Washington Post Threat "No Biden, No Peace"

 

 

As disgusting as much of the media has become, the Washington Post has hit a new low. 

 

 In a new op-ed written by Rosa Brooks, a law professor at Georgetown University, the Left is telling us that unless Biden wins big, there will be a major insurrection and violence galore. Now remember, Ms. Brooks is a law professor in a major university. Based on an article she wrote for the far Left Atlantic, she's no big fan of our police either. And here, she's advocating for street violence as a tool to threaten voters. 

 Now, she doesn't exactly say so. What she hides this behind is that these are simply the results of 'research' by the Transition Integrity Project, something she cofounded. What they did was to construct series of 'war game's, hand pick some participants, and ask them to say what they would do in various election scenarios. And of course, a landslide for Joe Biden (whom she obviously supports, just like the Wapo) results in a relatively orderly transfer of power. 

Every other scenario that she'war-gamed' for the hand picked participants resulted in street-level violence and chaos. My, my. So it's quite clear that the American left is actually threatening the American public, 'vote Joe or it'll be hell.' And they're using a major newspaper to do it. 

 Actually, this is no secret. It's what the Left has been up to for the last 3 years. Now they're forewarning us directly just in case we haven't gotten the message yet. To those of us who have actually following what's been going on, this is what everything they have been doing this year has been to give a taste of what they have in store if they don't get their way. All of their behavior has been headed towards this. It's all been planned.In other words, they have had a strategy to attempt to intimidate you, manipulate you and scare you.

And now they're being open about it. Their message is simple. Just vote for Biden and get rid of Trump and you'll stay safe. Cross us, and it will be hell. If Trump gets re-elected, theyare saying, 'll be even worse than it is now. 

They're being very open about this. They’re just coming right out and telling you now that if Biden doesn't win, then your country is going to be violent and chaotic. And since this garbage was published at the Washington Post, they stand behind it.

 

 

 Will it really be that bad if Trump wins? Let's look at that. In the first place, let's remember that this stuff has only occurred in areas run by the Democrats, with mayors who handcuff their police, Governors with political reasons for letting things get crazy, and cities with far left  city councils and District attorneys who will drop charges and let violent rioters leave scot free. Many of them were bankrolled by tax free 'social justice organizations' run by George Soros. 

If you notice, there hasn't been anything like this in places with Republican mayors and city councils, governers or DA's. In Texas, for instance, there was a small fracus in Austin, definitely a blue run city. It didn't last long, the perps were promptly arrested and that was that. So what we would see,essentially is a temper tantrum in blue run jurisdictions. As a re-elected President Trump could definitely exercise the Insurrection statutes to stop it.

 We have a choice. We can cower to this blackmail and elect a figurehead President who will take his orders from his far left puppet masters. I guarantee they will destroy our economy, kill our second amendment, raise our taxes and destroy our suburban neighbrhoods and turn America into something very different in terms of our individual freedoms and liberty.

Trust me when I say that the 'safety' they're promising you will not be very safe at all. Just look at the cities they already run! They aren't very safe at all. Or we can stand up to these freedom hating, Marxist loving Lefties and keep America on the path we have already started on, one of prosperity, lower taxes, individual freedom, school choice, opportunity and policies that consider America first. Oh yes, and a president who stands up for America and is a real leader. 

 

Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Examiner, American Thinker, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, The Times Of Israel, Breitbart.Com, Yediot and other publications

A Lion Among Jackals - Gen. Kelly Rips Dems,Press Over Lies About Trump's Condolence Call

What we have here is a man who has lived his life in service to his country explaining what that means... to jackals who serve nothing but themselves and their agenda to tear down what most Americans still hold sacred.

White House chief of staff John Kelly lashed out at Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.) today (and by extension her fellow Democrats who piled on) saying he was "stunned" by her negative description of President Trump's call to the wife of a U.S. soldier who was killed in combat inNiger.

I went over this yesterday and explained the real reason the press jumped on this, as a tool to keep other news off the headlines.

So General Kelly, who recently lost his own son in combat patiently explained exactly what happens when a service person is killed. And  that the wife or parents of the deceased service person must agree beforehand to take the call, and exactly why President Trump's call was completely appropriate...and not at all a common gesture by presidents in wartime. President Trump personally called all 4 families.

To me, the most telling moment when when General Kelly agreed to take a few questions "but only on this subject" and asked if any of the reporters were Gold Star parents, or even knew any Gold Star parents and the room went silent. Finally he found a couple of reporters who claimed they knew Gold Star families, and of course their questions were not about the topic of the condolence call at all but about the raid itself in Niger, which Kelly addressed but refused to answer for reasons that are apparent if you watch the video. And this time the usual spectacle of the press yelling out over each other was absent.

Can it be that the lion shamed the jackals this time? Can it be that the blatant contrast between themselves and those who serve being made so nakedly obvious made them, for the first time perhaps, see themselves for who they really are?

A must watch video.

Trump Politicizing Our Military? The Real Story

President Trump politicizing our military? Here's the real story.

President Trump is currently being demonized for 'politicizing our military' and for his supposedly uncaring attitude when making a condolence call to the widow of a Green Beret Army sergeant, one of four American servicemen killed in an ambush by Islamic militants in Niger.

The fire is being stoked by a notoriously racist and partisan black Democrat congresswoman, 75-year-old Frederica Wilson (D-FL).



She's claiming that the president was "heartless" and that "This is a sick man who feels no pity or sympathy for anyone."

Far Left Democrat Senators Bernie Sanders and Tammy Duckworth chimed in as well of course with similar language, and I'm sure there will be more of them. After all, it takes this particular story out if the headlines . That story is an account of the FBI's findings in their investigation of the massive Russian bribery given to the Clintons before our then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed off on giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.And how the Obama Department of Justice, run by Loretta Lynch, stonewalled the initial investigation.

This, by the way, comes after the FBI mysteriously 'found' over thirty pages of notes about Lynch's secret meeting on the airport tarmac with former President Bill Clinton after saying in court that no notes existed. It seems they discussed a lot more than grandchildren.

You'd think these stories would be screaming headlines if there was any journalistic integrity among the usual suspects. But no...some rabidly partisan nonsense about a condolence call is what they deem the peasants need to be informed of, right?

Oh, the insensitive remarks? Here's what they consist of...that President Trump referred to the soldier as 'Your guy' during the phone call instead of calling him by name, and that the president said, "He (the sergeant) knew what he signed up for, but it's tough just the same."

Let's remember that personal condolence calls from the president of the United States are not mandatory, and some presidents have preferred to simply have a letter mass printed and auto signed.The fact that President Trump took some time from his busy schedule to make a personal condolence call to a Gold Star widow is both honorable and admirable.

And if this was actually what was said, does it sound remotely cold or disrespectful? It's obvious that the president is making reference to the bravery of a widow's husband,who knew full well what he was facing but chose to serve, and an expression of empathy over her loss.

But it does serve to help bury the stories exposing the corrupt Clintons and the collusion of the Obama Administration, doesn't it? Oh look, a squirrel!



And if we're talking about politicizing military casualties, let's look at a president who actually did it, Barack Hussein Obama. Now, all of the Democrat congress members mentioned in this article were rabid Obama partisans. Let's examine their disgusting hypocrisy, shall we?

• It was President Barack Hussein Obama who used the coffins of returning dead servicemen as a photo op at Dover Airport, something that was against the wishes of the family members and against DOD procedure and policy. He did it anyway.

