campus hoax that leftists pretended to believe in order to give their lives meaning.

But none of this business about “truth” matters to Cleve Wootson, who has been called a white nationalist. He got his degree from UNC-Chapel Hill, which is a school that offers fake classes to its semi-literate athletes. He also writes for The Washington Post, which offers fake stories to its semi-literate audience.

The Washington Post article about viewpoint discrimination is truly fake news. It is totally misleading.

A Timeline That Raises More Questions Than Answers

On Saturday, Diana West posted a chronology on her blog of the history of the hacking into the Democratic National Committee (DNC). It is a rather long article, and I suggest that you follow the link to read the entire article. However, there are a few things that are noteworthy that can be mentioned in passing.

When The Washington Post reported that the DNC had been hacked by Russians, they claimed that the source of the information that it was the Russians who did the hacking was “committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach.” 

The article reminds us:

These “security experts” are with CrowdStrike, a private cyber security firm hired and paid by the DNC.

While reading the following chronology, it is important to bear in mind that the FBI has never examined the DNC computer network because the DNC prohibited the FBI from doing so. Also, that the FBI, under former Director Comey, not to mention President Obama and the “Intelligence Community,” thought this was perfectly ok.

That’s just odd. Since when does any organization have the right to tell the FBI how to conduct an investigation?

The article continues through a timeline of events:

December 14, 2016: Former UK Amb. to Uzbekistan and Wikileaks associate Craig Murray tells the Daily Mail that he flew to Washington in September 2016 to receive emails from one of Wikileaks’ sources. Both the DNC emails and the Podesta emails, Murray said, came from inside leaks, not hacks. “He said the leakers were motivated by ‘disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.’ “

December 22, 2016: The Washington Post reports CrowdStrike links Russian hacking of the DNC to Russian hacking of the Ukrainian military. Said CrowdStrike’s Alperovitch: ‘The fact that [these hackers] would be tracking and helping the Russian military kill Ukrainian army personnel in eastern Ukraine and also intervening in the U.S. election is quite chilling.” 

This new Russian hacking claim will be widely and loudly debunked by British, Ukrainian and other sources. 

The article ends with some references to tweets involving Seth Rich, who was murdered in Washington in July of 2016. There are some serious questions as to whether or not the murder of Seth Rich is related to the corruption in the Democratic primary elections of 2016, or if he was the source of the leaked material that was so damaging to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

I have no idea if we will ever find out the truth of the ‘hacking’ of the DNC or the murder of Seth Rich. I do hope, however, that the corruption of the Democratic Party during the primary season leading up to the 2016 presidential election will be dealt with by those within the party who may have some small amount of moral fiber. If not, it is a safe bet to say that the Democratic Party will continue to lose voters until they clean up their act.

The Deep State At Work

No one ever suggested that fighting an entrenched Washington establishment would be easy. My husband used to have a sign on his desk at work that said, “When you are up to your neck in alligators, it is hard to remember that your objective was to drain the swamp.” That is a very accurate picture of what the Trump Administration is dealing with.

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the latest attempt by the Deep State to bring down the Trump Administration.

The article reports:

Always remember the basic rule that has been proven accurate 100% of the time:

  • When the CIA wants to leak a damaging story they coordinate with the Washington Post and ABC. (and vice-versa).
  • When the State Dept. or FBI/DOJ wants to leak a damaging story they coordinate with CNN and the New York Times. (and vice-versa)

This consistent pattern has NEVER been broken.

Tonight using “unnamed” and the most vague descriptions of  “anonymous sources” The Washington Post creates a fake news story specifically timed to release at the 5pm hour to hit President Donald Trump.

This is the tweet the Washington Post used to begin the attack on the Trump Administration:

The article at The Conservative Treehouse provides the timeline:

Transparent Media Agenda:

  • First indication is the timing of the Washington Post news release (5:02pm EDT).
  • Second indication coordination with NYT for immediate follow (6:26pm EDT)
  • Third indication – Same exact pattern as Flynn intelligence leaks. Identical timing.
  • Fourth indication – Same use of entirely anonymous sources: “former American government official” ie. an Obama official.
  • Only 3 U.S. Officials actually in the room with first-hand information:  National Security Advisor HR McMaster, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Senior Adviser for policy, Dina Powell.
  • Publication motive/intent – The Washington Post never contacted anyone in the White House for questions, nor did they ask McMaster, Tillerson or Powell for comment before publication.  All three call the Post article – fake News.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It provides a lot of insight into how the media manipulates facts to create a narrative that may not be true. The good news here is that those in the Trump Administration responded to this attack quickly, and it was quickly revealed to any thinking person that this was fake news.

