Anatomy of a Smear Campaign
Weapons of Mass Deception
1 Picture = 1,000 words. Enjoy this cartoonist’s brilliant portrayal which pierce the smear campaign of convoluted media drivel. ~C.D.
1 Picture = 1,000 words. Enjoy this cartoonist’s brilliant portrayal which pierce the smear campaign of convoluted media drivel. ~C.D.
1 Picture worth 1,000 words. Enjoy these cartoonists’ brilliant portrayals which pierce the smear campaign of convoluted media drivel. ~C.D.
History Pattern, Kangaroo Court. It is useful to note a timely history pattern from ancient Native American history: Condemning the righteous because of their righteousness; letting the guilty and the wicked go unpunished because of their money; and moreover to be held in office at the head of government, to rule and do according to their wills, that they might get gain and glory of the world, and, moreover, that they might the more easily commit adultery, and steal, and kill, and do according to their own wills—Helaman 7:5
Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection.com for another great cartoon
Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March 2016 and developed a strategy that convinced delegates not to break with Trump in favor of establishment candidates. Trump then appointed the veteran Republican strategist as chairman and chief strategist of his campaign.
Months later, Trump fired Manafort after learning his chairman received more than $12 million in undisclosed payments from former Ukrainian president Victor F. Yanukovych, who he spent years working for as a political consultant.
Mueller was appointed by the Justice Department in May to lead the investigation into Trump campaign officials’ relationships with Russian operatives. But the focus now actually may be turning to the Democrats.
President Trump contends the “real Russia story” is the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium assets to a Russian company under Clinton’s watch.
Critics also have pointed to Mueller’s relationship with fired FBI chief James Comey and the fact that he stacked his team of investigators with lawyers who had openly supported Hillary Clinton in the election. The Mail reported it was unclear if Mueller still has a strategy to “squeeze” Manafort” for information about the 2016 election “and Russian’s possible interference with it.”
The allegations concern actions that all predate the Trump campaign, and Trump’s name doesn’t appear in the 31-page indictment by Mueller, who in the document makes no allegations of collusion with Russia.
There are so many liberal lies swirling around by anti-American hate groups bent on destroying a duly elected patriotic President. It is important to know the truth, which is the purpose of this blog. Below is an actual call President Trump made to a Gold Star widow in April. After that, General Kelly sets the record straight in the face of a very un-compassionate smear campaign by a democrat congresswoman. We all must diligently discern truth from falsehood. Consider the fruits of the anti-American Left’s relentless smear campaign: hatred against God, hatred against decent Americans and American heroes. ~C.D.
Truth about Trump
Gold star widow Natasha De Alencar released the audio of a phone conversation she had with President Donald Trump in April about the death of her husband who was killed in Afghanistan.
“I am so sorry to hear about the whole situation. What a horrible thing, except that he’s an unbelievable hero,” Trump told her in the call about her husband Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar, which The Washington Post released.
“Thank you. I really, really appreciated it,” she said. “I really do, sir.”
Natasha De Alencar had just returned home on April 12 after making T-shirts and pillowcases in her husband’s memory when the Army casualty assistance officer told her there was someone on the phone for her. It was President Trump.
Days before, two Army men told her that her husband, Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar, had been killed in Afghanistan on April 8.
He left behind five children — Deshaune, 20, Octavia, 18, Rodrigo, 16, Tatiyana, 13, and Marcos, 5 — and his wife of 15 years.
Trump opened by saying how sorry he is about the “whole situation,” before adding that De Alencar’s husband was “an unbelievable hero.”
“At that moment when my world was upside down and me and my kids didn’t know which way we were going, it felt like I was talking to just another regular human,” De Alencar said.
Later in the call, Trump invited De Alencar to the White House, telling her, “If you’re around Washington, you come over and see me in the Oval Office,” before asking about her oldest son, Deshaun, who is playing college football at Missouri Valley College in Marshall, Mo.
De Alencar told Trump that her son had received a scholarship, and Trump asked whether it was an academic or sports scholarship. (It was an academic scholarship.)
The conversation then shifted to De Alencar’s four other children. Trump asked her to say hello to them for him and to “tell them their father was a great hero that I respected.”
The phone call ended with Trump repeating his invitation to the White House and advising De Alencar to take care of herself. In total, the conversation lasted just under four minutes.
“It was a moment of niceness that we needed because we were going through hell,” De Alencar said.
Trump also told the widow if she is ever in Washington D.C. that she is welcome in the Oval Office.
“If you’re around Washington, you come over and see me in the Oval Office,” he said. “You just come over and see me because you are just the kind of family … this is what we want.”
“Say hello to your children, and tell them your father he was a great hero that I respected,” Trump said. “Just tell them I said your father was a great hero.”
RUSH LIMBAUGH: I want to go through the audio sound bites. This happened yesterday. It happened after the program yesterday, the Chief of Staff John Kelly going to the press room in the White House and making his statement in the middle of this controversy over whether or not Trump knows what to say and says the right things when he calls the families of military people killed in action.
RUSH: Now before setting up General Kelly, I want to go back, and this is a montage of what the Obama administration told Gold Star families after Benghazi.
RUSH:it was a premeditated terrorist attack and the video had nothing to do with it. You want to talk about lying to Gold Star families?
As reporters shouted questions, Kelly responded, “Is anyone here a gold star parent or sibling?”
The room was silent.