• It was President Barack Hussein Obama who decided that a priority during the government shutdown in 2013 was to cut the funds congress had already allocated as death benefits for families of military killed in action, and to use them for things more dear to his heart. And he made sure that the families, already worried about paying the mortgage and how the kids were going to afford college received a blatantly political letter informing them that it was all the republican's fault. As everyone knows, it was the president and his team who made the decisions on what was funded and what wasn't, and he made sure to make the maximum in political capital out of it..even when it involved military families wondering how they were going to be able to live.

• It was President Barack Hussein Obama who deliberately had his Justice Department show states how to defy established law and suppress the votes of active duty military overseas simply because they tend to vote Republican.

• It was President Barack Hussein Obama and his administration that turned the VA into a dysfunctional nightmare for our wounded warriors, after he failed to take away their VA benefits entirely.

• And finally, it was commander-in-chief Barack Hussein Obama who concocted the ridiculous rules of engagement in AfPack and Iraq that led to a much greater tally of American fighting men and women not coming home alive. Ask anyone who was there during those years. And it was President Obama who ransomed deserter Bowe Bergdahl for five top level Taliban commanders we had in Gitmo...who went right back to killing Americans

These items show you exactly how distorted and twisted the morality and judgement of these congress members actually is. I defy anyone to show me a single word any of them had to say about these episodes of actually politicizing our military and using them as pawns when they occurred, and all of them were in a position to do so.

Yet they have the audacity, the nerve to whine that Trump's politicizing our military?

Beside that kind of callousness and hypocrisy, anything President Trump may have done or not done in this instance fades into insignificance.

President Trump Is 100% Right - The Media's Feeding Hate And Division

 

President Trump, whatever else he accomplishes during his term deserves major credit for unmasking our dishonest, partisan media. He's totally correct when he says, as he does here in Phoenix, that the biased media is feeding hate and division here in America. And it's hard not to believe, as President Trump says that they really don't want America to be great again, and lack love of country. And that's been evident long before Donald Trump became president.



What really happened here, as most of us know is that the biased media really thought Hillary Clinton was a shoe in. Their biased polls showed it. The Left controls most of academia, Hollywood, the publishing industry, most of the legacy media, most of pop culture, and most of the tech/Social media industry and its billions.

Much of the media actually worked for either the Clintons, Obama or both before they eased into their present sinecures.

Mrs. Clinton had the big money behind her.She had an army of the best consultants money could buy to plan strategy and carpet bomb the American people with vicious attack ads. She had the corrupt DNC in her pocket to grease the primaries so she would win easily. She had the media working fo her to provide partisan hosts and slant the debates. She even had a large contingent of #neverTrump conservatives on her side.

And against her was Donald Trump, running his first campaign ever, with a small campaign team, his plane, and not much else except well, himself.

The Left, especially the media were so convinced that they could destroy him easily, so confident of their own power that they went all out...and got careless. A lot of had already known how biased they were for sometime, but the waythey conducted themselves in 2016 pulled the Wizard of Oz's curtain away for America at large.

The media bet everything on one throw of the dice, and got snake eyes. Because against all expectations Donald Trump won the election in the biggest upset in American political history.

And the Left had a collective nervous breakdown. What happened on camera was hilarious enough, but I've heard that what happened when the cameras were off was even funnier.

Mrs. Clinton was so angry and distraught she threw a major tantrum backstage and wasn't even able to speak to her followers who were waiting to hear from her. Her campaign manager, John Podesta had to speak to them and tell them to go home. And once Mrs. Clinton calmed down, they came up with the fairy tale of 'Russian collusion' to alibi why they lost so badly.

Oddly enough it was Donald Trump who caught the heat before the election for saying that he would respect the results 'if it was an honest election.'

Remember this?



Did you ever see or hear former President Obama addressing the nation to decry the Left's disrespect for the 2016 election results? Did you see any of the legacy media excoriating Mrs. Clinton,the Obama Administration and the 'resistance' for disrespecting our democracy? Of course not, because the media was intimately involved in that disrespect and they still are complicit in it. And if that's not de facto hatred of our country, what is?

The bogus 'Russia story has been off the front pages for almost two weeks now. Instead, it's 'trump the racist,' 'Trump's insane,' and 'Trumps unfit for office' repeated over and over and over again in the classic cadence of the Big Lie.

The huge crowd of over 8,000 (put a few thousand outside who couldn't get in and braved the heat to listen on monitors) in Phoenix cheering the president on and the tiny contingent of 500 or so 'protestors' that showed up after all the hype shows us two things. That Trump hasn't lost his base and that the only place the Left's brown shirts can act out is in the solid blue enclaves sympahthetic politicans control...like Charlottesville, Chicago, Berkeley or Los Angeles. Anywhere else, the police are going to be allowed to do their jobs.

Which is of course what happened in Phoenix, which has a Democrat Mayor but one who wasn't going to let the Left run amuck in his city. Unlike Mayor Signer in Charlottesville, he ordered the police to keep the two groups separated. That angered the Left's thugs so much that as soon as Trump's crowd departed, they attacked the police...and got exactly what they deserved.

Phoenix ain't Chicago,Baltimore or Charlottesville. Not by a long shot.

NYT: 'Texas, CA Belong to Mexico. US Must Give Migrants Amnesty To Keep Them

Pravda-on-the-Hudson has been caught dissembling quite a few times. But this op-ed they chose to publish asserting that Mexico has a claim to all the territory ceded to the U.S. at the end of the Mexican War in 1848 has a special place in their disgraceful history. And I'm actually glad they did run this,because it unintentionally reveals the true core of the argument that illegal migrants are 'immigrants' and thus entitled to what are referred to as 'immigrant rights.'


 


The piece, written by one Señor Enrique Krauze who is described as 'a historian, the editor of the literary magazine Letras Libres and the author of “Redeemers: Ideas and Power in Latin America.”' His premise is this...and note certain key words I've emphasized:

The United States invasion of Mexico in 1846 inflicted a painful wound that, in the 170 years that followed, turned into a scar. Donald Trump has torn it open again.

Among the many lies that he has constructed, none is more ridiculous than his attempt to contradict history by presenting the United States as a victim of Mexico, a country that supposedly steals jobs, imposes onerous treaties and sends its “bad hombres” across the border.

To confront this fake history, some Mexicans are proposing to remind Mr. Trump exactly what country was the first victim of American imperialism. They are calling for a lawsuit that would aim to nullify the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (signed on Feb. 2, 1848), in which Mexico — invaded by American soldiers, its capital occupied, its ports and customs stations seized — was forced to accept the American annexation of Texas and concede more than half the rest of Mexican territory, now including most of the states of Arizona, New Mexico and California.

He continues by naming some radical Left 'statesmen' (his term) behind the idea of an (International Criminal Court (ICC) lawsuit and says, "If the present Peña Nieto government does not adopt Mr. Cárdenas’s project, an opposition candidate (of either the populist left or the nationalist right) could legitimately assume it as a banner for the presidential elections of July 2018. Such a new president could make that lawsuit a reality."

He goes on to cherry pick a few quotes from Americans who disagreed with the war, including misrepresenting soldiers like Robert E. Lee who merely expressed human sympathy for the loss of life that occurred during the war. And finishes thus:

For us Mexicans, this is the chance for a kind of reconquest. Surely not the physical reconquest of the territories that once were ours. Nor an indemnification that should have been much greater than the feeble amount of $15 million that the American government paid, in installments, for the stolen land. We need a reconquest of the memory of that war so prodigal in atrocities inspired by racial prejudices and greed for territorial gain.

But the best and most just reparation would be American immigration reform that could open the road to citizenship for the descendants of those Mexicans who suffered the unjust loss of half their territory.

