“After Twitter was caught last month “shadow-banning” Republicans, while giving Democrats unrestricted voice, the social-media giant insisted it has no political agenda. But records of its political contributions show board members, top executives and major shareholders have all given overwhelmingly to Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while snubbing Republicans and Donald Trump.
Federal records reveal 80 percent of Twitter’s corporate PAC contributions in the 2018 election cycle have gone to Democratic candidates, none of whom are moderates. Liberal Democrats also got top dollar in the 2016 race.
The lobbying records I reviewed, moreover, show Twitter has sought to influence Congress and federal agencies on behalf of Democratic causes and against President Trump’s policies.
Vice News last month broke the story that Twitter limited the visibility of Republican Party Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and several Republicans leading Hill investigations into the Obama administration’s efforts to spy on the Trump campaign, including Reps. Devin Nunes (Calif.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Mark Meadows (NC) and John Ratcliffe (Texas).
San Francisco-based Twitter blamed it on a search-engine filter deployed against “bad” actors, such as racists, trolls and users inciting violence, which it maintains accidentally ensnared Republicans, while curiously failing to affect any Democrats.
“We enforce our rules without political bias,” Twitter Chief Legal Officer Vijaya Gadde said in a statement.
But Republicans aren’t buying it. They blame the unequal treatment on political bias, and they argue the timing is suspicious. They say Republican voices are being suppressed on the 355 million-user platform just months before the highly contentious November congressional elections.”
“The New York Times breathlessly reports: “President Admits Focus of Trump Tower Meeting Was Getting Dirt on Clinton.” But in portraying this “admission” as news, the Times is playing fast and loose with the English language. In the process, it is dishing out fake news.
What Trump acknowledged was that “this was a meeting to get information on an opponent.” In other words, the purpose of holding the meeting, from the Trump team’s perspective, was to get negative information about Hillary Clinton. The focus of the meeting was on what the participants actually talked about. Thus, the focus and the purpose might be two different things. In this instance, they appear to have been different.
It isn’t news that the purpose of the meeting with the Russian lawyer was to get negative information about Clinton. This has been the president’s position all along. More than a year ago, he tweeted: “Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent. That’s politics!” (Emphasis added) This is almost identical in relevant part to today’s tweet which states in full:
Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics – and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!
Thus, the Times’ suggestion that there’s something new here is, in a real sense, fake news. It’s manufactured.
And manufactured for a purpose. The Times wants to keep up its Russia-related anti-Trump drumbeat. If recycling old stories and trying to pass them off as news is required, the Times will oblige happily.
To make it looks like there’s something new here, the Times cites old statements, not by President Trump but by members of his team, that the meeting focused on subjects other than opposition research. Here, as I suggested above, the Times conflates the purpose of a meeting with its focus. The fact that Donald Trump Jr. attended a meeting with Russians for the purpose of obtaining dirt on Hillary Clinton is not inconsistent with claims that the actual focus of the meeting was on other matters.
Indeed, that’s been the Trump team’s story. Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner expected to get dirt (and would have “loved” to, as Trump Jr. said) but instead the Russians talked about other matters — sanctions and adoptions. These other matters were the focus of the meeting, though not the original purpose from the Trump team’s perspective. When it became obvious that the focus of the meeting would not be on Hillary Clinton, Trump Jr. quickly lost interest and the meeting ended soon thereafter.
Thus, the purported disconnect between President Trump’s tweets and statements by others on his team does not exist. Claims to the contrary are fake news.”
“t cannot be repeated enough that the Mueller probe into foreign collusion was itself the product of foreign collusion. Starting even before Trump entered the presidential race, Obama’s CIA director John Brennan was colluding with foreign spies to collect unverified information about Trumpworld. In 2014, Stefan Halper, the long-in-the-tooth CIA asset whom the FBI would later run into the Trump campaign to entrap Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, had passed to Brennan, via Halper’s friends in British intelligence, some bizarre tattle-tale about alleged coziness between Michael Flynn and a Russian historian at Cambridge University.