…WH COS: ‘Stunned’ Rep. Wilson Politicized President’s Call…Is Nothing Sacred?…
…’Mad Hatter’ Dissed: ‘Empty barrels make the most noise’
KELLY: Most Americans don’t know what happens when we lose one of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, or Coast Guardsmen in combat. So let me tell you what happens. Their buddies wrap them in whatever passes as a shroud, puts them on a helicopter as a routine and sends them home. Their first stop along the way is when they’re packed in ice, typically at the airhead, and then they’re flown to usually Europe, where they’re then packed in ice again and flown to Dover Air Force Base where Dover takes care of the remains, embalms them and meticulously dresses them in the uniform with the medals that they’ve earned, the emblems of their service. And then puts them on another airplane linked up with a casualty officer escort that takes them home.
KELLY: Hours after my son was killed, his friends were calling us from Afghanistan telling us what a great guy he was. Those are the only phone calls that really matter. If you elect to call a family like this, it is about the most difficult thing you could imagine. There’s no perfect way to make that phone call. When I took this job and talked to President Trump about how to do it, my first recommendation was he not do it, because it’s not the phone call that parents, family members are looking forward to. It’s a nice to-do in my opinion, in any event. He asked me about previous presidents. And I said I can tell you that President Obama, who was my Commander in Chief when I was on active duty, did not call my family.
RUSH: There you go. Now, I don’t know what you’ve heard about this, but when this kerfuffle began and Trump was being hit from all sides, as always, he brought in General Kelly and he mentioned that very point. That Obama didn’t take the time to call General Kelly or his family. Then we got stories about how Kelly was outraged and shamed and sorry that Trump had chosen to politicize the death of his son.
Well, I guess that wasn’t true either, because here’s Kelly setting the record straight. Obama didn’t call him. The Drive-Bys and everybody involved wanted to make it look like Trump had lied because that’s what they always try to make it look like. So they sit there shocked and devastated by what they’ve heard. But they get over it pretty quickly, because none of this is going to shape in any way their take on this event. Hearing the truth, hearing the details, does not deter the forces arrayed against Donald Trump on this. Another salient point in that bite is General Kelly also confirming that he told President Trump not to do it, it’s a tough call. It’s difficult to know what to say.
We have people whose job it is to inform the parents. Do you know what that policy is, by the way? You’ve seen it. You’ve seen it portrayed in movies, where a mother or father or family is happily engaged and getting ready for the day and there’s a knock on the door. The mother or father answers the door and it’s two uniformed military personnel.
The one thing I didn’t know is that the policy is for the uniformed military personnel who are going to convey the information to the family show up before dawn, and they park outside the home and they wait until very first light, before people may even be up. And at first light, they approach the front door and knock on it.
And the theory being that this needs to be the first thing the family hears in their day. As opposed to at 10:00 when people are gone, the whole family is not there. As opposed to later that night, it’s best to do this at the beginning of the day. And there is a studied policy for this based on learned experience with all this. And General Kelly told Trump don’t do it, it’s a difficult thing to do. They’re not expecting to hear from you, so don’t do it. Trump told Kelly he wanted to do it, and did it. And here’s Kelly explaining that.
KELLY: I think he very bravely does make those calls. So he called four people the other day and expressed his condolences in the best way that he could. And he said to me: “What do I say?” I said to him, “Sir, there’s nothing you can do to lighten the burden on these families. But let me tell you what I tell them. Let me tell you what my best friend, Joe Dunford, told me, because he was my casualty officer. He said: ‘Kel, he was doing exactly what he wanted to do when he was killed. He knew what he was getting into by joining that one percent. He knew what the possibilities were because we’re at war. And when he died –‘” and the four cases we’re talking about, Niger, my son’s case in Afghanistan, “‘– when he died, he was surrounded by the best men on this earth, his friends.’” That’s what the president tried to say to four families the other day.
RUSH: Okay. So there’s Kelly explaining what he told Trump that he says. He said that Trump asked him what to say. Well, you know when I first heard, by the way, when this really whacko Democrat Congresswoman from down here in Florida — I mean, she’s a piece of work. She’s out there claiming, “My kids are going to recognize me as a rock star.” She thinks she’s really popular now because the White House is talking about her.
He said, “He was doing exactly what he wanted to do when he was killed.” Trump had his own way of verbalizing that. But the fact that they harped on this, and lying about the fact that Trump didn’t even call somebody and then promised to send somebody $25,000 and Trump didn’t send the money — when he did send the money. The check was sent. (sigh) It just… Every day, every day these people are on the assault.
To me, “Empty Barrel” is an apt metaphor for Wilson. Her total lack of compassion or respect for those who gave their lives for her freedom to express her hatred makes one question if her soul is empty as well. ~C.D.
KELLY: I was stunned when I came to work yesterday morning — and brokenhearted — at what I saw a member of Congress doing. A member of Congress who listened in on a phone call from the president of the United States to a young wife, and in his way tried to express that opinion that he’s a brave man, a fallen hero. He knew what he was getting himself into, because he enlisted. There’s no reason to enlist. He enlisted, and he was where he wanted to be — exactly where he wanted to be — with exactly the people he wanted to be with when his life was taken. That was the message.