Let's look at what Señor Krause is actually saying. The United States viciously invaded Mexico for no reason whatsoever and committed war crimes inspired by racial prejudices and greed. So Mexico should annul the treaty that ended the war and sue for 'reparations' at the ICC. But because such a suit might not succeed, the U.S. needs to recognize its guilt, flagellate itself and provide amnesty for 11-20 million 'immigrants' no matter what, simply because they're Mexican. Because you see, they have rights other immigrants don't have, because America stole territory that rightly belongs to Mexico.

That is exactly what La Raza, MeCha and other 'immigrant rights' groups have been really saying for some time. That illegal migrants,or as they like to call them immigrants from Mexico have the right to come here and settle en masse because of this history.

Let's examine this, shall we?

In the first part of his screed, Señor Krause makes much of the violent, unprovoked war of greed and conquest America waged against Mexico. Then, towards the end this 'historian' mentions in passing 'the feeble amount of $15 million that the American government paid, in installments, for the stolen land.'

When was the last time you heard of the victor in a war of greed and territorial conquest giving any money to the losing side in a peace treaty? N-E-V-E-R.

And that 'feeble amount?' In today's money, that translates into over $460 billion dollars for land that was mostly unsettled and undeveloped. Not exactly the kind of money 'conquerors' dole out to the vanquished, is it? For that kind of cash, we should have gotten the Mexicans to throw in Baja and a nice piece of Sonora as well, ¿No es así??

Mexico was desperately in need of that money, after years of dysfunctional, corrupt government from various dictators like Presidente General Santa Anna. They happily agreed to what was a seller's price they had no reason to expect after starting a war.

Texas, by the way had already broken free from the Mexican yoke. One of the chief causes of the war was the U.S. accepting the Lone Star Republic as the the 28th state of the Union. Mexico had never gotten over getting their behinds handed to them by the Texans a few years back in spite of the Treaties of Velasco they made with the Texans. They still regarded Texas as theirs, even though they no longer controlled it. They were enraged when it became part of the U.S. and publicly called it a causus belli, a cause for war.

California was also on the verge of revolt, because neither most of the Califonios (Mexican living in California) or the American settlers liked Mexico's tyrannical government or its high taxation and corruption. California's Bear Flag Republic broke free from Mexico during the war, in 1846.

What 'historians' like Señor Krause conveniently forget if that prior to the war, President Polk tried to stave off hostilities by having U.S. diplomat John Slidell travel to Mexico offering a sum of 30 million dollars (nearly a trillion dollars!) for New Mexico and California and a border at the Rio Grande. (Mexico claimed the border started at the Nuences River, which the U.S. and Texas disputed). The Mexican government refused to receive him or negotiate anything.Ayi, those greedy Yanquis! And when General Zachary Taylor and his troops were ordered to travel down to the Rio Grande to maintain the disputed border of Texas they were fired on by the Mexican army.

Hmm, so much for an unprovoked war, Señor   Krause. Who's dealing in fake history now?

 And Mexico got even more money a few years after the war via the Gadsden Purchase, $10 million 1853 dollars (about $240 billion today) for what was simply desert wasteland and served to give Mexico a contiguous border. So much for the greedy Yanquis, si?

So now that we've established that the U.S engaging in the Mexican War was not unprovoked, that Mexico could have prevented it, that Mexico was the aggressor, that the land was bought and paid for at a more than fair price, and that the  United States was surprisingly generous in victory to a country that had attacked them, let's briefly examine the argument this horse manure is based on.

 

Mexico today still has a corrupt, dysfunctional government. Part of the reason that kind of government survives is because illegal migration from Mexico aids and abets it. They do it by sending billions of dollars back to Mexico to prop up the status quo, and by importing billions in social welfare cost to America because Mexico prefers to aid and abet illegal migration rather than take care of its own people. Illegal migration is Mexico's safety valve that helps keep the status quo in power.

There are a lot of governments like Mexico, and a lot of people who want to come here for various reasons. Over 3 million people are currently stuck in bureaucratic limbo with ICE as I write this. If you doubt this, talk to any American who married a spouse from a foreign country and went through the red tape and expense to bring them here legally. To say that Mexican illegal migrants  have special rights over people who are actually obeying our immigration  laws to come here legally and get to jump the line simply because of their proximity to our border,  some complicit American politicians and peddlers of fake history like Senor Krause is racism. Plain and simple.

An obvious ideologue like 'historian' Señor Krause is one thing. But For Pravda-on-the-Hudson to run this sort of propaganda and take it seriously(they even translated this bilge) gives a new meaning to complicity. It's embarrassing that they're not embarrassed.

How The Leftist Media Obsession With Attacking Trump Is Hurting America

 

Victor Davis Hanson, not exactly a Trump cheerleader, has an interesting piece on the subject of fake news. Not only does he call out what he calls ‘the contemporary mainstream media’ as purveyors of fake news, but he accuses them of dereliction of duty when it comes to the role of journalists in a free society, to act as disinterested, neutral reporters who act as a brake on power by informing the American people.

Donald Trump conducted a press conference recently as if he were a loud circus ringmaster whipping the media circus animals into shape. The establishment thought the performance was a window into an unhinged mind; half the country thought it was a long overdue media comeuppance.

The media suffer the lowest approval numbers in nearly a half-century. In a recent Emerson College poll, 49 percent of American voters termed the Trump administration “truthful”; yet only 39 percent believed the same about the news media.

Every president needs media audit. The role of journalists in a free society is to act as disinterested censors of government power—neither going on witch-hunts against political opponents nor deifying ideological fellow-travelers.

Sadly, the contemporary mainstream media—the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN), the traditional blue-chip newspapers (Washington Post, New York Times), and the public affiliates (NPR, PBS)—have lost credibility. They are no more reliable critics of President Trump’s excesses than they were believable cheerleaders for Barack Obama’s policies.

Trump may have a habit of exaggeration and gratuitous feuding that could cause problems with his presidency. But we would never quite know that from the media. In just his first month in office, reporters have already peddled dozens of fake news stories designed to discredit the President—to such a degree that little they now write or say can be taken at face value.

No, Trump did not have any plans to invade Mexico, as Buzzfeed and the Associated Press alleged.

No, Trump’s father did not run for Mayor of New York by peddling racist television ads, as reported by Sidney Blumenthal.

No, there were not mass resignations at the State Department in protest of its new leaders, as was reported by the Washington Post.

No, Trump’s attorney did not cut a deal with the Russians in Prague. Nor did Trump indulge in sexual escapades in Moscow. Buzzfeed again peddled those fake news stories.

No, a supposedly racist Trump did not remove the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the White House, as a Time Magazine reporter claimed.

No, election results in three states were not altered by hackers or computer criminals to give Trump the election, as implied by New York Magazine.

No, Michael Flynn did not tweet that he was a scapegoat. That was a media fantasy endorsed by Nancy Pelosi.

In fact, Daniel Payne of the Federalist has compiled a lengthy list of sensational stories about Trump’s supposed buffooneries, mistakes, and crudities that all proved either outright lies or were gross exaggerations and distortions.

We would like to believe writers for the New York Times or Washington Post when they warn us about the new president’s overreach. But how can we do so when they have lost all credibility—either by colluding with the Obama presidency and the Hillary Clinton campaign, or by creating false narratives to ensure that Trump fails?

Ezra Klein at Vox just wrote a warning about the autocratic tendencies of Donald Trump. Should we believe him? Perhaps not. Klein was the originator of Journolist, a “left-leaning” private online chat room of journalists that was designed to coordinate media narratives that would enhance Democratic politicians and in particular Barack Obama. Such past collusion begs the question of whether Klein is really disinterested now in the fashion that he certainly was not during the Obama administration.

Recently, New York Times White House correspondent Glenn Thrush coauthored a report
about initial chaos among the Trump White House staff, replete with unidentified sources. Should we believe Thrush’s largely negative story?