It is very obvious that the long knives are out to get Donald Trump. The good news is that the people attacking him are becoming desperate and more blatant in their attacks and their disregard for the truth. If the media continues in this direction, they will lose whatever following they have left. That is good news.

 

While The Media Is Distracting Us…

Fred Fleitz posted an article at Breitbart today about the surveillance of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

The article reports:

Fleitz (Fred Fleitz, Senior Vice President for Policy and Programs at the Center for Security Policy), who has strongly criticized Rice’s story about why she “unmasked” the identities of people connected to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign who were caught in foreign surveillance operations, said there were two ways this surveillance took place.

“One, apparently, were formal FISA requests to have information collected against certain members of the Trump team,” he said. “This has not been confirmed, but it’s been leaked so often to the New York Times and the Washington Post, probably by Obama people, I think that happened.

“The second way was to go through intelligence that was not targeting the Russians or Trump to find references to Trump officials, and have those names unmasked. That way, they could say, ‘Hey, we weren’t targeting the Trump people, we were just going through intelligence that happened to mention them. We wanted to know the context of the report,’” he continued.

“You know, it’s okay for a senior official to ask for the name of a U.S. person to understand an intelligence report. It’s uncommon. I’ve been involved with it, with a senior policymaker. But to ask that the names of the members of a campaign from another party be unmasked – that may not be illegal, but it is highly unethical,” said Fleitz.

“If Rice gave the reason for that unmasking to be something that it really wasn’t, like if she really was doing it for political reasons, she could be in legal jeopardy,” he said.

The article points out that at one point during John Bolton‘s career,  Fred Fleitz, as his chief of staff, had asked for the unmasking of the names of ten Americans. During the confirmation hearings for John Bolton as the U.N. Ambassador, the Democrats accused him of violating the privacy of American citizens. Somehow, they are not as concerned when Democrats do the unmasking for political purposes.

The article concludes:

Fleitz previewed his upcoming Fox News piece about the widely-reported intelligence analysis prepared in January that claimed “not only did the Russians try to intervene in the election, but they did so to help Trump win.”

“Well, Director of National Intelligence Clapper revealed this week this was not the intelligence community’s view, of all 17 agencies,” said Fleitz. “That was known. It was just 3 agencies. We now know the analysts who wrote this were handpicked. How were they handpicked? How did the hyper-partisan director of the CIA, John Brennan, how did he handpick the CIA analysts who wrote this assessment?”

“I don’t think this assessment is accurate. I don’t think the Russians intervened to help Trump. Read my piece at FoxOpinion.com. This has to be added to the investigation of interference in the election – interference by our intelligence agencies.”

There was a crime committed here. It had to do with unmasking civilians and leaking information to the press. However, as long as the press can keep us off target, those who committed those crimes will go unpunished..

 

At Some Point We Are Going To Have To Deal With This

There are some things going on in Washington that are under reported in the news. We as Americans are going to have to deal with these things quickly. Most of them have to deal with the actions of the former President and his undermining of the current President. Evidently the plans for undoing the Trump Administration were laid before the November election. Some of these actions would be envied by the Nixon Administration–they make Watergate look like the third-rate burglary that it actually was.

Breitbart posted the list yesterday. Mark Levin is credited with doing the research:

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5.  January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier.Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was  part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

President Trump is continuing to move forward on his agenda. That is good, but at some point the Justice Department that former President Obama is attempting to cripple will have to move forward with charges on some of these actions. The actions of former President Obama are a serious threat to our republic. This is not about Democrat or Republican–this is about a former President who is willfully undermining a current President. That is not acceptable behavior.

This Is Not A Surprise

If you are over forty, aren’t you glad there was no one around with a cell phone when you said or did stupid things? Unless you are a really amazing person, you have probably at some time in your life said or done something stupid, rude, classless, and just awful. If you tell me you haven’t, I would seriously doubt it. Unfortunately, in the age of cell phones, there moments can be immortalized and brought out at the most inconvenient time. It’s the modern-day equivalent of your mother showing your naked baby pictures to your boyfriend. Well, some new information has come out about a sneak attack using an old event.

Breitbart reported Thursday on some recent discoveries about an audio tape that was supposed to end the Donald Trump campaign for President.