KELLY: I went to the dedication of the new FBI field office in Miami, and it was dedicated to two men who were killed in a firefight in Miami against drug traffickers. There were family members there. Some of the children that were there were only 3 or 4 years old when their dads were killed on that street in Miami-Dade. Three of the men that survived the fight were there and gave a rendition of how brave those men were and how they gave their lives. And a congresswoman stood up, and — in a long tradition of empty barrels making the most noise — stood up there in all of that, and talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she took care of her constituents because she got the money.
And she just called up President Obama, and on that phone call, he gave the money — the $20 million — to build the building. And she sat down. And we were stunned, stunned that she’d done it. Even for someone that is that empty a barrel, we were stunned. I still hope, as you write your stories — and I appeal to America — that let’s not let this maybe last thing that is held sacred in our society: A young man, a young woman going out and giving his or her life for our country.
Let’s try to somehow keep that sacred. But it eroded a great deal yesterday by the selfish behavior of a member of Congress.
Hillsdale Imprimis Part 1
The New York Post
I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.
It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at The New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species.
For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government—and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in All the President’s Men. Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.
During the years I spent teaching at the Columbia University School of Journalism, I often found myself telling my students that the job of the reporter was “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I’m not even sure where I first heard that line, but it still captures the way most journalists think about what they do.
Translate the first part of that compassionate-sounding idea into the daily decisions about what makes news, and it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that every person afflicted by something is entitled to help. Or, as liberals like to say, “Government is what we do together.” From there, it’s a short drive to the conclusion that every problem has a government solution.
The rest of that journalistic ethos—“afflict the comfortable”—leads to the knee-jerk support of endless taxation. Somebody has to pay for that government intervention the media loves to demand. In the same vein, and for the same reason, the average reporter will support every conceivable regulation as a way to equalize conditions for the poor. He will also give sympathetic coverage to groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.
I knew all of this about the media mindset going into the 2016 presidential campaign. But I was still shocked at what happened. This was not naïve liberalism run amok. This was a whole new approach to politics.
In the beginning, Donald Trump’s candidacy was treated as an outlandish publicity stunt, as though he wasn’t a serious candidate and should be treated as a circus act. But television executives quickly made a surprising discovery: the more they put Trump on the air, the higher their ratings climbed. Ratings are money. So news shows started devoting hours and hours simply to pointing the cameras at Trump and letting them run.
As his rallies grew, the coverage grew, which made for an odd dynamic. The candidate nobody in the media took seriously was attracting the most people to his events and getting the most news coverage. Newspapers got in on the game too. Trump, unlike most of his opponents, was always available to the press, and could be counted on to say something outrageous or controversial that made a headline. He made news by being a spectacle.
Despite the mockery of journalists and late-night comics, something extraordinary was happening. Trump was dominating a campaign none of the smart money thought he could win. And then, suddenly, he was winning. Only when the crowded Republican field began to thin and Trump kept racking up primary and caucus victories did the media’s tone grow more serious.
One study estimated that Trump had received so much free airtime that if he had had to buy it, the price would have been $2 billion.
The realization that they had helped Trump’s rise seemed to make many executives, producers, and journalists furious. By the time he secured the nomination and the general election rolled around, they were gunning for him. Only two people now had a chance to be president, and the overwhelming media consensus was that it could not be Donald Trump. They would make sure of that.
The coverage of him grew so vicious and one-sided that last August I wrote a column on the unprecedented bias. Under the headline “American Journalism Is Collapsing Before Our Eyes,” I wrote that the so-called cream of the media crop was “engaged in a naked display of partisanship” designed to bury Trump and elect Hillary Clinton.
The evidence was on the front page, the back page, the culture pages, even the sports pages. It was at the top of the broadcast and at the bottom of the broadcast. Day in, day out, in every media market in America, Trump was savaged like no other candidate in memory. We were watching the total collapse of standards, with fairness and balance tossed overboard. Every story was an opinion masquerading as news, and every opinion ran in the same direction—toward Clinton and away from Trump.
For the most part, I blame The New York Times and The Washington Post for causing this breakdown. The two leading liberal newspapers were trying to top each other in their demonization of Trump and his supporters. They set the tone, and most of the rest of the media followed like lemmings.
On one level, tougher scrutiny of Trump was clearly defensible. He had a controversial career and lifestyle, and he was seeking the presidency as his first job in government. He also provided lots of fuel with some of his outrageous words and deeds during the campaign.
But from the beginning there was also a second element to the lopsided coverage. The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, meaning it would back a dead raccoon if it had a “D” after its name. Think of it—George McGovern over Richard Nixon? Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan? Walter Mondale over Reagan? Any Democrat would do. And The Washington Post, which only started making editorial endorsements in the 1970s, has never once endorsed a Republican for president.
But again, I want to emphasize that 2016 had those predictable elements plus a whole new dimension. This time, the papers dropped the pretense of fairness and jumped headlong into the tank for one candidate over the other. The Times media reporter began a story this way:
If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalist tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him? [But it was A-OK for Obama to cozy up to anti-American dictators? ~C.D.]
I read that paragraph and I thought to myself, well, that’s actually an easy question. If you feel that way about Trump, normal journalistic ethics would dictate that you shouldn’t cover him. You cannot be fair. And you shouldn’t be covering Hillary Clinton either, because you’ve already decided who should be president. Go cover sports or entertainment. Yet the Times media reporter rationalized the obvious bias he had just acknowledged, citing the view that Clinton was “normal” and Trump was not.