Perhaps. But then again, Thrush not so long ago turned up in the Wikileaks troves as sending a story to Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta for prepublication audit. Thrush was his own honest critic, admitting to Podesta: “Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u. Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I f**ked up anything.”

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has become a fierce critic of President Trump. Are his writs accurate? Milbank also appeared in Wikileaks, asking the Democratic National Committee to provide him with free opposition research for a negative column he was writing about candidate Trump. Are Milbank’s latest attacks his own—or once again coordinated with Democratic researchers?

The Washington Post censor Glenn Kessler posted the yarn about Trump’s father’s racist campaign for New York mayor—until he finally fact-checked his own fake news and deleted his tweet.

Sometimes the line between journalism and politicians is no line at all. Recently, former Obama deputy National Security advisor Ben Rhodes (brother of CBS news president David Rhodes) took to Twitter to blast the Trump administration’s opposition to the Iran Deal, brokered in large part by Rhodes himself. “Everything Trump says here,” Rhodes stormed, “is false.”

Should we believe Rhodes’s charges that Trump is now lying about the details of the Iran Deal?
Who knows, given that Rhodes himself not long ago bragged to the New York Times of his role in massaging reporters to reverberate an administration narrative: “We created an echo chamber They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.” Rhodes also had no respect for the very journalists that he had manipulated: “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

Is Rhodes now being disinterested or once again creating an “echo chamber”?

His boss, former UN Ambassador and National Security Advisor in the Obama administration, Susan Rice (married to Ian Cameron, a former producer at ABC news), likewise went on Twitter to blast the Trump administration’s decision to include presidential advisor Steven Bannon in meetings of the National Security Council: “This is stone cold crazy,” Rice asserted, “After a week of crazy.”
Is Rice (who has no military experience) correct that the former naval officer Bannon has no business participating in such high strategy meetings?

In September 2012, Rice went on television on five separate occasions to insist falsely to the nation that the attacks on the Benghazi consulate were the work of spontaneous rioters and not a preplanned hit by an al Qaeda franchise. Her own quite crazy stories proved a convenient administration reelection narrative of Al Qaeda on the run, but there were already sufficient sources available to Rice to contradict her false news talking points.

There are various explanations for the loss of media credibility.

(read the rest here)

Fake News? How About 'Wa-ah, Putin Got Trump Elected!'

Ah yes, fake news, the latest gambit by the Left to marginalize and ban everything as 'fake' except for the Leftist propaganda their trained seals in the media put out.

The latest example is yet another attempt to rationalize their losing an election they thought they had in the bag, and of course, Hillary Clinton, the Democrats and their media presstitutes have latched on to it desperately. Of all people, Cenk Uyger, host of the ultra Left Young Turks show gets it exactly right:



Oh, and Mrs. Clinton? Speaking of fake news, no it wasn't a riot over a video that got the four brave men you left to die in Benghazi killed.

In the latest use of this tactic, fake new promulgated by the Left's media sycophants, President Barack Hussein Obama ordered a quickie review by the CIA, who came to the conclusion from 'sources' that it was Russia who hacked the DNC e-mails and caused poor Mrs. Clinton to go down in defeat.

Let's examine this from several angles.

First of all, Julian Assange, who ought to know, has been adamant that the Russians were not the source of the DNC e-mails. And at this point, he has nothing to gain by lying about it. Assange has already done two interviews on who what and when these hacks took place.




Second, no matter what the sources, were the e-mails fake? Did Vladimir Putin instruct the DNC to send e-mails revealing what corrupt, double dealing prog-facists they were? Did he tell them they had to detail how they rigged the primaries so only Hillary could win? Or to reveal their collaboration with their media allies, who sent articles to the campaign for their approval before running them? Did Putin tell them to take Donna Brazile  at CNN up on her offer to feed Hillary debate questions?

None of the players, not even serial liar John Podesta had the nerve to say these e-mails were fake...the most anyone said to their sympathetic media interlocutors is that they were 'unverified,' which is hilarious considering that everything else matched up and DNC heade Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had to end up 'resigning' over them.

Another point worth noting is how many of these e-mails likely wound up on Hillary's illegal unprotected server or Huma Abedin's unprotected laptop she shared with her estranged husband Anthony Weiner, a number of which Hillary thought she deleted.  Did the Russians or whoever actually hacked into their e-mails somehow make  Mrs. Clinton and her chief aide break the Official Records Act by doing that?

And finally, lets look at the source of all this, John Brenner's CIA.


 

Brenner's an interesting guy. He was, at one point Bill Clinton's intel briefer and then  the chief-of-staff to no less than Clinton's CIA head George Tenet. The CIA under former President Clinton was noted for pretty much ignoring the threat to the country from Islamist terrorism and totally missing the boat on Osama bin-Laden,Afghanistan and 9-11. The same team totally misinformed President Bush on Iraq, and Tenet and his team - including Brenner- were actually eviscerated by their own CIA in an Inspector General's internal report for their conduct during this time, particularly when it came to the period before 9/11 and the aftermath. In particular, the report says that CIA ties to Saudi Arabia limited the agency's ability to understand and stop al Qaeda.

And more particularly, guess who was CIA station head in Saudi Arabia for a good chunk of that time? Why yes, it was none other than John Brenner, who among other things was caught giving bogus intel to President Bush in 2003 that resulted in an "Orange Terror Alert", over Christmas 2003 intel that was later totally discredited by Brenner's own CIA.

There are a number of people whom claim that Brenner converted to Sunni Islam during his time in Saudi Arabia, but while there's no verification of that except rumor, one of the reasons Brenner likely got the job of CIA head from President Barack Hussein Obama is because he's a noted Islamophile, with a view of jihad that, shall we say, might be said to contradict not just the views of all four major Muslim fiqhs but the events we seen unfolding during the last 15 years.

And with a new head coming in to take his job whose view on that matter is 180 degrees opposed to his own and that of his boss, Brenner has a real motive to put something like this out to discredit the results of the election and try to delegitimize the new, incoming administration. It wouldn't be the first time he's pulled something like that. There's a reason the FBI, which had the same data considers the CIA's report 'vague' and 'contradictory'...or in other words, sheer horse manure.

Oh, and did I mention that John Brenner's also an extremely partisan Democrat?

That of course cuts to the heart of the matter.  The idea is to jackhammer this in the media  ad nauseum to taint the incoming administration, because of course Hillary would have won except for Putin, right?

And while we're at it, shall we look at some real efforts to manipulate democratic election? President Barack Hussein Obama directly and illegally intervened with scads of money and high level campaign operatives in the 2013 election in Israel to try and get Netanyahu out of office. He intervened successfully in Nigeria's election to replace Goodluck Jonathan, a Christian and a friend of Israel and America with Islamist and former dictator Muhammadu Buhari, who is neither. He also stuck his nose into the last UK elections, endorsing David Cameron and then campaigning against Brexit, as well as providing cash and operatives to the Trudeau campaign in Canada that successfully removed Stephen Harper.

Did anyone in the Democrat media have anything to say about this? Did any of the Democrats and their Republican ponies like Lindsay Graham and John McCain who claim now to be such passionate advocates of democracy and free elections make a sound? Hell, no.

The hypocrisy would be embarrassing to anyone but a Leftist prog-facist and their useful idiots. Never mind how bad it is for an already divided country to spread this crap just now, right after an election. To the Left, it's always about power by any means necessary.

An Open Letter To The Democrat Media

The Democrats -and especially the Democrat media- are still roaring in pain over Donald Trump's victory and the GOP's control of congress and most of the state governments. They still haven't come to grips with what happened and especially, why.