The article quotes a New York Post story:

The infamous “Access Hollywood” tape — in which President Donald Trump bragged about grabbing women by the hoo-ha — was an inside job, leaked by an NBC News staffer on Billy Bush’s own “Today” show, multiple sources tell Page Six.

“The tape was leaked by the NBC News division, by somebody at the ‘Today’ show,” says one source. “NBC News knew for a while about the existence of the tape. Billy himself had told them about it. People in the news division became frustrated that ‘Access Hollywood’ was taking too long to air it and decided it had to come out.”

“Access” had been working on airing a sanitized version of the tape, which revealed Trump’s comments but protected Bush by editing out his. But the full tape, which was leaked to the Washington Post, featured Bush goading the president. The leak got Bush fired from “Today,” which was, according to the source, part of the plan.

“The leaked tape served a dual purpose: It helped get Bush out of the way — Matt Lauer didn’t like him and felt he was a liability — and NBC thought it would derail Trump,” says the source. “But all it did was crush Billy, and, ironically, his own network was behind it.”

This is an example of major media trying to bring down a presidential candidate. Fair and balanced? I don’t think so.

I am very grateful for the internet–I can read different news sources and form my own opinion. I don’t know how the mainstream media got so biased, but it is now no longer worth paying attention to. Hopefully more Americans will begin to realize that what they hear in the mainstream media is only a small part of any story.

What Would Be The Consequences?

On February 17th, The Washington Post posted an article about the controversy over childhood vaccines. The article was written by Daniel Summers, a pediatrician in New England.

The article reports:

The latest salvo against vaccinations came courtesy of Robert Kennedy Jr. and Robert De Niro. At a joint appearance this week, Kennedy offered $100,000 to anyone who could turn up a study showing that it is safe to administer vaccines to children and pregnant women, with a specific call out to concerns about mercury. De Niro was there to lend his endorsement and a patina of Oscar-winning gravitas.

Both men have an unreliable history when it comes to their views about vaccinations. Kennedy’s reference to mercury alludes to thimerosal, a preservative once used in vaccines, which he has long maintained can lead to autism. (It doesn’t.) A meeting earlier this year between then President-elect Donald Trump (who has hair-raising views of his own about vaccines) and Kennedy caused grave concern within the medical community, myself included. Kennedy claimed Trump asked him to helm a commission on vaccine safety (even though the United States already has a vaccine safety commission), but it has yet to materialize.

I found the following on Wikipedia (I am posting it because of the references):

A population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota county found that the cumulative incidence of autism grew eightfold from the 1980–83 period to the 1995–97 period. The increase occurred after the introduction of broader, more-precise diagnostic criteria, increased service availability, and increased awareness of autism.[40] During the same period, the reported number of autism cases grew 22-fold in the same location, suggesting that counts reported by clinics or schools provide misleading estimates of the true incidence of autism.[41]

 Barbaresi WJ, Katusic SK, Colligan RC, Weaver AL, Jacobsen SJ. The incidence of autism in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1976-1997: results from a population-based study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159(1):37–44. doi:10.1001/archpedi.159.1.37. PMID 15630056.

I am not a doctor and don’t know if vaccinations cause autism. I do know that America has almost entirely eliminated measles, mumps, whooping cough, polio, and tetanus.

The article in The Washington Post further reports:

Conversely, a growing body of evidence suggests brain differences associated with autism may be found early in infancy — well before children receive most vaccines. Changes in the volume of certain brain areas found by MRI may help predict autism in infants with an older sibling who has the diagnosis, according to a recent study in the journal Nature. Other studies have found that alterations in brain cell development related to autism may occur before birth. These findings are clearly inconsistent with vaccines as a cause of autism.

But none of this emerging research seems to have dampened the fires burning within the anti-vaccine movement. I could resurrect Edward Jenner and Jonas Salk for joint TED talks about the benefits of vaccination, and somehow I doubt it would make any difference at this point. Despite Kennedy’s disingenuous plea for evidence of safety, it’s not evidence he really cares about. If it were, he could find more than enough for free.

Before we stop vaccinating our children, maybe we should look at some of the other factors that might be involved in the increase of autism. There are still a lot of things I don’t understand about how the human brain works.

Why It Is Necessary To Drain The Swamp

Yesterday Lifezette posted a story about problems with leaks in the State Department. This is a security problem as well as a political problem. We need to remind all those in the State Department that they work for the President. We also need to remind them that they are not the elected President and do not have the authority to run the government. Leaking information for the purpose of embarrassing an administration you don’t like should result in job loss. Hopefully under President Trump, it will.

