Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Why Did Media And Democrats Abandon Their Investigation Into Brett Kavanaugh?

  1. What happened to the multiple allegations of sexual misconduct levied against Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation battle? The claims ranged from Christine Blasey Ford's remotely plausible if unsubstantiated allegation of a violent attempted rape to Michael Avenatti's completely outlandish and also unsubstantiated allegation of hosting serial gang rape parties.
  2. If the media and other Democratic leaders wanted to have any credibility at all that the post-hearing release of multiple allegations wasn't a pure political stunt for which they were willing to destroy a man, they'd continue to fight for justice every day, wouldn't they? They would ask every Democratic candidate whether he believed Ford and supported impeaching Kavanaugh.
  3. The argument underlying the media coverage was that these allegations were credible and needed to be investigated and reported on given the importance of the lifetime position for which Kavanaugh was nominated.
  4. If Kavanaugh had credible sexual assault allegations against him, as the media claimed, they should be fully investigated even after his confirmation, since he continues to work with and around women, and has children at home.
  5. Many Americans did not find any of the accusations against Kavanaugh believable, but nearly every media figure and Democratic politician and seemed to swallow one or more of the claims whole.
  6. Blasey Ford's muddled claim about a violent attempted rape at an undetermined location and time in high school could not have been more generously treated by online, print, and broadcast media.
  7. CNN, FOX News, and MSNBC all said her claims were credible and that her testimony at the reopened Kavanaugh hearing was devastating to Kavanaugh's confirmation case.

Media Should Examine Itself Before Blaming Trump for 'Climate of Hate'

Members of the media and their allies on the left should look in the mirror-or at least take a moment for the country to mourn tragedy-before blaming violence and incivility on President Donald Trump and conservatives in general.

The media was quick to blame these incidents on the president, saying that he has created a climate of hate and fear that is producing these kinds of incidents.

Progressive columnist Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times: "All of these hate crimes seem clearly linked to the climate of paranoia and racism deliberately fostered by Donald Trump and his allies in Congress and the media."

After all these accusations that conservatives are to blame for violence in America, the media suddenly clams up when a hate-filled person on the left engages in violence.

In an appearance on "Fox & Friends," Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said that the shooter shouted, "This is for health care!" as he opened fire, a fact that received little media attention.

Alas, the media ensures that prominent members of the left never have to account for what they say-or don't say.

Vicious and hateful attacks on Republican presidents and conservatives go back for years, as do excuses for open anti-Semites in left-wing ranks-but Trump has been far more effective at cutting through media attacks and turning them back on his political opponents.

Democrats have intentionally divided the country and stoked fear among the public for a very long time

The media and other Democrats are saying that Trump and Republicans have divided the country and encourage hate.

It is clear the media is mixed up because the country has been divided long before Trump and the Democrats have always injected fear into elections.

Democrats are the ones who support Louis Farrakhan, not Republicans.

Democrats are the ones that had the KKK leader as an honorable leader in the Senate for years, not Republicans.

Democrats are the ones that pushed the fictional "Hands up don't shoot" narrative to gin up racial hate and hate towards cops, not Republicans.

The media has supported Democrats no matter what they say or do and now they are willing enablers and participants in seeking to destroy Trump and other Republicans no matter how much propaganda they have to spread. Of course Democrats, with the help of the media, have been ginning up racial hate for a long time.

How long would slavery have existed if Democrats gotten their way and defeated Lincoln?

We cannot let them divide us

Statistics on the rise in hate crimes must give everyone who thought America was immune from these assaults on decency pause.

The New York Times has detailed this week how social media - both mainstream sites like Facebook and niche sites like Gab that market to extremists - have given racists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups a platform to spout their disgusting words and vile sentiments.

We saw the dangerous ramifications of that in Pittsburgh where Robert Bowers has been charged with murder and hate crimes, suspected of opening fire on people who had gathered to peacefully practice their religion.

People of all faiths now must wonder if hate has rendered their place of worship unsafe.

We can only assume the hate Sayoc expressed on social media was fueled by his diet of far-right conspiracy theories and by the words of President Donald Trump whose verbal assault on Democrats and the media are beyond the pale.

We cannot let the extremists emboldened by hateful rhetoric in this country divide us.

In these trying times Democrats and Republicans must truly listen to one another and denounce hate everywhere they see it whether on social media, in our streets, from our elected officials, or from our friends and family.