Long before Flynn joined the Trump campaign in early 2016, Brennan and British intelligence were spying on him. That the CIA and FBI turned to Halper to set traps for him and others in the Trump campaign makes perfect sense. Halper was in on Spygate’s ground floor. Bloating himself for years on the American taxpayer’s dime, Halper couldn’t resist serving as a dual asset for the CIA/FBI and British intelligence.8
In all likelihood, the Trump-hating Peter Strzok, who, as we have learned from his texts, was determined to “stop” the Trump candidacy, obtained Halper’s contact info from Brennan, to whom he served as the FBI’s liaison, which is one of the most critical facts for explaining the baseless probe. Brennan and Strzok nourished a shared hatred for Trump; Strzok would later boast to his mistress that Brennan had given him a CIA medal.
Trump should declassify all communications between Brennan and Strzok, if they exist, which is a real possibility, given what careless clowns the two of them are. Those communications would contain much of the story of Spygate.
The second form of foreign collusion underpinning the Mueller probe has gotten much more attention: the collusion between the FBI and Hillary’s foreign opposition researcher Christopher Steele. In paying Steele $160,000, Hillary purchased more than just opposition research; she purchased FISA warrants on her opponent’s associates and a counterintelligence probe of his campaign. Through Peter Strzok, who wanted her to win “1,000,000-0,” as he put it to his mistress, the FBI was working directly for the Hillary campaign, taking the work of her Brit spy and putting it directly into FISA warrant applications.
Meanwhile, Strzok was darting over to the CIA for Brennan’s “working Langley group” meetings, where they hashed out plans for an October surprise through Halper’s brushing up against the campaign. British intelligence must have been kept apprised of these plans, as Halper’s field of entrapment fell upon British soil. The Five Eyes agreement between the two countries requires that they give each other fair warning about spy operations in their backyards. Besides, the Brits already had a proprietary interest in the Obama administration’s spying on Trump, having supplied the first batch of unverified fragments about Trumpworld to Brennan in 2014 and 2015.
Brennan and Strzok, relying upon media propagandists in their pockets, have worked hard to leave the impression that the pre-probe “tips” from “allies” were devastating. In fact, they were so threadbare Mueller hasn’t even bothered to interview Brennan about them, according to Brennan’s own admission. Mueller could find any of those tips in “CIA files,” Brennan has said with reckless vagueness.””
“Vice President Mike Pence’s original and most damning sin is that he’s a Christian who actually believes what Christians actually believe.”
“The New York Times’ Frank Bruni really upped his game this week. In an atrociously brutal piece, he called Vice President Mike Pence a “holy terror,” claiming he’s multiple degrees more sinister than President Trump, the otherwise most sinister person on the planet. Bruni actually warns the best case against impeaching Trump is the much greater danger of Pence.
Think about that a moment though. For all the venom and apocalyptic hysteria being spewed at everything Trump has ever said, done or probably even thought — and there is plenty there of concern — there is someone even “worse” than this president. Bruni makes Chicken Little seem measured.
So what makes Pence so evil, other than the fact that he is, as Bruni has it, “self-infatuated,” “a bigot,” a “liar” and “cruel”? Pence’s original and most damning sin is that he’s a Christian who actually believes what Christians actually believe. Imagine that.
Pence is really no different than your run-of-the-mill evangelical, like millions of Americans. He believes that God governs the affairs of men, that prayer is effectual and worth doing, that marriage and family are best when built upon a married mother and father, that life is sacred and abortion destroys life, and that God appoints our government’s leaders, even those who are hostile to Him.
Bruni adds that Pence is a greater threat to the universe than Trump because he holds, “…the conviction that he’s on a mission from God and a determination to mold the entire nation in the shape of his own faith, a regressive, repressive version of Christianity.”