I found the whole concept appalling. What happened to fairness? What happened to standards? I’ll tell you what happened to them. The Times top editor, Dean Baquet, eliminated them. In an interview last October with the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, Baquet admitted that the piece by his media reporter had nailed his own thinking. Trump “challenged our language,” he said, and Trump “will have changed journalism.” Of the daily struggle for fairness, Baquet had this to say: “I think that Trump has ended that struggle. . . . We now say stuff. We fact check him. We write it more powerfully that [what he says is] false.”
Baquet was being too modest. Trump was challenging, sure, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be abandoned without consequence.
With that decision, Baquet also changed the basic news story formula. To the age-old elements of who, what, when, where, and why, he added the reporter’s opinion. Now the floodgates were open, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper—all the tools that writers and editors have—were summoned to the battle. The goal was to pick the next president.
Thus began the spate of stories, which continues today, in which the Times routinely calls Trump a liar in its news pages and headlines. Again, the contrast with the past is striking. The Times never called Barack Obama a liar, despite such obvious opportunities as “you can keep your doctor” and “the Benghazi attack was caused by an internet video.”
Indeed, the Times and The Washington Post, along with most of the White House press corps, spent eight years cheerleading the Obama administration, seeing not a smidgen of corruption or dishonesty. They have been tougher on Hillary Clinton during her long career. But they still never called her a liar, despite such doozies as “I set up my own computer server so I would only need one device,” “I turned over all the government emails,” and “I never sent or received classified emails.” All those were lies, but not to the national media. Only statements by Trump were fair game.
THE PRESIDENT: In order to succeed, you must find out what you love to do. You have to find your passion, no matter what they tell you. If you don’t — I love you too. I don’t know. Nice guy. (cheers) Hey, what am I gonna do? He sounds like a nice person. He. He, he, he. Thank you. I do, I do love you. (crowd chanting “we love Trump”) By the way, just a question. Did President Obama ever come to a jamboree? (crowd booing)
RUSH: I’m counting here. I’m counting, 14 seconds, and that’s where we cut it, 14 seconds of boos, Barack Hussein O who never once in eight years accepted the invitation from the Boy Scouts to speak to their national jamboree. And this is what Newsweek has described as a Hitler youth rally conducted by Donald Trump. It totally, totally shook them up. In their minds they’ve destroyed this kind of appreciation for Trump.
So what’s Trump talking about here? I think when he says that he learned this tremendous lesson of never losing momentum, what he means is you don’t stop. You don’t rest on your laurels. You don’t take time off to assess. You just keep going. This man lost his momentum when he sold the company and changed his lifestyle to cruising the Mediterranean on his yacht. He got bored with that, wanted to go back to his business, but he’d been there and done that and just wasn’t able to recapture the momentum.
Trump is saying, once you find out what you love, just keep doing it because it isn’t work. He said that in the next bite. I don’t have time to play it right now, but that’s right out of my playbook. If you do what you love, it will never be work. There may be arduous days, but you’re never gonna get up wishing you didn’t have to do it. As I say, there may not be days where certain things are gonna happen, but when it’s what you love, it’s not work.
And I can’t tell you what kind of motivating characteristic that is and what kind of freedom that that creates. Loving what you do, having a genuine passion for it. Most people, a lot of people never discover it. They force themselves. I knew when I was eight what I wanted to do. I knew why I wanted to do it.
RUSH: I went back, I printed out these Google search headlines on Trump Boy Scout. I got three pages of ’em here. I’m just gonna randomly read some. “Trump Boy Scout Speech is Nazi Hitler Youth Rally.”
This is August 18th in 2000, Washington Times: “Democrat delegates boo the Boy Scouts of America at their convention.” The Algore Democrat convention of 2000, the Boy Scouts of America were booed. And now these people come up and claim to be holier-than-thou supporters of the Boy Scouts. It’s all a big lie.
Even after they had been forced to admit homosexuals, he never once accepted the invitation, because I’m telling you, folks — and particularly you Millennials — the Democrat Party has had no use for the Boy Scouts. They have no use for valor and honor and manners and morality. God? That was the big obstacle for the left is the Boy Scouts’ roots, R-O-O-T-S, in the God of the founding of the United States. They just couldn’t abide it. As I say here, this is from the Washington Times, August 18th of 2000. This is during the Algore Democrat convention:
“Democrat Delegates Boo the Boy Scouts of America.” They hated ’em, and I’m not saying that with any exaggeration. To the left, hard-core leftists, the Boy Scouts represent an obstacle and a threat. They would not admit women. They had to go to the Girl Scouts. They would not admit homosexuals. They would not admit transgenders. Now those two groups have been forced in via pressure brought by the left, and even after that Obama would not deign to accept an invitation to go speak at the national jamboree. Trump did, and he went out and he gave them who he is. They asked Donald Trump to come speak, and President Donald Trump showed up.
And the left has flipped a gasket, now comparing it to a “Nazi youth rally” in Newsweek magazine. It’s not Trump who’s unhinged.
RUSH: No, no, it’s in Newsweek. “Trump Boy Scout Speech is Nazi Hitler Youth Rally.” And they even have pictures of Hitler speaking to his brown shirted youths in the story. Meanwhile, who was it that organized little school kids singing songs of devotion to “Barack Hussein Obama, yay, yay, yay, Barack Hussein Obama, we love him.” It was all over the place in 2009. Kids out there being forced to sing these Obama anthems.