The article reports:

Serious leaks have rocked the White House and likely sent top staffers searching for the individuals in the West Wing and Cabinet-level agencies responsible for the disclosures — some of which may have included classified information.

Washington and the diplomatic enclaves across the world were jolted on Wednesday night when two reports — one by the Associated Press and one by The Washington Post — outlined what Trump said to the leaders of Mexico and Australia.

…Since Trump took office on Jan. 20, the administration has been plagued by a number of leaks about the internal process. Some leaks have panned out, while others have been hotly denied by the White House.

The leaks include: a charge that Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly was not briefed on the executive order on restrictions on travel from seven predominantly Muslim nations; a charge that Trump ended a call with Turnbull; a charge that Trump said he could send troops to deal with Mexico’s “bad hombres”; and a charge that Trump asked U.S. Judge Thomas Hardiman to drive toward D.C. to increase speculation before the selection of Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.

There is no excuse for this. Cleaning up the worldwide mess that President Obama left behind needs the full attention and cooperation of those in the State Department. Using leaks to destroy a President for political purposes is not patriotic, in fact it borders on treason.

Honesty In The Mainstream Media Seems To Be A Lost Art

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about Major General Errol Schwartz, the head of the Washington, D.C. National Guard.

The article cites a Washington Post story about General Schwartz’s resignation.

The Washington Post story on the resignation reports:

“The Army general who heads the D.C. National Guard and has an integral part in overseeing the inauguration said Friday that he will be removed from command effective at 12:01 p.m. Jan. 20, just as Donald Trump is sworn in as president.

Maj. Gen. Errol R. Schwartz’s departure will come in the middle of the presidential ceremony — classified as a national special security event — and while thousands of his troops are deployed to help protect the nation’s capital during an inauguration he has spent months helping to plan.

“The timing is extremely unusual,” Schwartz said in an interview Friday morning, confirming a memo announcing his ouster that was obtained by The Washington Post. During the inauguration, Schwartz will command not only members of the D.C. Guard but also 5,000 unarmed troops dispatched from across the country to help. He also will oversee military air support protecting Washington during the inauguration.

“My troops will be on the street,” said Schwartz, who turned 65 in October. “I’ll see them off, but I won’t be able to welcome them back to the armory.” He said he would “never plan to leave a mission in the middle of a battle.”

However, that’s not actually what is going on.

The Washington Post has changed its story.

The Gateway Pundit reports:

Now This…
The Trump administration told FOX News of Friday the story is a crock.

Schwartz was offered to stay on his post until after the Inauguration but decided to quit during the ceremony and then he ran to the press to complain.

According to FOX News,

“The Trump Transition team reportedly offered to let him keep his job until the ceremonies were over. Maj. Gen Schwartz refused. It appears he would rather argue his would rather argue his case though in the press.”

The article at The Gateway Pundit also mentions:

The Washington Post completely rewrote their story since it was originally posted without any mention of an update.

We need to be aware of what is happening here. The mainstream media remembers the time when they were able to bring down a sitting President (Richard Nixon) by constantly tearing him down. When you go back and read some of this history of Watergate, you discover that it was a case that should have been over in two months, but behind the scenes in Congress many former members of Bobby Kennedy’s Justice Department were engaged in a strategy to delay indictments and prolong hearings in order to bring down the President and the Republican party. Their long-term goal was to prepare the way for Ted Kennedy to become President. What we are seeing now in the mainstream media today is simply another example of the press trying to create opinions rather than to report news..

We are undergoing a peaceful transition of power. It would be wonderful if those who supported Hillary Clinton during the election would remember that Donald Trump won and Hillary Clinton lost. This is the time for working together for America. This is not the time for unending attacks on the new President.

 

 

This Is Sad, Petty, And Unnecessary

Some of the attacks labeled at Donald Trump and his family are simply amazing. The man won an election–that is no reason to insist that he and his family be drawn and quartered. I simply do not understand it. I was never a fan of Barack Obama, but he was President, and that was that. I don’t think his political opponents ever stooped to the level of childishness and meanness that we are seeing in the political left right now.

Newsbusters posted an article today about Robin Givhan, the fashion writer at the Washington Post.

The article reports:

Robin Givhan, the liberal political columnist who plays fashion writer at The Washington Post, dominated the front of the Style section on Friday with a question: Can a fashion designer in good conscience agree to dress Melania Trump? Givhan argued that blacklisting the new First Lady is a good way to show a social conscience. The Trumps can buy off the rack, so it’s not really a blacklist.