Besides sliming the Blues Brothers, he fails to appreciate that he has done so to millions of simple middle-Americans who believe that seeking to serve God in one’s life and work is a profound virtue and desirable life trait. Bruni continues on this remarkable trail: Trade Trump for Pence “and you go from kleptocracy to theocracy.”
How does one even respond to such meteoric hyperbole masquerading as thoughtfulness? “
“The New York Times’ Anti-White Hire Is Exactly What Western Education Trains People To Be
To understand where Sarah Jeong came from, look to the tax-funded activist departments within Western universities, which teach what Jeong preaches.”
————
“They Don’t Think They Need to Apologize
Jeong’s vacuous apology, and The New York Times’ defense, for her vicious tweets would make Jacques Derrida sound like Aesop’s fables, it was so twisted and meaningless. It wasn’t even an apology, more like a justification for her tweets. This, coming from someone whose parents fled a country where more than 30,000 Americans died to save some from totalitarian tyranny.
For someone who grew up in an affluent American city, went to Harvard University, and obtained a job at the country’s paper of record before 30, the amount of victimhood she expresses is incomprehensible. The life Jeong has, refugees fleeing North Korea would give up an arm to get.
However, it is not difficult to understand. It is actually very simple. Jeong’s tweets are not stupid. It is not just a performative art by an affluent, urban, middle-class imbecile, a way of signaling in-group communication to people of similar economic and ideological bent.
Jeong didn’t tweet she hates “white people” because she wanted to be accepted among a certain section of society, where rhetoric like this is a common way of bonding. She channelized a very common idea among certain university circles. A scroll through post-colonial, feminist and gender research, and other “activist” departments will show exactly the same sentiments, in more jargon fueled writing. Claire Lehman, the editor of Quillette, has called it neo-Marxism.
When American Sociological Association President Eduardo Bonilla-Silva bizarrely advocates “equality of outcome” and writes that “to fight color-blind racism…blacks and their allies would be the core of a new civil rights movement demanding equality of results,” one should know the education system of the West is broken beyond repair, and due to a handful of disciplines. Jeong didn’t just appear in a vacuum.”
My mantra of late has been that anyone who thinks today’s politics and President are worse or different than ever before needs to study history. I’m reading the book “American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House” and I’m telling you, it reads as though it is about our last election and Trump. There are too many similarities to mention so I’ll just recommend that you read it. I do have to mention two that are almost funny: Clay, who lost to Jackson in 1828, said that his election was “the worse calamity to ever befall the country” and once he was in office, Jackson’s opponents severely criticized him for taking his message directly to the people by having his thoughts published in the newspaper (only because Twitter wasn’t invented yet).
I’m on a train from Stockholm to Copenhagen. The scenery isn’t much different than I would see 2-300 kms north of my place. Rocks treees and water…..and the occassionally farm or village. So I’m a little bored….
1st.post Twitter is a corporation not a branch of the government. As Romney said corporations are people too and people can be bias. Personally I think its the algorithm which is continuously adjusted. Twitter is also motivated by profit….if minimizing Republican tweets is profitable then who are we stop capitalism
2nd post….parsing hairs. So the new defence is Trump jr went to the meeting prepared to colluded but didnt. Oh he wanted to be a traitor but the Russians had other…..and one wonders why Mueller does shut it down.
“Who cares if Donald Trump is ‘presidential’, as long as he’s successful?
He is a leader utterly unlike his predecessors — and we’re all better for it.”
———————
“What does it mean to be “presidential”?
Literalists might say: “It’s whatever behaviour and affect a President exhibits.”
But most of us will have something more rigorous in mind. To be “presidential” means to be dignified but masterly, simultaneously courteous yet decorous, friendly in a self-contained sort of way. The problem with this view is that so many presidents throughout history have violated it, from Andrew Jackson and his smash-up-the-china parties at the White House to Bill Clinton’s novel deployment of cigars with Monica Lewinsky.
Donald Trump recently mocked the traditional idea of being presidential, explaining that behaving in that way is “a lot easier than what I do.” His demonstration of what he meant at a rally had the twin virtues of being amusing and appealing to his base.