The latest meme for a lot of them is plotting  what they refer to as 'new strategies for covering Trump' (read 'defeating and marginalizing Trump') as if this were a tactical problem rather than a transformational change in the making. They're all about, you know, fighting back by any means necessary. Who gives a rip what those stupid hillbillys in flyover country voted for? We're the elites, we know best and  this is how we will teach them what to think!

One of the most inadvertently funniest screeds of this nature was written by Jack Shafer, formally of the ultra left Slate and now Politico’s senior media writer.

 

It's called 'The New Rules For Covering Trump' and was such a viciously superb, clueless sample of where the Leftist Democrat Media is right now that it actually touched my kind and genteel nature. So I wrote the following in the comments section, addressed directly to  Mr. Schafer but something that can certainly be shared by his Lefty friends, because I'm always here to help:

Cute lil' article..'Here's how you tame that wild,alpha male chimpanzee.' I have to wonder how you would have felt and what you would have written if someone referred to Barack Obama like that.

You still don't get it, do you? Maybe I can help clue you in.

You, CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, the WAPO, the NYT and the rest did exactly what you always do. You threw everything you could at Donald Trump, from ridiculous stories 'factchecked' by paid shills working for you and coordinated with the Clinton campaign to the ridiculously biased talking heads the Democrat dominated debate Commission allowed you to you appoint to 'moderate' the debates. The only moderator that actually did the job properly without making it a two on one against Trump or Mike Pence was Chris Wallace of FOX, a Democrat but someone who still has a semblance of journalistic ethics. Poor Matt Lauer got banished to the outermost circle of Hell because he actually had the temerity to ask Queen Hillary a question about her illegal private servers and all those e-mails she deleted.. You even went to the trouble of furnishing Hillary with the questions beforehand before the debates. In essence, all of you were part of the Clinton team making what amounted to what the FEC would term a campaign contribution in kind.

 

This stuff all worked so well for you before. Did you ever bother to try and figure out why it didn't work this time? Think about this one, Jack. Did you ever get screwed over? Did anyone you really trusted ever lie to you? Did you ever have a cheating wife or girlfriend, or a car dealership, mechanic, insurance company or other company lie to you and screw you over? Ever trust them again?

Yeah, I know. This was the year you prog-facists were gonna win it big and take over the country once and for all. So you went all out. But you got greedy and that made you stupid and clumsy. You were too blatant this time, too smug, too contemptuous of us peasants and too unapologetic about that contempt. Between that and what Wikileaks put out, every bit of trust and credibility you ever enjoyed was flushed down the toilet except for the terminally credulous. Also, for the first time since Ronaldus Magnus you were facing someone who refused to kiss your behinds, knew how the game was played going in and had the smarts to hire people who knew how to play the game even better than you did. So not only did you lose an election, you got exposed for exactly what you are.

That's why these cute little tricks you list above won't work any better than they did during the campaign, Jack. Oh, you'll still reach the True Believers. MSNBC survived that way for awhile after 2004. But remember, things are different now. More people believed what you were selling back then, didn't they? And Bush, aside from being no great shakes as a Prez was the kind of guy you could kick at will without him being man enough to hit back and make you look like the propagandists you are. New reality now, Jack. As a recent Nobel Prize winner once wrote. the times,. they are a'changin'. And it'll be even more evident once Trump actually takes over. Wait'll one of you publishes classified intel the way Pravda-on-the-Hudson did during Bush's two terms and see what happens. I guarantee you, it's not going to be limited to an upset comment or two.

Imagine how much fun it's going to be if  Trump revokes your press credentials and includes alternate media instead like Breitbart, Drudge and FrontPage. Think how it's going to be if he gives Julian Assange a pardon and allows him to set up Wikileaks here, and starts giving interviews and access to real journalists like Sharyl Attkisson, and James O'Keefe? Imagine being marginalized.

You made this bed you're lying in (in more ways than one). There's an audience for your shtick at least for a while, so you could just keep that going, which I admit amuses me on a personal level. Of course, you could also start being real journalists and work on getting your cred back....oh, never mind. Telling the truth isn't exactly in your job description, now is it?

Ah well...no hard feelings, here's a little something to make you feel better...

 

The Republican War Against Trump Will Not Be Without Consequences

As I predicted when this all started, Trump's biggest problem isn't going to be the Democrats, but friendly fire from the rear.

Their hatred and opposition to Trump always came down to three issues..his being an outsider not of the political establishment, his opposition to globalization and his opposition to open borders and the supply of plentiful cheap labor it provides. 

For years, the party elites had wailed about the party's need to make the tent bigger, to reach out to minority voters and conservative crossover Democrats. Trump has done all that, but as usual, it turns out they were lying to us. What they  really wanted was some certified GOP product, one of their own who could creditably mislead the peasants until the election was over and it was business as usual again.

Trump was something they should have foreseen would arise after they received historic majorities in both houses of congress and ignored the very people who voted for them in  favor of aiding and abetting Barack Obama's policies, enjoying the perks of office and fattening their own wallets.

 

Originally, they saw Trump's campaign as a joke or a publicity stunt, something to mock. But after Sarah Palin (whom they can't buy off and still fear) endorsed The Donald, they went into full attack mode flooded the GOP establishment candidates with money and unleashed their paid punditry in a frenzy of neverTrumper hatred.

It didn't work, and they're still too cottoned off from reality to understand why. In the end they spent almost half a billion dollars trying to knock Trump out of the primary race and failed miserably.

The hatred they have for Trump and what he represents is mirrored by their hatred for those tiresome peasants, the party's base. Trump's success against all odds has made it necessary for them to drop their cover and reveal themselves for the swine they really are.

The events of this last week are unconscionable.

Billy Bush, Hillary supporter George W,Bush's nephew handed over a 12 year old tape of what amounted to a private locker room conversation between him and Donald Trump, to the Washington Post who released it. And as we now see, Paul Ryan apparatchnik Dan Senor appears to have had a hand in getting this to the Post as well as advising them on how to use it for maximum effect afterwards. He would never have done that without Ryan's approval.

Immediately after tape's release, a slew of Republicans (many of whom were never supporting Trump anyway) jumped on the Democrat media bandwagon,helping to obscure the very real corruption' lies and greed of the Clintons in favor of demonizing Donald Trump and making that the headline story.

A number of them 'unendorsed' him, and there was open discussion about forcing him off the ticket. They were only waiting for him to be massacred at what was largely a rigged, pre-scripted 'debate' where exactly as I surmised, Mrs. Clinton had the questions in advance. The odious neverTrumpers were suddenly invigorated.

But as we all know, a funny thing happened on the way to Trump's political funeral. The script didn't go as planned, Trump triumphed and all the cooked polls and desperate punditry to the contrary couldn't change what the American people saw that night - the Clintons stripped bare and exposed for exactly what and who they are, a cancer in American politics and policy only concerned with gaining power and enriching themselves to the nation's detriment and expense.

And this puts these Republican and their paid shills in a dilemma. What to do? After jumping off the Trump train, they can't very well get back on, and for a number of them up for re-election, that could present problems, since Trump has a lot of popular support.

Some of them are simply keeping a low profile hoping this all goes away,but others, many of whom have done everything they can to derail Donald Trump are doubling down, particularly in the punditocracy.

The Trump movement is essentially a rebellion against the established order, and like our Forefathers, we now have our own class of Tories to deal with.

The lie they tell themselves is that after Trump's defeated, they will take over and rebuild the Republican Party, blaming Trump's loss on 'the trumpkins' or whatever other derogatory name they want to make up. Wat they're really saying is that it's the voter's fault, damn them. How dare they? But that aside, let's look at their prospects for 'rebuilding' shall we?