The subheadline explained: “When it comes to dressing the Trump women, a designer’s most natural vehicle for protest — and patriotism — is the absence of their name.” Would it be “patriotism” if a designer refused to dress Michelle Obama? Perish the thought. Givhan said dressing the First Lady – especially for Inauguration Night, has always been an honor, until Donald Trump inspired “new waves of racism and violence.”

I really can’t believe the pettiness.

I love the way Givhan explains that refusing to dress Melania Trump is different than refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. I guess freedom of association (as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution) only applies sometimes.

This is the explanation given:

Givhan implicitly argues against the conservative pushback without being forthright: So a Christian baker has to make a cake for the gay wedding, but the gay fashion designer can refuse service to the President of the United States? It’s not the same, she argued:

Anyone with disposable income can buy a designer’s wares at retail — and even some red-carpet celebrities choose to do so. Hayden Panettiere purchased a Tom Ford gown for the 2014 Golden Globes. For the 2016 Globes, Bryce Dallas Howard picked up her Jenny Packham gown at Neiman Marcus.

That’s why declining to dress a celebrity is not the equivalent of refusing service. In doing so, designers would in fact be refusing a favor, with all the publicity that goes along with it.

What about patriotism? Should personal feelings and personal satisfaction be put aside out of respect for the symbolism of the first lady? Not necessarily. Protest that grows out of a desire to make the country better, to push it to live up to its ideals, is surely a form of patriotism….for those designers for whom fashion serves as their voice in the world, they should not feel obligated to say something in which they do not believe.

It is really sad to see people behave this badly because their candidate lost the election.

 

It’s Amazing How The Narrative Changes

Yesterday Breitbart.com posted an article about Donald Trump’s dismissal of politically appointed ambassadors. If you have seen the story in the mainstream media, it is probably accompanied by some level of hysterical hand-wringing. Well, wait a minute.

The article quotes The New York Times:

The mandate — issued “without exceptions,” according to a terse State Department cable sent on Dec. 23, diplomats who saw it said — threatens to leave the United States without Senate-confirmed envoys for months in critical nations like Germany, Canada and Britain. In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

Mr. Trump, by contrast, has taken a hard line against leaving any of President Obama’s political appointees in place as he prepares to take office on Jan. 20 with a mission of dismantling many of his predecessor’s signature foreign and domestic policy achievements. “Political” ambassadors, many of them major donors who are nominated by virtue of close ties with the president, almost always leave at the end of his term; ambassadors who are career diplomats often remain in their posts.

But (as usual) there is more to the story. The article reports:

Fox News recalls the Washington Post reporting the news in December 2008 without the slightest hint of disapproval, or a single heartstring-tugging anecdote about the difficulties faced by the ambassadors and their families:

The clean slate will open up prime opportunities for the president-elect to reward political supporters with posts in London, Paris, Tokyo and the like. The notice to diplomatic posts was issued this week.

Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush’s ambassadorial appointees.

Most ambassadors, of course, are foreign service officers, but often the posts involving the most important bilateral relations (such as with Great Britain, Japan and India) or desirable locales (such as the Bahamas) are given to close friends and well-heeled contributors of the president.

The article further reminds us:

The Center for Public Integrity counted 31 Obama campaign “bundlers” — good for at least $500,000 in donations — named as ambassadors, mostly to Western Europe and other “highly developed and stable countries such as Canada and New Zealand.”

“Another 39 of Obama’s second-term ambassador nominees are political appointees who either gave his campaign money or are known political allies. They, too, largely enjoyed postings to wealthy and peaceful nations — Ireland, Denmark and Australia, for example — or high-profile countries such as China and India,” the Center added.

It is quite possible that President Trump will also reward supporters with ambassadorships, but somehow I suspect the media will handle it very differently than they did with President Obama.

Just as a side note–is there anywhere that President Obama’s foreign policy was so successful that we should hang on to his ambassadors? Actually, I am hoping that the entire State Department will be fired for the horrendous job they have done during the past eight years.

 

A Lesson From History

I will admit to being young and stupid in 1972. I read the papers and watched the news and decided that Richard Nixon was a crook. I voted for George McGovern because he wasn’t a crook. For me it was that simple. I was quite satisfied with myself until about a year ago. I heard a discussion from some people I respect that caused me to revisit the situation. I am now reading a book called The Secret Plot to Make Ted Kennedy President by Geoff Sheppard. I’m not big on conspiracy theories, but there are some basic facts in this book that are hard to ignore.