From the very beginning of his campaign, Donald Trump has acted in ways that shatter our usual notions of what it means to be presidential. Think of his comment during the campaign to Megyn Kelly about canines and Rosie O’Donnell, his description of Kim Jong-un as “Rocket Man” from the floor of the UN’s General Assembly, or indeed his steady stream of provocative tweets about world leaders, contentious domestic issues, and even members of his own staff.
Back around the time of the Republican convention in 2016, I wrote a column called “Dr. Donald and Mr. Trump” suggesting that Donald Trump was a bit like the Robert Louis Stevenson character Dr. Jekyll whose demonic alter-ego Mr. Hyde kept peeking through and upsetting his personality. No sooner had candidate Trump outlined some splendid plan for dealing with urban blight (say) than he suggested that Rafael Cruz, the father of Senator Cruz, was somehow involved with Lee Harvey Oswald. Yikes!
Back then, I was a reluctant, at-least-he’s-not-Hillary supporter of Donald Trump. As the months have gone by, however, and I have watched him pile up victory after victory—with his judicial appointments, his roll back of the regulatory environment, his handling of the economy, his bold and innovative foreign diplomacy — I have to wonder whether I was being too staid, too stuck in the mud.”
“Three-card Monte is a centuries-old con game in which the dealer and his shills trick the unsuspecting mark into betting on a rigged card game. Only the dealer and his people know where the winning card is, though the mark believes he’s smart enough to find out where the winning card is buried.
The public – in this case, the mark – has been led to believe that the entire years-long Mueller investigation was into Trump’s “collusion” with Russians. But the dealer (Mueller himself) knows that it is part of a plan to undermine the president and reverse the 2016 presidential election, in which the only real Russian collusion was with Hillary. By now his press supporters surely should know this, but they continue to feed the fiction that the game is to find the collusion in the one campaign in which there was none.
A recent Harvard-Harris poll shows that the universe of marks is getting smaller: sixty percent of Americans believe that the FBI demonstrates bias against the president and has set out to wound him politically. Mueller’s popularity keeps plummeting. By mid-June (the last figure I’ve seen), “a record 53 percent [are] now saying they view the lead Russia investigator in an unfavorable light. That’s a 26-point spike since July [2017], when the poll first started asking voters whether they viewed Mueller favorably or unfavorably. … Thirty-six percent of all registered voters are also seeing Mueller unfavorably, which represents the highest level since the polling first raised the topic 11 months ago. Back then, 23 percent of all voters said they viewed Mueller negatively.” “
“A hot, new report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates that requiring ethanol made from corn and soybeans to be added to gasoline in the name of “environmental protection” is doing more harm than good.
The report, Biofuels and the Environment: The Second Triennial Report to Congress, is four years overdue and contains many findings that should be troubling to those of us interested in real environmental protection. Here are some of the analysis:
The substantially increased acreage used for crop production has impacted local environments (e.g., loss of natural habitat for wildlife).
Ethanol from corn grain has higher emissions of harmful pollutants than ethanol from other feedstocks. These emissions include s nitrogen oxides (NOx gases), which can ultimately form ground-level ozone that contributes to smog).
Fertilizer-infused runoff water from the new farms has contributed to harmful algal blooms (e.g., as in the case of Lake Erie).
These issues are on top of all the other troubles associated with ethanol-infused fuel, as described by John Stossel in a 2016 report:”
Twitter’s hypocrisy gets exposed. Say it about white people and it’s fine. Say it about another ethnicity and it’s the worst thing ever and grounds for suspension.
LANGUAGE WARNING!!!! Sorry, but the lefty at the NY Times has a foul mouth.
“Twitter Suspended Candace Owens’s Account for Wrong Racism, Apologizes for ‘Mistake’
Owens: “It’s horrifically racist, but somehow we’ve gotten to a point in society where it’s OK to say the exact same thing about white people, and that’s problematic.”