RUSH: My grandfather, my maternal grandfather was devoted to the Boy Scouts, was actively involved in the Boy Scouts of America. I was a Boy Scout. I was a tenderfoot for a year. You’re a tenderfoot when you join. That means I accomplished nothing. The only award I won was a gold brick as the most useless guy in the troop on a campout. (interruption) Well, I didn’t want to be there. I wanted to… I didn’t want to be there. But nevertheless, I had the uniform, and I became an expert in tying the handkerchief. You know, all the outdoor appearance things, I had ’em down pat.
The meetings were at the church. It was always a church-related organization, and when the Boy Scouts were founded — and there have been many presidents who were deeply involved. I think Teddy Roosevelt was and some others. But before it, in the earliest days of the Boy Scouts, they always… The Boy Scouts of America named the president of the United States as the honorary president every year that he was in office. Barack Obama never once accepted the invitation from the Boy Scouts to go speak.
Truth in Journalism:
This is the first of more Truth in Journalism posts to come from now on, because so much truth is blacked out by mainstream Media Bias. There is so much that goes unreported; please read more information on the various topics. ~C.D.
It takes a socialist village to kill a child
|The single-payer socialist bureaucrats holding baby Charlie Gard hostage in the U.K. still seem intent on making sure he dies instead of receiving the free care he’s being offered in the U.S.
This despite it imposing no cost on the U.K., and despite other children having beaten this ultra-rare illness with treatment.
Now a prominent journalist who isn’t afraid to call evil, EVIL, is weighing in …
‘Common sense’ gone in denial of medical care to baby
All Charlie Gard’s parents seek is permission to leave U.K. with sick son
WASHINGTON – Very soon, Charlie Gard will die.
Barring intervention from senior officials in the British government, 11-month-old Charlie Gard, who suffers from a rare genetic disease, will have his life support withdrawn soon by officials at Great Ormond Street Hospital, where Charlie now is hospitalized, although they have not yet named a time.
Charlie’s fight for life has drawn massive sympathy from around the world, with statements of support from figures as influential as Pope Francis and President Donald Trump. But so far, the British National Health Service has given no indication that its bureaucrats will allow Charlie to live.
“Since the signing of the Declaration of Independence 241 years ago, America always affirmed that liberty comes from our creator,” Trump declared. “Our rights are given to us by God and no earthly force can ever take those rights away. That is why my administration is returning that power back to where it belongs — to the people.”
Kate’s Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act passed the U.S. House last week with the full Davis-Oliver Act still waiting for a vote. Davis-Oliver would enhance the ability of the federal government and immigration authorities to enforce immigration law and crack down on sanctuary cities. Kate’s Law and No Sanctuary for Criminals are portions of Davis-Oliver. These bills were discussed at the White House meeting but got scarce coverage in the mainstream media, a phenomena these “Angel” families have experienced for years.
Trump dedicated his most recent weekly address to these families. The President pointed out that many of those responsible for killing these Americans have extensive criminal records and had been repeatedly deported, yet were in the U.S. at the time of taking an American life.
Fifty-two percent of 1,000 likely voters agreed that “resident Trump’s order seeking to impose this temporary travel ban is aimed at … Keeping terrorists out.”
THE BIRTH OF FAKE NEWS: THE CLINTONS AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
If you ask people to identify a coming of age for the modern-day smear, it’s amazing how many political insiders—both Democrats and Republicans—consider it to be the Clinton era. It’s impossible for any outsiders to know exactly how the Clintons became adept at engineering smears to deflect from their controversies
One of the earliest smear campaigns perpetrated by the Clintons began even before Bill announced he was running for president, when Hillary was busy devising a preemptive strike against women rumored to be involved with her husband. According to journalist Carl Bernstein in his biography A Woman in Charge, Hillary reportedly sought to get sworn statements from women Bill was rumored to have slept with. It was said that she wanted to convince the women to swear they had no relationship with him. She was correct to anticipate trouble.
That’s in the real world.
In the distorted world of the smear artist, things are very different. Up becomes down and down is up. It’s Alice in Wonderland and somewhere down the rabbit hole there’s a tea-sipping Mad Hatter stirring the pot.
These are the people who accuse patriots of being Nazis all the time. ~C.D.
The bottom line is, CNN simply is not capable of legitimately interviewing anyone that has opposing views and uses every tactic in the book to make sure their own views ultimately prevail.
No matter how you look at it, this is not journalism and has nothing to do with reporting news to inform people. What it is, is old time propaganda as was seen during WW II and the Cold War era, just redesigned to fit today’s modern mindset.
The main media in general and CNN in particular, care nothing about informing the public of news and events that may affect their lives, but are only interested in using old Communist and Nazi propaganda tactics to influence the minds of their viewers. CNN is not interested in being a source of news, their only goal is to promote a political agenda which requires slanting information, talking over or cutting off those who have opposing views, and broadcasting false information to further their own political agenda.
All this comes as no surprise since CNN’s President Jeff Zucker actually studied Nazi and Communist propaganda tactics in college. He even stated that CNN doesn’t report real news and only gives people what they want to hear.
Author, The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech
In the weeks following the Citizens United ruling, the Left settled on a new strategy. If it could no longer use speech laws against its opponents, it would do the next best thing—it would threaten, harass, and intimidate its opponents out of participation.
I like to introduce the topic of free speech with an anecdote about my children. I have three kids, ages twelve, nine, and five. They are your average, normal kids—which means they live to annoy the heck out of each other.