The book explains the relationship between the Kennedy family and the media and details some of the ruthlessness of the Kennedy family. The book reminds us that after the accident at Chappaquiddick that resulted in the death of a young woman, there were some strange turns in the pursuit of justice. On July 18, 1969, Ted Kennedy drove off a bridge at Chappaquiddick and Mary Jo Kopechne, a passenger in his car drowned. The accident was not reported to the authorities when it happened. Ted Kennedy was interviewed by the police (and press) the following day when fishermen discovered the car and the body and the car was traced to the Kennedy family. When the case came to trial, Judge James Boyle sentenced Kennedy to two months’ incarceration, the statutory minimum for the offense, which he suspended. In announcing the sentence, Boyle referred to Kennedy’s “unblemished record” and said that he “has already been, and will continue to be punished far beyond anything this court can impose.” Sometimes it pays to be a Kennedy.

Watergate was a simple burglary which was stupid, dishonest and unnecessary. From what I have read, Richard Nixon was not aware of the burglary ahead of time and was not aware of the cover-up until very late in the game. By then it was too late. When John Dean realized that he was in trouble, he hired a lawyer—a lawyer very close to the Kennedy family. Behind the scenes, Ted Kennedy was directing the Senate Committee and the investigation. Dean’s testimony was carefully scripted to have the most impact. The media was in on the deal. It is telling that when Archibald Cox was sworn in as the Special Prosecutor in the Watergate Case, at least ten members of the Kennedy family attended the swearing in. Somehow the media overlooked that fact.

I realize that this is old news, but I bring it up for one reason. Ted Kennedy wanted to be President, and Watergate was a distraction from the baggage of Chappaquiddick. He was able to enlist (either verbally or non-verbally) the help of the media in a ‘get-Nixon campaign’ that would clear the way for a Kennedy Presidential victory in 1976. He made sure the Watergate Investigation dragged on, the indictments were delayed, and the testimonies had the maximum impact. The goal was to permanently destroy the Republican Party and clear the way for another Kennedy to become President. It didn’t matter what the truth was—it mattered what the American people were told and expected to believe. Because there were only three network news sources at the time, all moving in the same direction, it worked.

I believe we are going to see the same kind of coordinated attack on Donald Trump when he becomes President. We have a few things going for us that we didn’t have then—we have alternative news sources. The left is currently trying to discredit those sources as ‘fake news’, but many Americans are not fooled. There may be an attempt to shut down or totally discredit internet news (Facebook is already hiring fact checkers with liberal political connections). There is also the fact that Donald Trump is not inclined to claim that he is perfect. He has an ego, and he will tout his business success, but I haven’t heard him claim to be perfect. Be prepared to tune out a lot of the attacks on Donald Trump and his administration that you hear. I am sure he will make mistakes, but I can guarantee that he is not capable of doing all the things the Democrats will accuse him of—there are not enough hours in the day!

Fasten your seat belts! Get out the popcorn! Pray for America!

 

Disturbing On Many Levels

By now we have all heard the story of Matthew Lasner and his husband, who were removed from a JetBlue flight for harassing Ivanka Trump. However, I doubt that you have heard the entire story. A website I am an unfamiliar with, Heavy.com, posted details of some information I have seen referred to elsewhere.

Heavy.com posted a tweet:

The intention here was to harass another passenger on the plane. How noble. It gets even worse. According to Heavy.com, and other sources, Mr.. Lasner is a professor at Hunter College. What kind of example is he setting for his students? What is he teaching his students? According to the article, Matthew Lasner is married to Daniel Goldstein, a New York Attorney. Mr. Goldstein was holding their child as he was yelling at Ivanka Trump. Great example to set for your child.

The Washington Examiner also carried the story yesterday, noting that it had been sanitized in the mainstream media.

The Washington Examiner reported:

Lasner later deleted the tweets, and he appears to have suspended his Twitter account altogether following the incident.

JetBlue later put out a statement reading, “The decision to remove a customer from a flight is not taken lightly. If the crew determines that a customer is causing conflict on the aircraft, the customer will be asked to deplane, especially if the crew feels the situation runs the risk of escalation during flight. In this instance, our team worked to re-accommodate the party on the next available flight.”

I would not have been so accommodating.