Conservative commentator Candace Owens, a black woman, wanted to make a point on Twitter and boy did she ever. The New York Times new editorial board member Sarah Jeong has dominated the news cycle these past few days due to her old racist tweets against white people. The left has defended her because, after all, white people cannot experience racism. Duh.
Owens decided to expose the double standard by changing Jeong’s tweets. Instead of white, she used Jewish and black. Twitter immediately suspended her account for 12 hours.”
————————
The suspension led to backlash, which caused Twitter to restore Owens’ account. From The Daily Caller:
“Twitter takes reports of violations of the Twitter Rules very seriously,” Twitter’s support team wrote in an email to Owens, who shared it with TheDCNF. “After reviewing your account, it looks like we made an error.”
“This was our mistake and we’ve apologized to the account owner for the error,” a spokeswoman for Twitter told TheDCNF. The spokesperson did not say whether a human content monitor or an algorithm was responsible for suspending Owens’ account.
Owens spoke to The Daily Caller and said the experiment worked:
“The thing is, I wouldn’t have minded if I was locked out, because I actually agree with Twitter that that language is inappropriate,” Owens said.
“My point in tweeting that and replacing the word with black and Jewish yesterday was to show how different that mentality is when you see it in that context and you see talking about Jewish people and predisposed to burning under the sun or black people saying they should live underground,” she said.
“It’s horrifically racist, but somehow we’ve gotten to a point in society where it’s OK to say the exact same thing about white people, and that’s problematic.””
On being “presidential” – Remember when conservatives disliked Jimmy Carter wearing sweaters in the Oval Office instead of a suit jacket? Then when Ronald Reagan began his terms, there was much ballyhoo about him and Nancy bringing class back to the White House.
I suspect that if the next Democratic president (and there will be another one eventually, maybe sooner, maybe later) follows in Trump’s footsteps in his speech and behavior, conservatives are going to be once again very concerned about the president not being presidential enough.
On racism – I’m wondering if this is another case of the connotation of a word changing over a period of time. The word racism now supposedly means not only a feeling of bias or prejudice, but also the imbalance of power. So, if we look at it with that connotation, whites don’t face that kind of racism, at least not nearly on the scale that minorities do.
However, there is still the matter of prejudice. Remember when that was the word we used? At some point, rather than saying someone was prejudiced, we started saying they were racist. And yes, some minorities can be just as prejudiced against whites or other minorities as some whites are of certain minorities.
(My Aunt Gert loved black people and had black friends. If she heard any prejudice expressed against blacks, she would reprimand the person. And yet, she hated “PRs”, as she referred to Puerto Ricans. She couldn’t see her own prejudice there.)
“The word racism now supposedly means not only a feeling of bias or prejudice, but also the imbalance of power. So, if we look at it with that connotation, whites don’t face that kind of racism, at least not nearly on the scale that minorities do.”
That’s hogwash, and exactly the type of linguistic gymnastics I’ve come to expect from the left. It seeks to excuse their prejudice/racism. Saying people aren’t and can’t be racist against whites is absurd and clearly false. One look at the vile and yes, racist posts by the new NY Times editor show that it goes both ways. She’s no better than the white supremacist types she rails against.
Re Mike Pence at 6:567
A friend sent me this. It isn’t all, but enough:
Obama: It was You.”
* It was you who spoke these words at an Islamic dinner -“I am one of you.”
* It was you who on ABC News referenced -“My Muslim faith.”
* It was you who gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to re-build foreign mosques.
* It was you who wrote that in the event of a conflict-“I will stand with the Muslims.”
* It was you who assured the Egyptian Foreign Minister that -“I am a Muslim.”
* It was you who bowed in submission before the Saudi King.
* It was you who sat for 20 years in a Liberation Theology Church condemning Christianity and professing Marxism.
* It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay.
* It was you who refused to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, but hastened to host an Islamic prayer breakfast at the White House.