Birthright citizenship needs fixing

What President Trump plans to change about birthright citizenship is a mystery.

As House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., noted, "You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order," and the Constitution does, broadly, prescribe citizenship for babies born in the U.S. But Democrats and their media allies risk overreaching if they think the public agrees with their absolutist view on the matter.

The question is, ought we to confer citizenship to every baby born here.

Birthright citizenship is an idea that has been present in law from around the time of America's founding and was planted in the Constitution in the 14th Amendment, where its purpose was to grant citizenship to former slaves.

That's the easy part, and after setting that aside as obvious, the case for birthright citizenship as a policy matter, rather than as a constitutional one, gets much weaker.

Illegal immigrants shouldn't win citizenship for their children because they managed to sneak in and give birth here.

On the question of parents illegally in the country, there's a good argument the Constitution does not provide birthright citizenship.

Is It 'Hate Speech' to Tell the Truth?

David Horowitz's site Discover the Networks says that "a strong case can be made for the claim that Soros today affects American politics and culture more profoundly that any other living person." Such organizations as Media Matters for America are beneficiaries of Soros's vast wealth.

"Soros's agenda is fundamentally about the destruction of national borders," researchers David Galland and Stephen McBride wrote in a 2016 article titled "How George Soros Singlehandedly Created The European Refugee Crisis - And Why." Galland and McBride documented the involvement of Soros's Open Society Foundation in the crisis that flooded Europe with millions of Muslim migrants.

In their book The Shadow Party, Horowitz and his co-author Richard Poe explained that a massive 2006 pro-amnesty rally in Los Angeles involved no fewer than eight groups funded by Soros, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the National Council of La Raza.

As for the current migrant caravan from Honduras, it is being supported by the so-called "CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project," a coalition of four organizations, three of which receive funding from - you guessed, didn't you? - George Soros.

To identity Soros as the sponsor of this open-borders agenda is to be guilty of hate, as explained last week in a Washington Post headline: "Conspiracy theories about Soros aren't just false. They're anti-Semitic." You will not be surprised to learn that the author of that article, Talia Levin, works for Media Matters, which is funded by Soros.

You could get banned from social media for mentioning Soros's role in promoting left-wing causes, thanks to a new effort to pressure tech companies to "Reduce hateful activities on their platforms." Guess who's funding that effort? Yes - George Soros.

An ad targeting a Minnesota Democrat begins: "Prima donna athletes protesting our anthem. Left-wing mobs paid to riot in the streets. Billionaire George Soros bankrolls the resistance - and Dan Feehan." That ad was denounced by liberals as anti-Semitic, of course, but Feehan's not Jewish and the ad says nothing about Soros being Jewish either.

Why Democrats are staying silent about the migrant caravan

Parents caught crossing illegally were separated from their children, and heartbreaking photos of crying toddlers forced President Trump to call a time-out.

Now the Dems are on the defensive as Trump sends the military and a clear message that he will defend America's sovereignty in the face of what he calls an "Invasion."

Four months ago, critics on the left wouldn't shut up about the border and some, like Mayor Bill de Blasio, made grandstanding trips to Texas detention facilities and held press conferences to denounce Trump in the harshest possible language.

Trump's latest wrinkle, a controversial bid to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, reveals both his commitment to the issue and the political opportunity he sees.

Trump has targeted the problem from the day he announced his campaign in 2015 and his vow to build a wall is popular with many voters.

Trump got the attention and reaction he wanted, showing again why next Tuesday could be full of surprises.

It's hard to get the upper hand with Trump in a kind of skunk fight.

Even when Americans don't love their political allies, they hate their opponents.

Speaking on CNN Sunday morning, Democratic donor Tom Steyer blamed recent political violence, included attempted pipe bombings and the murderous attack on a Pittsburgh synagogue, on the nasty rhetoric of Republican President Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

As leaders of both major American political tribes portray their enemies as not just wrong on policy but dangerous and depraved, they both bear responsibility for making government so frighteningly powerful that Americans increasingly feel that they can't afford to lose control of governing institutions.

In the current environment, even when Americans don't love their political allies, they hate their opponents-and have reason to fear their turn in power.

"Negative views of the opposing party are a major factor" in why people belong to political parties, Pew Research agreed this spring.

Even those Americans who aren't especially concerned with politics can find themselves on the receiving end of laws weaponized for use against businesses and pastimes that those currently in power associate with their political enemies.