Some of the mainstream media reports of the incident are included in The Washington Examiner article:

From the Associated Press: “Man says he and husband removed from JetBlue flight after ‘expressing displeasure’ that Ivanka Trump was aboard.”

From Yahoo News: “Man kicked off JetBlue flight for questioning why Ivanka Trump was on it.”

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution: “Passengers kicked off flight after run-in with Ivanka Trump.”

From the Washington Post: “Passenger who confronted Ivanka Trump gets kicked off Jet Blue flight.”

I can’t remember anyone ever doing anything similar to any of the Obama family members when they were out in the public–the girls at concerts or shopping. This is disgraceful. There need to be serious consequences for this sort of behavior. You can disagree with anyone politically for any reason, but you do not have the right to harass them or their family.

The Impact Of President Obama On The Democratic Party

On November 10, The Washington Post posted an article about the impact of the Obama Administration on the Democratic Party.

This is a graph from that article:

democraticpartyWow.

The article states:

We tend to focus on the loss of the presidency as the example of Democratic failure. That’s blinkered. Since 2008, by our estimates, the party has shed 870 legislators and leaders at the state and federal levels — and that estimate may be on the low side. As Donald Trump might put it, that’s decimation times 50.

So what happened? The Democrats lost the Presidential race this year for many reasons. Hillary Clinton was a seriously flawed candidate. It became obvious that the Democratic primary was rigged to make sure she won. That was the first mistake. The history of scandal that follows the Clinton family was also a problem. I suspect that had Jim Webb been the candidate, the Democrats would have won the Presidency, but he was far too conservative for today’s Democratic party bosses. The Democratic Party has moved to the left. People like John Kennedy would be out of step with the current Democratic Party. The move left became obvious in 1992 when Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey was denied a speaking slot at the Democratic Convention because he wanted to represent the pro-life minority. The leftward progress has accelerated since then.

America is a Representative Republic–not a Democracy. President Obama’s Administration has not brought America prosperity, peace, or security. Most Americans are not as well off as they were when President Obama took office. It has become very obvious that many of the lofty Democratic Party ideas do not work. ObamaCare is a prime example. It is time to go back to common sense–lower taxes, less government, encouraging a work ethic and the free market. These are principles that are totally alien to most of the Democratic party. Actually, they are alien to many Americans. However, Americans know when they are safe and prosperous and when they are not. I believe that is why the Democratic Party, at least temporarily, has collapsed in the past eight years.

 

This Is The Game Being Played

On Wednesday, The Washington Free Beacon posted a story that provides a bit of insight into the barrage of recent attacks on Donald Trump.

The article reports:

NBC executives planned to release the tape of Donald Trump’s sexually explicit remarks on an Access Hollywood hot mic to have maximum impact on the election and the second presidential debate, TMZ reported Wednesday.

NBC sources told TMZ that executives knew about the bombshell 2005 tape long before they say they did, but they elected to hold off leaking it because they did not want it to come too early in the race. The tape was reported first by the Washington Post on Oct. 7, two days before Hillary Clinton and Trump’s town hall debate, and it dominated the news cycle through the weekend.

The article quotes a TMZ article from Monday:

TMZ has confirmed … Billy was telling NBC staffers in Rio about the tape back in early August, when he was still working for “Access Hollywood.” We’re told word circulated because Billy made it clear Trump was trash-talking Nancy O’Dell.

NBC News says it didn’t know about the outtakes until a week ago Monday, but the word around the network is people knew, including executives at ‘Access,’ which is an NBC property. We’re told those executives had full knowledge of Billy’s comments on the tape … which creates a potential problem if NBC is serious about firing him.

We are being played. There is also a source that indicates that NBC edited the tape to make it sound worse than it actually was (how much worse could it get?).

It’s time to look past the garbage that is being thrown at us. Some of the stories from the women making charges against Donald Trump have already been disproved. There are also direct connections between some of these women and the Clinton Foundation and Democratic organizations. There is also the fact that Donald Trump has been in the public eye for at least thirty years, and this is the first time we have heard any of this. That in itself is a little unbelievable.

Voter Fraud Is A Felony–It Needs To Be Prosecuted

Yesterday The Washington Post posted an article about nineteen dead people who have recently registered to vote in Virginia.

The article reports:

One case came to light after relatives of a deceased man received a note congratulating him for registering, Rockingham County Commonwealth’s Attorney Marsha Garst said Thursday.