* It was you who ordered Georgetown Univ. and Notre Dame to shroud
all vestiges of Jesus Christ BEFORE you would agree to go there to speak, but in contrast, you have NEVER requested the mosques you have visited to adjust their decor.
* It was you who appointed anti-Christian fanatics to your Czar Corps.
* It was you who appointed rabid Islamists to Homeland
Security.
* It was you who said that NASA’s “foremost mission” was an outreach to Muslim communities.
* It was you who as an Illinois Senator was the ONLY individual who would speak in favor of infanticide.
* It was you who was the first President not to give a Christmas Greeting from the White House, and went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the White House tree.
* It was you who curtailed the military tribunals of all Islamic terrorists.
* It was you who refused to condemn the Ft. Hood killer as an Islamic terrorist.
* It is you who has refused to speak-out concerning the horrific executions of women throughout the Muslim culture, but yet, have submitted Arizona to the UN for investigation of hypothetical human-rights abuses.
It was you who appointed your chief adviser, Valerie Jarrett, an Iranian, who is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
* It was you who said this country is not a Christian nation.
AJ – I wasn’t saying that there is no racism/prejudice against whites, but that the connotation of the word racism has changed to fit a different paradigm involving power structures, not only prejudice. So, from their point of view, there can be no racism against whites. But obviously, there is prejudice and hate against us by some. It’s playing with words.
“On Monday, Turning Point USA head Charlie Kirk and communications director Candace Owens were sitting at a restaurant in Philadelphia when members of a Leftist activist group spotted them through the window. Within minutes, Kirk told Daily Wire, 20-30 of these rabble-rousers mobilized, and proceeded to harass Kirk and Owens inside the restaurant before attacking them outside. Police were required to separate the mob from Kirk and Owens.”
To be clear: ANTIFA, an all-white fascist organization, just grew violent and attacked an all-black and Hispanic police force.
Karen, I don’t know that all of those are true. I do know that some of them are.
And I have heard from more than one source that the Muslim Brotherhood had access to the White House. I heard that it was through Valerie Jarrett, but I don’t know that.
Wandering Views 
In not shocking news……
https://nypost.com/2018/08/04/how-twitter-is-fueling-the-democratic-agenda/
“After Twitter was caught last month “shadow-banning” Republicans, while giving Democrats unrestricted voice, the social-media giant insisted it has no political agenda. But records of its political contributions show board members, top executives and major shareholders have all given overwhelmingly to Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while snubbing Republicans and Donald Trump.
Federal records reveal 80 percent of Twitter’s corporate PAC contributions in the 2018 election cycle have gone to Democratic candidates, none of whom are moderates. Liberal Democrats also got top dollar in the 2016 race.
The lobbying records I reviewed, moreover, show Twitter has sought to influence Congress and federal agencies on behalf of Democratic causes and against President Trump’s policies.
Vice News last month broke the story that Twitter limited the visibility of Republican Party Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and several Republicans leading Hill investigations into the Obama administration’s efforts to spy on the Trump campaign, including Reps. Devin Nunes (Calif.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Mark Meadows (NC) and John Ratcliffe (Texas).
San Francisco-based Twitter blamed it on a search-engine filter deployed against “bad” actors, such as racists, trolls and users inciting violence, which it maintains accidentally ensnared Republicans, while curiously failing to affect any Democrats.
“We enforce our rules without political bias,” Twitter Chief Legal Officer Vijaya Gadde said in a statement.
But Republicans aren’t buying it. They blame the unequal treatment on political bias, and they argue the timing is suspicious. They say Republican voices are being suppressed on the 355 million-user platform just months before the highly contentious November congressional elections.”
LikeLike
And in fake news…….
Everything old is new again.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/08/fake-news-from-the-new-york-times.php
“The New York Times breathlessly reports: “President Admits Focus of Trump Tower Meeting Was Getting Dirt on Clinton.” But in portraying this “admission” as news, the Times is playing fast and loose with the English language. In the process, it is dishing out fake news.