Out of a total of 31,183,841 votes cast in the GOP nominating campaign, the establishment, pro-globalist candidates combined garnered a grand total of around 26% of that number. Ted Cruz, who at least talked a good game about illegal migration while accepting the open border lobby's cash on the sly behind the scenes got 7,822,100 votes, or 25.1 percent.

And Trump? He set a record for primary votes - 14,015,993 votes, or 44.9 percent.

Does anyone think the people who voted against globalism, cronyism and open borders are going to go quietly back into the GOP fold and back the next establishment product? No, the vast majority will be gone for good, depend on it. They've been screwed for the last time.

These clowns with their fantasies are going to be trying to 'rebuild' the GOP with 30% or less of the current GOP electorate. And in terms of national politics, it will be worthless.

A president Hillary Clinton will see to that. She will appoint leftist judges galore, overturn Citizen's United, castrate the Second Amendment, destroy any vestige of voter ID laws,and use the IRS to target select GOP donors. She will use the FEC to hamstring and eventually eliminate conservative media and enforce the kind of speech codes already prevalent in the EU. Any criticism or even discussion of Islamism, Islamic terrorism or sharia will be illegal. Just ask Geert WIlders.

She will legalize millions of Democrat voting illegal aliens and boatloads of Muslim 'refugees' and continue to plant them in Red states, essentially turning them blue by using the Federal government to change the electorate. This is exactly what was done in California, so the model's already there.


The Republican Party will become even more of a joke than it already is, talking to itself and only surfacing at election time as a comic villain to keep the illusion of democracy going. In short, there won't be a Republican Party for our modern day Tories to rebuild.

Whether Mrs. Clinton is allowed to do this to our Republic or Donald Trump, against the odds is elected, make no mistake. We are going to remember that these creatures chose sides against us and against our country. We will not forget.

What To Expect In Tonight's Debate

(photo courtesy of WikiCommons, Flickr and Gage Skidmore)

Here's what's likely coming in tonight's debate.

This is Mrs. Clinton's last chance to put away Donald Trump, since the last debate will be 'moderated' by Democrat Chris Wallace, who works for Fox and can be expected to at least provide a modicum of fairness.

Tonight's debate will be 'moderated' by Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz, both very partisan Democrats. And they will both be striving to avoid winding up like Matt Lauer. Ms. Raddatz, you might remember was the 'moderator' for the 2012 Vice Presidential debate where she leaned heavily on Paul Ryan while allowing Joe Biden to behave like an eight-year-old who'd missed a few days' dose of Ritalin.

It's a town hall type event, which will feature selected undecided voters asking Trump and Hillary questions. It goes without saying that just like the last debate, Mrs. Clinton will have received all the questions in advance, and will know which questions she'll be getting and which one's Trumps getting, so she can have carefully prepared and rehearsed answers to the former and suitable one line zingers to the latter. She will also be wearing her little earpiece again so she can receive backstage reminders and remember her lines.

And she will be jacked up on enough drugs to allow her to last for 90 minutes. She dropped out of site for almost a week after the last one, so she could dry out.

Trump's questioners will likely underline the Democrat talking points, and they won't be undecided at all. Mrs. Clinton's questioners will be partisan Democrats.

Trump's microphone will likely be tampered with again so the audience can't hear him and cheer in response. Any applause he happens toget will be quickly shushed by the 'moderators' while any applause Mrs. Clinton gets will be allowed to continue, just like last time with Lester Holt. Trump will be challenged and interrupted frequently, while Mrs. Clinton will not.

Here's how Trump wins if he's learned from the first debate. He has to ignore the agenda that has been set up and calmly but clearly attack Mrs. Clinton where's she's vulnerable; on the e-mail scandal, the Clinton Foundation, her enabling of her sexual predator of a husband, and her repeated lies to the American people. He will, if he's smart ignore the 'moderator's' attempts to shush him and have some nice one line zingers of his own to respond to Mrs. Clinton. If he gets questioned about the twelve year old illegally leaked 'sex' conversation, he should respond that he's already addressed that, and compared to the problems facing the country and compared to Mrs. Clinton's history on women and her plan to allow thousands of unvetted Muslims into America, this is a non-issue.

In other words, he has to upset the carefully planned script Mrs. Clinton and the 'moderators' have arranged, go off script and tie things to his own talking points and agenda at every opportunity.

If he does that, he's going to win in spite of the odds. As I pointed out earlier, he actually did a lot better in the first debate than the media's cooked polls indicated.

So we'll see.

Using Trump's 12 Year Old Tape Shows The Contempt Hillary And Her Media Have For Us

 

The latest 'scandal' the media are using to demonize Donald Trump is an illegally obtained recording of a private conversation of Donald Trump's with Billy Bush, then host of the 'Access Hollywood' show that contains a fair amount of locker room style talk about women...from 12 years ago.

Billy Bush, by the way just happens to be former president George W. Bush's nephew..and as we all know, the former president and his entire family are supporting the open borders Mrs. Clinton. Billy Bush apparently alerted the Washington Post or perhaps even sent a copy from NBC's digital library to the paper.

And of course that, not the contents of new Clinton e-mails, the Wikileaks Podesta e-mail document drops showings Hillary's real positions on national security and open borders, or the revelations of the FBI's outright collusion with Clinton aids like Cheryl Mills during their feeble investigation is the bi-ig story.

And it shows exactly the kind of contempt the Clinton's and their media have for us, especially for women.

A lot of the media frenzy is indeed being driven by women columnists and commentators, and that's no accident.

By all means, these media figures and people that think like them should vote for Hillary Clinton, who bullied, threatened and brutalized women her husband raped and sexually harassed. Certainly a 12 year old private locker room conversation leaked illegally counts for more than that, let alone Mrs. Clinton's serial corruption, her compromising America's national security to hide her crooked deals when she was secretary of state and her role in destabilizing the Middle East!

Mrs. Clinton has also promised to bring thousands of Muslims to America from the most misogynist countries on earth, where Muslim women are considered property and infidel women are considered prey, or in the famous words of one imam, 'uncovered meat'. Young women need only look at Europe to see how flooding a western open society with these kind of migrants ends up*, and those women with fantasies of being gang raped should definitely vote for Hillary.

 



If I were a woman, these facts would be a lot more important to me than a 12 year old illegally obtained private conversation, but your results may differ.

And while we're on the subject, let's be honest about something Trump said during this conversation that is 110% true, and the one part of the conversation that really offends a number of women; that many of them avidly welcome advances from men with wealth, power and celebrity. I dare anyone to deny it.

To me, it's pretty natural that many women would behave in that manner, because it's wired into their DNA. From the earliest days of prehistory, women were attracted to the successful hunter, the strongest most virile warrior, the powerful leader, the prosperous farmer with the best land and crops, the wealthy trader and merchant. Men like these were seen as the most likely to breed healthy offspring, protect women and their offspring and to provide for them. And it was also a way of increasing a woman's own social status. Later on, well known artists were added to the list since they also tended to be wealthy or at least well off and because artists, writers and musicians have their own mystique for many women.

That women would fawn over such advances by someone like Donald Trump who combines all three elements of wealth, power and celebrity ought to be no big surprise.

Another thing that bears mentioning is that this is a twelve year old conversation. Has anyone out there not changed in the last 12 years? I know I have. So has Donald Trump And most Evangelicals leaders know it too, and understand the issues at stake. As one Christian commentator put it, this is one election where Christians don't get to stay home.

One thing this obscene circus has done is to re-legitimize the NeverTrumpers. Establishment Republicans like John McCain, Paul Ryan and John Kasich have already jumped on the NeverTrumper wagon, while the execrable Bill Kristol and the paid clowns at the NRO are beside themselves with ecstasy at the thought of being relevant again. However, since none of these people were going to vote for Trump anyway, there's not much damage done except to themselves. Many Republicans up for election have found out the hard way that distancing themselves from Trump and his followers is a really dumb move. And their attempt to help Hillary Clinton, who harassed and brutalized the various women Bill Clinton  sexually assaulted and harassed makes their objections even more ludicrous and fake.