Last fall, sitting around the dinner table, the twelve-year-old was doing a particularly good job at this with his youngest sister. She finally grew so frustrated that she said, “Oliver, you need to stop talking—forever.” This inspired a volley of protests about free speech rights, and ended with them yelling “shut up” at each other. Desperate to stop the fighting and restore order, I asked each of them in turn to tell me what they thought “free speech” meant.
The twelve-year-old went first. A serious and academic child, he gave a textbook definition that included “Congress shall make no law,” an evocation of James Madison, a tutorial on the Bill of Rights, and warnings about “certain exceptions for public safety and libel.” I was happy to know the private-school fees were yielding something.
The nine-year-old went next. A rebel convinced that everyone ignores her, she said that she had no idea what “public safety” or “libel” were, but that “it doesn’t matter, because free speech means there should never be any restrictions on anything that anybody says, anytime or anywhere.” She added that we could all start by listening more to what she says.
Then it was the five-year-old’s turn. You could tell she’d been thinking hard about her answer. She fixed both her brother and sister with a ferocious stare and said: “Free speech is that you can say what you want—as long as I like it.”
It was at this moment that I had one of those sudden insights as a parent. I realized that my oldest was a constitutional conservative, my middle child a libertarian, and my youngest a socialist with totalitarian tendencies.
With that introduction, my main point today is that we’ve experienced over the past eight years a profound shift in our political culture, a shift that has resulted in a significant portion of our body politic holding a five-year-old’s view of free speech.
What makes this shift notable is that unlike most changes in politics, you can trace it back to one day: January 21, 2010, the day the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United ruling and restored free speech rights to millions of Americans.
For nearly 100 years up to that point, both sides of the political aisle had used campaign finance laws—I call them speech laws—to muzzle their political opponents. The Right used them to push unions out of elections. The Left used them to push corporations out of elections. These speech laws kept building and building until we got the mack daddy of them all—McCain-Feingold. It was at this point the Supreme Court said, “Enough.”
A five-judge majority ruled that Congress had gone way too far in violating the Constitution’s free speech protections.
The Citizens United ruling was viewed as a blow for freedom by most on the Right, which had in recent years gotten some free speech religion, but as an unmitigated disaster by the Left. Over the decades, the Left had found it harder and harder to win policy arguments, and had come to rely more and more on these laws to muzzle political opponents. And here was the Supreme Court knocking back those laws, reopening the floodgates for non-profits and corporations to speak freely again in the public arena.
In the Left’s view, the ruling couldn’t have come at a worse time. Remember the political environment in 2010. Democrats were experiencing an enormous backlash against the policies and agenda of the Obama administration. There were revolts over auto bailouts, stimulus spending, and Obamacare. The Tea Party movement was in full swing and vowing to use the midterm elections to effect dramatic change. Democrats feared an electoral tidal wave would sweep them out of Congress.
In the weeks following the Citizens United ruling, the Left settled on a new strategy. If it could no longer use speech laws against its opponents, it would do the next best thing—it would threaten, harass, and intimidate its opponents out of participation. It would send a message: conservatives choosing to exercise their constitutional rights will pay a political and personal price.
After decades of indoctrination in the schools, liberals know no truth at all about history, and prefer to believe lies. Let us be diligent in studying and learning true history and its patterns, for Satan goes about deceiving whole nations. ~C.D.
This hoax is getting people shot! ~Rush Limbaugh
The following article is a bit long, but please study it carefully. It provides insightful understanding of reasons why the Left would ally itself with such dark and satanic influences. ~C.D.
Bizarre Alliance. The honest truth is: The alliance between the left and Islam can best be explained biy the overarching reality that they share a common enemy, Christianity. Thus does the left warmly sidle up to Islam, which, truth be known, were it in charge would destroy the left, throwing members of the left’s main constituent groups off buildings or hanging or stoning or otherwise executing or enslaving them. ~David Kupelian, May Whistleblower, 6.
Islamists were tight with Hitler during the World War 2 era, as they shared the desire of racial supremacy over the Jews. ~C.D.
First, let’s agree on what is indisputably true: The left frequently compares Trump to Hitler, and I’m not talking about just Facebook rants and anti-Trump protest signs. The Washington Post, as I documented last October in a pre-election article titled “5 Washington Post writers liken Trump to Hitler,” spent 2016 explicitly and continually comparing Donald J. Trump to one of history’s most evil and universally reviled genocidal monsters.
In reality – Hitler murdered 11 million innocent people, while Trump, a billionaire New York real estate developer who wrote one of the best-selling business books of all time and got himself elected president, has never killed anyone.
Class warfare is to socialism as race warfare was to Nazism. Today, the leftist Democrat Party has managed to adopt both. ~Rush Limbaugh
It’s no coincidence the word “mad” is used to mean both angry and insane, for being angry enough can make you insane.
The worst, most depraved acts of evil you can think of – war, mass-terrorism, genocide – are preceded by the total demonization of the adversary, just as we’re seeing in the left’s hysterically evil characterizations of President Trump.
So “this demonization,” he said, “included two specific components:
“First, the victims had to be perceived as a clear and present threat, so that the killers were convinced they were acting in self-defense.
Second, the victims were dehumanized, so that the killers convinced themselves that they were not destroying real human beings.”