If you want violent political battles for control of government to end, make politics matter much, much less.

When Americans have less to fear no matter who wins political office, they'll be less prone to viciously fight each other for control of government.

Brian Stelter Ignores Half of the Violent Rhetoric in the Press

President Trump is predictably to blame, but also culpable here is Stelter's favorite media target, Fox News.

It is a convenient outrage that Brian Stelter exhibits, one that rarely involves him turning around and pointing a finger at the other side - and that never will be pointed at the mirror.

On media panels Trump is freely labeled with charges of being a racist, sexist, homophobe.

Immediately after the first bomb packages were reported last week President Trump was to blame.

If Brian looked into the matter he would have seen the shooter was in fact disillusioned by Trump, specifically because he lacked sufficient anti-Semitism.

There is no possibility in the eyes of Brian Stelter they could have become influenced by press reports, therefore there is no need to explore the culpability of those members of the media.

The press has fallen prey to their own narrative; quick to believe all their own accusations that Trump is a monger of hate.

At least three of the Women's March leaders embrace anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, and they aren't apologizing for it.

The Women's March, whose leaders have openly embraced anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, tried to lead the "Resistance" in opposition to President Donald Trump in the wake of the Pennsylvania synagogue shooting Sunday, holding a "Vigil" outside the White House to protest anti-Semitism.

Sarsour and fellow Women's March leaders Tamika Mallory and Carmen Perez are, of course, friends with arguably the nation's foremost anti-Semite, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who regularly delivers anti-Jewish messages from the pulpit of his mosque in Chicago, and just last week referred to Jews as "Termites" who require extermination.

The Women's March, of course, hasn't denounced Farrakhan, nor has it forced its own leaders, who led a march against anti-Semitism yesterday, to denounce Farrakhan and distance themselves from his rhetoric.

The best the March could offer was a tepid statement of values: "Minister Farrakhan's statements about Jewish, queer, and trans people are not aligned with the Women's March Unity Principles."

Perez defended Farrakhan when the Women's March was told to distance itself from the "Controversial" leader.

"In regards to Minister Farrakhan, I think that is a distraction," Perez told Refinery29 when they asked why the Women's March didn't denounce Farrakhan's comments outright.

In the wake of Mallory's controversy, none of the Women's March leaders have even avoided Farrakhan.

Gridlock to Grind Out if Democrats Win

40-50 years of liberal education has taken its toll.

Nightmare: The Midterm results came pouring in and it wasn't great news for red-blooded Americans.

Nancy Pelosi, whose dementia is on full display in the House of Representatives, will swing the gavel to bring on two years of impeachment proceedings, investigations to nowhere, and a bevy of soundbites to keep lazy news organizations and their highly paid puppets busy.

Dave Macy spent 30 years as a conservative talk host on a variety of stations in markets like Atlanta, Nashville, Toledo, and Ft. Wayne.

He preaches several times a year and is also available to bring his unique style of common sense conservative talk along with his faith in Jesus Christ to any setting that is looking for a speaker with humor, common sense, and Christian values.

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned.

As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

The Anti-Semitic Media Fights Anti-Semitism

What wasn't good enough for the New Yorker was good enough for the Washington Post, which brought in a disgraced employee of Media Matters, an organization funded by George Soros, to accuse Soros critics of anti-Semitism.

Also the Washington Post is a series of conflict of interest smears and lies based in Washington D.C. To criticize Soros, according to Lavin and numerous carbon copy pieces being circulated by special interests across the media echo chamber, is to be linked to The Dearborn Independent, Father Coughlin, and the entire history of anti-Semitism in America.

That's a more accurate description of how the Left divorces anti-Semitism from the hatred of actual Jews, appropriating Jewish identity, while excluding its own anti-Semitism from criticism and condemnation.

In his latest piece, "It's Time to Wake up to anti-Semitism on the Right," he argues that anti-Semitism on the left should be ignored in favor of anti-Semitism on the right.

The defenses of Soros and attacks on Adelson running in the media side by side reveal how the media selectively deploys anti-Semitism and accusations of anti-Semitism in the service of its political goals.

National Socialist anti-Semitism distorted Jewish history and identity, but International Socialist anti-Semitism appropriates Jewish identity even while still continuing to practice anti-Semitism.

The Nazis gloried in their anti-Semitism, the Communists claimed to oppose anti-Semitism even as they were killing Jews.