Finally, here's something else this latest move tells us about team Hillary. Cooked polls notwithstanding, they're running scared.

The last illegal release of one of Trump's tax returns was supposed to do the trick, allowing them to brand him the way they branded Mitt Romney. To their shock, it didn't work and people actually admired Trump for being smart enough to use the system for his advantage. If this last gambit doesn't work, they'll be forced to rely on a rigged 'debate' and voter fraud. And Trump. a quick learner, has probably learned what he's going to have to do to combat that...create his own agenda and speak to the American people rather than allowing the 'moderators', their hand picked 'questioners' and Mrs. Clinton to do so.

This entire melange - the cooked polls, the dire commentary and the fake scandals - are designed for one objective to get Trump supporters discouraged and make them stay home. What Team Clinton and the Establishment fear more than anything else is the wild card of Trump supporters who will be voting for the first time in years, and the ones who say what's expected of them publicly but will do something quite differently in the voting booth. There's no way of tracking them and most of the polls are studiously ignoring them since a lot of them aren't likely voters.

Voter fraud in places like Philadelphia might gift some states to Mrs. Clinton if it's close, especially Blue run states.But the election is going to be won or lost by how many people fed up with America's decline show up.

If the majority of Americans actually believe that a 12 year old private conversation actually outweighs the damage the corrupt Clintons will do to America by stacking the Supreme Court with young leftists, plundering what's left of the country's wealth, gutting the Second Amendment, legalizing millions of illegal migrants and bringing boatloads of Muslim 'refugees' to America they will get what they deserve.

Ultimately, it remains in G-d's hands. We'll see whether that old saying about G-d watching out for children, drunks and the United States of America still rings true. We will learn whether we are worthy of of the Republic our forefathers bequeathed to us, or whether we have become so decadent and servile that we are willing to swallow the contempt our self appointed elites have for us.

* sample search topics for the unaware: takfir, Cologne gang rapes, Sweden as rape capitol, rapes in Europe by refugees, 'rapefugees', etc.

The Great Debate: Trump Won Rope A Dope Style

 

Ah yes, the debate. It pretty much turned out like I said it would.

I actually live blogged the whole thing (yes, once again I watch this stuff so you don't have too) but this was such a travesty I'll just go over the main points.

The minute Hillary walked out with that manic smile, my comment at 6:06 PM (all times PST) was 'boy, did they shoot her full of drugs.' I'm not kidding in the least. I know a  bit about such things. I'd guess B-12 combined with a Dexedrine cocktail, perhaps with some cortisone shots to keep her knees from buckling for 90 minutes. They'll play hell trying to get her to sleep tonight without the aid of some serious downers like Seconal.

Expect her to be out of action for a few days.

Another thing I noticed (and I wasn't the only one) was how over prepared she was, with each answer spilling on without so much as an um or an err. After the third time this happened, I understood. She'd  gotten the questions in advance from Lester Holt, who composed them, and had then spent serious time rehearsing. It was like watching one of those old 'pull the ring and she talks' dolls.

As for Lester Holt, performed exactly as I said he would. Anyone watching the debates understood instantly that this was Holt and Hillary against the Donald.

Holt had been chest thumping and bragging to his colleagues about how he was going to 'take down Trump.'

His questions were pretty much out of the Clinton playbook worded in leftist prose about 'income inequality' 'climate change' and 'racial justice', with aggressive interrogations by Holt on Trump's tax returns, Trump's 'racist birtherism' Trump's business bankruptcies and other tidbits. I especially liked the one where he framed Clinton's tax plans as 'Mrs. Clinton wants to tax the wealthy, and you want to lower taxes on the wealthy.' Actually Trump's plan is for an across the board tax cut and he did a decent job explaining it once he was able to get past Holt's constant interruptions and snide comments. Actually, Holt interrupted Trump 58% more  than he interrupted Hillary Clinton.

Funny thing, Lester Holt had no questions about Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation or Hillary's e-mail scandal and her illegal private server. Even though one of his questions concerned cyber security, there were no followup questions on that little item! Lester Holt had indeed learned not to go there after what happened to Matt Lauer! The only mention was a comeback by Trump, who said he'd release his taxes when Mrs. Clinton released the 32,000 e-mails she deleted. It got a huge ovation from the audience which Lester Holt shushed as soon as he could. On the other hand,  any applause for Mrs. Clinton was allowed to continue.

The only problem from Hillary's standpoint with Lester Holt's blatant partisan approach is that he overplayed his hand. He was so obvious about the whole thing that he actually helped Trump, who was perceived as the underdog fighting back against as rigged system, which has been one of Trump's campaign  themes. Here was living proof, right in front of everyone. Social media is on fire about this.

Viewer polls from Time Magazine, Drudge and even CNBC showed Trump winning the debate handily and they weren't the only ones. Even Slate showed Trump winning.  Needless to say, as I predicted the legacy media is already trying to spin this as a Clinton win, but it's going to be very difficult:


People might forget what you say, but never how you made them feel. Based on that, Trump won handily. 

Of course, the 'fact checking' will go on. For instance, Trump was also entirely correct when he said murders had increased in 2016 in spite of the in the tank Politifact's efforts to lie about it. Talk about pants on fire!

Follow

Sean Davis ✔ @seanmdav

FBI just released data showing murders increased 10% in 2016. Trump was 100% right. Yet another Politifact fail. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-said-crime-rising-its-not-and-hasnt-b/ …

9:45 AM - 26 Sep 2016

Donald Trump said, 'Crime is rising.' We say Pants on Fire!

After big primaries in California and New Jersey on June 7, Donald Trump -- the presumptive Republican presidential nominee -- painted a picture of a nation in crisis. "Hard to imagine what's...

politifact.com

• 669 669 Retweets
• 478 478 likes

 Expect a lot more of this. But people simply aren't fooled by the Clinton media as easily as they used to be.

Mrs. Clinton also did herself no favors ranting on about the 'incipient racism' in white society and especially among the police. I guess even when a black cop shoots a black man coming at him with a gun after being told repeatedly to drop his weapon, that's white racism too.

Trump also scored because of his obviously superior knowledge of how business and economics works and with a little exchange he had with Lester Holt about Stop and Frisk. When Holt stated incorrectly that it was 'unconstitutional,'  Trump correctly replied that this was a ruling from one judge who was actually removed from the case and  that New York's cop hating Mayor De Blasio had chosen to quash what would have likely been a successful appeal.

Trump did make one error I need to mention and he's not the only one. Barack Obama might brag about ending the Iraq War and people may talk about the vacuum this created  but both  are dead wrong. George W.Bush was the man who signed the disposition of forces agreement with Iraqi leader al-Maliki which called for all U.S. forces to be withdrawn from the Shi'ite dictatorship Bush created there, one of the stupidest things an American president has ever done. It laid the groundwork for Iran to flourish without the checkmate of Saddam Hussein's army right across the Gulf. But Obama can take no credit of blame for pulling our troops out of Iraq.

Of course Obama and Hillary can definitely be charged with having a major role in creating ISIS (which started in Syria as jihadist elements of the Syrian Free Army Obama funded armed and trained, not in Iraq)  and destabilizing the entire Middle East with his illegal war in Libya, but that's a different question.

Again, this wasn't even a semblance of a debate. In a real debate, one of the participants can say the moon is made of green cheese   and it's not the moderator's job to  'fact check' the speaker but but her opponent's to rebut her. Especially when the 'fact checking' is done in advance and aimed at one candidate and one only.