So, what does this say about the Washington Post – and others in the “mainstream media” who consider themselves America’s arbiters of truth – continually comparing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump with Hitler? Does such “journalism” legitimize threats and violent attacks on Trump and his supporters?
I arrived at this chilling conclusion: “If someone, God forbid – convinced he is a modern-day von Stauffenberg, heroically attempting to rid the world of this generation’s Hitler – were to shoot Donald Trump, would the Washington Post [and other hateful media] deserve any of the blame? I say yes.”
Beyond the left’s post-election meltdown and its ongoing campaign to overturn voters’ decision by demonizing Trump in hopes of crippling, impeaching and prosecuting him, there is yet a second reason the left hates the right – a reason even more vexing and profound.
It’s because these positions represent reality, truth, common sense.
Next question: Why do you suppose left-wing mayhem erupts on college campuses when conservative speakers like Ann Coulter are scheduled to lecture?
What is so offensive about Coulter’s (and other conservatives’) advocacy of sane immigration policies that riots, criminality and totalitarian attacks on free speech should inevitably result?
If you look carefully, you’ll discern that in almost all cases, it’s somebody speaking sensibly and truthfully that inspires the holy rage of the left. No such outrage accompanies college appearances by dangerous lunatic anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan or communist (and Obama pal) Bill Ayers.
No, it’s almost always a conservative and/or Christian speaking common-sense truth that reliably elicits the now-familiar hysterical, shrieking, violent response of the left.
Let’s put this strange phenomenon under a microscope with one final example, to bring what is really at play into sharper focus:
For decades, pro-life “sidewalk counselors” have stood outside abortion clinics, speaking in a respectful, persuasive manner to women entering these killing facilities intent on ending the little life within their womb. Many women have been penetrated by these words and changed course; if not, pro-lifers wouldn’t engage in this kind of intervention day in and day out, year after year, decade after decade.
But occasionally, the woman entering the clinic becomes enraged at the sidewalk counselor’s plea that she spare the life of her unborn child. The woman may later swear that the sidewalk counselor was abusive, threatening, intimidating, screaming – perhaps even violent.
It’s not true, of course. But the psychic shock the woman experienced from having been confronted, however lovingly, with the truth she had been running away from felt to her like an act of great cruelty. After all, she felt awful after encountering the sidewalk counselor, so therefore the sidewalk counselor must have done something awful. Right?
Wrong. All that happened is that the conscience she had worked so hard to deny, suppress and evade popped out and spoke to her from within another person. (If you think about it, this is a key reason for Christian persecution.)
Critical Thinking Skills:
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. ~Matthew 7:15,20
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. ~John 8:32
The smear was highly developed by communists in the Cold War era, and is a common practice in our society today, by politicians and by persons posing as journalists. The smear is done by people attacking those who disagree with them, frequently persons who hold to biblical values. Bible believers do not engage in this practice, because moral standards of Bible believers prohibit bearing false witness (lying).
Today smear tactics are prevalent among people who call themselves journalists, but who in reality “report” unsubstantiated rumors and blatant lies about people they disagree with.
Excerpt from Birthright, Part 1
Ruben grumbled as he strode over to the huge dictionary in the back of the room. Flipping the pages, he finally came to the word and read the meaning out loud: “A legendary Greek robber named Procrustes, who was noted for stretching the bodies or cutting off the legs of his victims so they would fit the length of his bed.”
“Just as Procrustes would stretch or cut off the legs of his prisoners to make them fit his bed, tyrants must stretch or cut out the TRUTH to fit the confines of their ideology—controlling freedom of speech, or people’s lives, or worse.
Alger Rotcraft explains the art of the “smear campaign.”
“First of all, it was a mistake to try to bring them down on an issue. Stay away from the issues; don’t give them anything to debate you about. The smear is only successful if you focus on character assassination.”
Find examples of the smear in our society today. Start by looking at anyone who speaks truth and defends the original intent of the Founders of the American Constitution. Make a list with two columns. On one side, place the statements of the person being attacked; on the other side, write what is being said about that person. Research the backgrounds of the attackers and the attacked, to examine their “fruits,” or works. Add the corresponding works in each column. Discern which are facts, and which are opinions.
The American public was nearly deprived of the opportunity to read this book.
In 2012 popular historian David Barton set out to correct what he saw as the distorted image of a once-beloved Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, in what became a New York Times best-selling book, The Jefferson Lies.
Despite the wildly popular success of the original hardcover edition, or perhaps because of it, a campaign to discredit Barton s scholarship was launched by bloggers and a handful of non-historian academics.
What happened next was shocking virtually unprecedented in modern American publishing history. Under siege from critics, the publisher spiked the book and recalled it from the retail shelves from coast to coast. The Jefferson Lies is thus a history book that made history becoming possibly the first book of its kind to be victimized by the scourge of political correctness.
But more than three years later, it s back as an updated paperback edition in which Barton sets the record straight and takes on the critics who savaged his work.
And that’s just part of the story. Why did this book spark so much controversy?
It could only happen in an America that has forgotten its past. Its roots, its purpose, its identity all have become shrouded behind a veil of political correctness bent on twisting the nation’s founding, and its Founders, beyond recognition.
The time has come to remember again.
This new paperback edition of The Jefferson Lies re-documents Barton’s research and conclusions as sound and his premises true. It tackles seven myths about Thomas Jefferson head-on, and answers pressing questions about this incredible statesman including:
Did Thomas Jefferson really have a child by his young slave girl, Sally Hemings?