“His family members were very distraught,” said Garst, who confirmed the existence of the FBI and police investigation but said she could provide few details because the case is ongoing.

…All of the forms had been submitted by a private group that was working to register voters on the campus of James Madison University, according to the Harrisonburg registrar’s office. The group was not identified. No charges have been filed.

Republicans in the state House of Delegates, who in recent years have supported tighter voter ID laws, held a conference call with reporters to call attention to the investigation.

“Oftentimes we hear our Democratic colleagues suggest that voter fraud doesn’t exist in Virginia, or it’s a myth,” House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) said. “This is proof that voter fraud not only exists but is ongoing and is a threat to the integrity of our elections.”

Unfortunately there are political candidates that think winning is more important than ethics.

As previously reported here in 2011:

“Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Sean Caddle, who formerly worked for the Service Employees International Union. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid. The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures.”

A similar story appeared here earlier this year about Ohio:

True the Vote (TTV), the nation’s leading voters’ rights and election integrity organization, today announced details surrounding its effort to help Cuyahoga and Franklin County officials in Ohio remove more than a thousand duplicate voter registrations ahead of voting in 2016.

Upon receipt of True the Vote’s research, 711 duplicate voter registrations were removed in Cuyahoga County, while 465 sets were processed in Franklin County.

Voter fraud is a problem. We need to take a closer look at some of the groups engaged in registering dead or illegal voters. Voter fraud is a felony. We need to start sending people to jail when they engage in it.

UPDATE:

From The Gateway Pundit:

Just yesterday we wrote about an FBI investigation into potential voter fraud in the critical swing state of Virginia after it was revealed that 19 dead people had recently been re-registered to vote (see “FBI Investigating More Dead People Voting In The Key Swing State Of Virginia“).  While the Washington Post caught wind of the investigation, it was not known who was behind the operation…until now.

Meet, Andrew Spieles, a student at James Madison University, and apparently “Lead Organizer” for HarrisonburgVOTES.  According to the Daily News-Record, Spieles confessed to re-registering 19 deceased Virginians to vote in the 2016 election cycle.

The Naive Party vs. The Sleazy Party

The Washington Post has a story today about Donald Trumps insulting Alicia Machado, a former Miss Universe. Just for kicks, I used the search engine at the Washington Post to see if they had ever posted a story about Juanita Broderick. I got one recent story that recounted a discussion between Donald Trump and Sean Hannity on the issue. In case you have forgotten, Juanita Broderick was a Clinton campaign worker who charged Bill Clinton with rape many years ago. There is corroborating evidence that the charges are true and that Hillary Clinton was involved in the efforts following the charges to make sure Ms. Broderick was discredited. So the Washington Post is more concerned about mean things Donald Trump said than Hillary Clinton’s veiled threats and attempts to ruin someone’s reputation. (And that’s not to mention what Bill Clinton did). Seems a little one-sided.

But the story about Miss Universe did not suddenly arise. The Clinton campaign has been planning this–it was a set-up.

The article at the Washington Post reports:

— Operatives in Brooklyn had been working with Machado since the summer. They had a video featuring her story ready to go. Cosmopolitan had a photo spread of her draped in an American flag – to go with a profile – in the can. Machado had also conducted an interview with The Guardian that was “apparently embargoed for post-debate release,” according to Vox. And the Clinton super PAC Priorities USA turned a digital ad to highlight the insults by early afternoon.

The Clinton press shop then set up a conference call for Machado to respond to what Trump said on “Fox and Friends.” Speaking with reporters, Machado recounted how Trump “always treated me like a lesser thing, like garbage” and that his new words are like “a bad dream.” She said in a mix of Spanish and halting English that she watched the debate with her mother and daughter and cried as Clinton recounted her story, Ed O’Keefe reports.

To be honest, I have very little respect for the Clintons to begin with. I don’t have a tremendous amount of respect for Donald Trump, but I do respect what he has accomplished in the world of business. At least he is not corrupt to the core. He has a lot of room for improvement in some of the things he has said, but I can honestly say that he will at least try to do what is best for the country–his fortune is at stake! The Clintons exploited the office of President the last time they occupied the White House–there is a GAO report on items taken or damaged when they left. Donald Trump does not need to loot the White House–he has accumulated enough on his own. This story disgusts me for two reasons–first of all, it shows that the Clinton campaign is willing to walk through any gutter to win–even old gutters, and second, it shows that the Trump campaign needs to be ready for all manner of dirty politics from the Clintons. That is not a happy place to be as an American voter.