A final takeaway has to do with the overall demeanor of the candidates. As I predicted both Hillary and her minion Lester Holt tried their best to insult, demean and bait trump hoping to make him lose his cool. He refused to rise to the bait and kept things civil, which surprised a lot of people. He looked  presidential compared to Mrs. Clinton's genuinely smug, nasty demeanor. The only time he really let fly a little is when Mrs. Clinton started bragging about her experience and Trump countered by saying something to the effect that it was all bad experience and failure, which again got an ovation Holt did his best to shush.

I honestly don't think Trump realized the extent the media was prepared to go to to try and take him down. They failed, but the Donald is a quick learner. And yes, Trump made a decision to avoid landing what could have been knockout blows in favor of appearing more likeable and presidential. For instance, when Hillary and Lester Holt were painting him as a sexist, it would have been no trouble at all for him to start referring to Hillary's sexual predator of a husband and Hillary's enabling of it. But as Trump tells it, he saw Chelsea in the audience and decided to let it pass because he felt it wasn't the right thing to do. Like Hillary's corruption and weakness on cyber security, most people already know this anyway, so I think that was a smart decision on his part first time out.

Trump fooled me too on this one. At times, I was like Bundini or Angelo Dundee, yelling 'Champ! Get off the ropes! Don't let them pound you like that, mention the  Clinton Foundation!'

But like Mohammed Ali, The Donald chose to hold some of his fire and let Crooked Hillary and her media shill beat themselves, rope a dope style. Smart move, and expect him to be even more impressive next time out.

NBC's C-inC Forum Sets the Tone For The Debates. And Yes, Hillary Lied Again

 

The reaction to last night's 'commander in chief' forum on NBC was absolutely surreal.

Matt Lauer actually had the temerity, just for a few minutes, to question Hillary Clinton like an actual journalist and to actually allow a questioner to be critical of her. And he's in a world of sh*t because of it. Look at these headlines:

CNN "Behind the scenes, NBC execs concede Matt Lauer forum performance was "disaster"

New York Times "Matt Lauer Loses the War in a Battle Between the Candidates"

Jonathon Chait,New York Magazine "Matt Lauer’s Pathetic Interview of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Is the Scariest Thing I’ve Seen in This Campaign"

There's tons more, but you get the drift.

He should have known better, really. Remember how the press crucified Bob Schieffer for being even handed during that first Obama-Romney debate in 2012? Schieffer,of course was indeed a fairly Left leaning Democrat, but he came from an older generation where there were still some journalistic ethics and standards.

The infamous Candy Crowley, who 'moderated' the second 2012 debate learned from Schieffer's faux pas and did everything she could short of pepper spraying Romney to make sure Obama came out looking good. Rest assured that ABC's Lester Holt, who's 'moderating' the first debate has taken note of Lauer's gang stomping and will behave the same way Crowley did.The presidential debates will be custom designed to attack Trump and destroy him at all costs, and to let Mrs. Clinton to slither into the Oval Office.

Actually, Matt Lauer was relatively easy on Hillary. Yes, he actually asked a few questions that stung a little, but he let her get away with blatant falsehoods.

For instance,Hillary made a big point last night that the stuff she was spreading around to unauthorized people via her illegal private server 'wasn't labeled classified.' (This after just a few days before she told the eFBI she didn't remember her briefing on how to handle classified material!)

Now, I didn't expect a Clintonista like Matt Lauer to challenge her on anything, but the FBI report showed that there were numerous e-mails from Mrs. Clinton to Cheryl Mills and Huma referring to removing 'classified tags' from e-mails she planned to share with unauthorized people and asking if they had done it yet!

And here's another point Lauer should of brought up but of course, didn't. If you're a high government official getting classified briefings and you share that information via a regular ol' email with an unauthorized person in exchange for a donation to a scam 'foundation', a six figure speaking fee for your disreputable spouse or a nice campaign contribution or other quid pro quo, you are trafficking in classified information.

Which of course, is exactly what Mrs. Clinton did. She's simply a corrupt felon who got away with it because the Obama DOJ let the FBI know that they weren't going to prosecute. FBI Director Comey's sickening nonsense about 'intent' was sheer bolshoi.

The illegal server itself shows intent. And when someone wipes an illegal server using software like Bleachbit AFTER the story breaks and when this same evidence has been subpoenaed, that shows intent too...for anyone but the Clintons.

Matt Lauer, of course, knew better than to 'fact check' Mrs. Clinton. But he made an even bigger error when he let someone with an actual hard ball question slip through, a vet with years of experience handling classified intel that told her that if he had done what she did, he would have been prosecuted and jailed. Her response was, well, not really a response at all.

He was the only one who questioned Mrs. Clinton on the subject or who even did more than toss her a softball. And if you watch, you'll see her glare briefly at Lauer and then look at the vet, write his name down after the question and hand it to one of her Secret service guards.

Then there's the matter of Mrs. Clinton's flesh colored earpiece, something Matt Lauer apparently didn't notice...or maybe chose not to:



NYPD officers involved with the NBC forum’s security detail recognized it instantly. They confirmed that Clinton was wearing an ‘inductive earpiece,” used by actors in Broadway shows so they can be prompted on their lines and receive cues off-stage from directors. They're wireless, not like the ones used by the police, the FBI and the Secret Service.

Mrs. Clinton has apparently been using this for quite some time as WikiLeaks confirmed with this email to Mrs. Clinton from Huma Abedin, her close personal aide:



As actor James Wood tweeted, 'She can't even #lie without help from a gaggle of other #liars through an earpiece' @HillaryClinton #HillarysEarpiece pic.twitter.com/YIMVd72SjH

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) September 8, 2016

Actually, what probably happened is that except for the one questioner who slipped through, the rest were rehearsed beforehand and Mrs. Clinton just needed prompting on her scripted answers.The media won't raise that question, but Trump should at the next debate. Either she's deaf, or she's being coached from off stage, and I think we all know which it is.

And Donald Trump? Lauer was actually tougher on him than he was on Mrs. Clinton. He got almost twice the amount of questions she did, and none of them were softballs. Lauer made a valiant try and getting Trump to slip up but failed utterly. trump refused to rise to the bait, and simply repeated what he's said all along, that he will defeat ISIS but that he's not giving away his ideas on strategy on live TV, but will consult with his military advisers and come up with the best ideas, whether there his, someone else's or a combination of the two. Contrast that with Mrs. Clinton, who informed ISIS, Iran and a whole lot of other bad actors on national television that we would newer send troops to Iraq under any circumstances.

I guess she learned from her old boss, President Barack Hussein Obama who informed the Taliban as well as any Afghans trying to decide whom to side with exactly when we were leaving. And they say Donald Trump doesn't know anything about foreign policy?

Two other things Donald Trump said that bear mention. He openly criticized some of the generals President Obama has kept in place who will go along with his farcical agenda and rules of engagement that have cost American lives...As opposed to some of our best and most successful field commanders that have been forced into retirement. And that purge includes not just generals and admirals but even extends down to junior officers, as my regular readers know. Barack Obama has played politics with our military in order to 'transform it' just as he has everything else.

And when challenged about Vladimir Putin, Trump said he thinks he can get along with Russia on a great many issues of mutual concern while keeping our national interests in mind. That's something Mrs. Clinton and her boss failed miserably at with the so-called 'reset.'

Fact - Putin is one of the few world leaders fighting jihad right now, and we will need Russia's help to defeat it,just as they will need ours. When Trump said 'imagine how great it would be if the U.S. and Russia cooperated in defeating ISIS' he was entirely correct.

I'll leave you to decide who sounded like a real commander-in-chief. The military has already spoken, and by a huge margin.

So have the people who watched it.