Did he write his own Bible, excluding the parts of Christianity with which he disagreed?
Was he a racist who opposed civil rights and equality for black Americans?
Did he, in his pursuit of separation of church and state, advocate the secularizing of public life?
Through Jefferson’s own words and the eyewitness testimony of contemporaries, Barton repaints a portrait of the man from Monticello as a visionary, an innovator, a man who revered Jesus, a classical Renaissance man, and a man whose pioneering stand for liberty and God-given inalienable rights fostered a better world for this nation and its posterity. For America, the time to remember these truths is now.
Rush Limbaugh sets the record straight on two more examples of liberal lies: the smearing of Roger Ailes, and re-writing American history.
Liberals Re-write History on Declaration of Independence
Danielle Allen suggesting the second copy [of the Declaration of Independence] blows to hell the whole premise of federalism and establishes an all-powerful command-and-control one unitary central governing authority. And the states, to hell with ’em, all because in this copy the signers did not group themselves by state nor are the states from which they hail mentioned.
She says, “This parchment manuscript eliminates in one stroke how the Federalists and the anti-Federalists debated the question of whether the new republic was founded on the authority of a single united, sovereign people or on the authority of 13 separate state governments.” You ever heard of the Constitution, Danielle? For crying out loud, it’s a copy. Look what they’re trying to do here. Where has this thing been, anyway? In some whaler’s cabinet over on the coasts near the white cliffs of Dover in the U.K.? Well, what are we talking about here?
Look, you have a bunch of leftists searching everywhere they can for evidence that socialism and one giant, big government everywhere is the answer. And they would love it if they could find evidence or convince you that they have found evidence that even the Founders of the United States knew of the greatness and the potential of a single all-powerful government.
And one of the ways they’re going about it is prohibiting any speech they think undermines their cause,
50 years of indoctrination in the schools yields bitter fruit
It is very subtle, but very insidious, intended to put a globalist spin on history for young people who come long after the events, and after decades of globalist indoctrination in the schools.
The Americans and the French are referred to as “the Allies”. This term was used in World War 2.Then this same presentation said that Cornwallis surrendered to the French and the Americans, instead of England’s General Cornwallis surrendering to America’s George Washington.
Some revisionists have also used Allies interchangeably with united nations, implying that the United Nations won World War
The Art of the Smear: It’s an old method that has been used by tyrants throughout history—character assassination. It’s called Disinformation. The corrupt media has used it against Republicans and Republican presidents for decades, and it has succeeded wildly in making establishment Republicans cower in fear. Now they have defined deviancy down exponentially, beneath all decency, stooping to blatant lies, in an attempt to bring down President-elect Trump. But this time it isn’t working, because Trump is not afraid of the lying, corrupt media. ~C.D.
You could tell blog by blog who hoped it to be true, who wanted it to be true, who held out possibilities it was true. Others, like John Podhoretz, slammed it for what it is: The most pathetic descent into unprofessionalism in his experience for the Drive-By Media. And that’s exactly what this is. They are so desperate, they are so ineffective with Trump, they are so at their wits’ end. Every bit of technique and ammunition that they have been able to use any time they want to destroy anybody (usually Republicans), doesn’t work on Donald Trump and so they don’t know what to do.
Incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus called the report “offensive crap that we shouldn’t even be talking about. This is garbage … shameful is what it is.”
Perhaps the most damning evidence that the news is fake comes from the apparent source of the story, the website 4Chan, which now claims it fabricated the entire story as a hoax.
Part of the story alleges Trump aide Michael Cohen went to Prague to coordinate activities with Russian agents.
However, all the main characters involved in the story are adamantly denying it.
Trump tweeted: “FAKE NEWS – A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!”
He added, “Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to ‘leak’ into the public. One last shot at me.Are we living in Nazi Germany?”
And, “Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA – NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!”
Putin denied his country had collected or was holding any incriminating evidence on Trump.
Cohen produced his passport on MSNBC to show he had never even been to Prague.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/trump-blasts-fake-news-on-russian-dossier/#tQiZDqEXtBmv5Af1.99
History facts: The democrats succeeded in destroying Robert Bork, Supreme Court nominee. Hence the term “Bork” has entered the dictionary. They used vile, filthy lies against Clarence Thomas as well. Now the democrats are trying their abominable smear campaign against the Honorable Senator Jeff Sessions. This time their lies are being exposed. The truth is that the democrats are guilty of all the very accusations they are making. At last. Truth matters, and it will prevail. ~C.D.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: All day the Democrats had spent pontificating and lecturing Jeff Sessions on whether or not he followed the law, whether or not he’d be rogue in there, whether or not he would use the position of attorney general to implement the president’s agenda like Loretta Lynch and Holder did, which was fine with them, but when it came to Sessions, he better not do that.
So Cruz is pointing out — oh, yeah. He also mentioned Fast and Furious. When the president and the previous attorney general concocted a program to sell weapons to Mexican drug cartels out of American gun stores, the Democrats on this committee were silent. Just nailed ’em to the wall, also nailed Al Franken to the wall. Here’s the next Sessions sound bite.
TED CRUZ shows the pattern of Obama lawlessness:
That pattern has been dismaying for eight years, but I take today as a moment of celebration. If once again this committee has a bipartisan commitment to rule of law to following the law, that is a wonderful thing and is consistent with the tradition of this committee going back centuries.