What Trump acknowledged was that “this was a meeting to get information on an opponent.” In other words, the purpose of holding the meeting, from the Trump team’s perspective, was to get negative information about Hillary Clinton. The focus of the meeting was on what the participants actually talked about. Thus, the focus and the purpose might be two different things. In this instance, they appear to have been different.
It isn’t news that the purpose of the meeting with the Russian lawyer was to get negative information about Clinton. This has been the president’s position all along. More than a year ago, he tweeted: “Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent. That’s politics!” (Emphasis added) This is almost identical in relevant part to today’s tweet which states in full:
Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics – and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!
Thus, the Times’ suggestion that there’s something new here is, in a real sense, fake news. It’s manufactured.
And manufactured for a purpose. The Times wants to keep up its Russia-related anti-Trump drumbeat. If recycling old stories and trying to pass them off as news is required, the Times will oblige happily.
To make it looks like there’s something new here, the Times cites old statements, not by President Trump but by members of his team, that the meeting focused on subjects other than opposition research. Here, as I suggested above, the Times conflates the purpose of a meeting with its focus. The fact that Donald Trump Jr. attended a meeting with Russians for the purpose of obtaining dirt on Hillary Clinton is not inconsistent with claims that the actual focus of the meeting was on other matters.
Indeed, that’s been the Trump team’s story. Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner expected to get dirt (and would have “loved” to, as Trump Jr. said) but instead the Russians talked about other matters — sanctions and adoptions. These other matters were the focus of the meeting, though not the original purpose from the Trump team’s perspective. When it became obvious that the focus of the meeting would not be on Hillary Clinton, Trump Jr. quickly lost interest and the meeting ended soon thereafter.
Thus, the purported disconnect between President Trump’s tweets and statements by others on his team does not exist. Claims to the contrary are fake news.”
LikeLike
Once again Brennan is exposed as a fraud.
I guess some foreign collusion is more equal than others.
https://spectator.org/never-forget-the-brennan-brit-plot-to-nail-trump/
“t cannot be repeated enough that the Mueller probe into foreign collusion was itself the product of foreign collusion. Starting even before Trump entered the presidential race, Obama’s CIA director John Brennan was colluding with foreign spies to collect unverified information about Trumpworld. In 2014, Stefan Halper, the long-in-the-tooth CIA asset whom the FBI would later run into the Trump campaign to entrap Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, had passed to Brennan, via Halper’s friends in British intelligence, some bizarre tattle-tale about alleged coziness between Michael Flynn and a Russian historian at Cambridge University.
Long before Flynn joined the Trump campaign in early 2016, Brennan and British intelligence were spying on him. That the CIA and FBI turned to Halper to set traps for him and others in the Trump campaign makes perfect sense. Halper was in on Spygate’s ground floor. Bloating himself for years on the American taxpayer’s dime, Halper couldn’t resist serving as a dual asset for the CIA/FBI and British intelligence.8
In all likelihood, the Trump-hating Peter Strzok, who, as we have learned from his texts, was determined to “stop” the Trump candidacy, obtained Halper’s contact info from Brennan, to whom he served as the FBI’s liaison, which is one of the most critical facts for explaining the baseless probe. Brennan and Strzok nourished a shared hatred for Trump; Strzok would later boast to his mistress that Brennan had given him a CIA medal.
Trump should declassify all communications between Brennan and Strzok, if they exist, which is a real possibility, given what careless clowns the two of them are. Those communications would contain much of the story of Spygate.
The second form of foreign collusion underpinning the Mueller probe has gotten much more attention: the collusion between the FBI and Hillary’s foreign opposition researcher Christopher Steele. In paying Steele $160,000, Hillary purchased more than just opposition research; she purchased FISA warrants on her opponent’s associates and a counterintelligence probe of his campaign. Through Peter Strzok, who wanted her to win “1,000,000-0,” as he put it to his mistress, the FBI was working directly for the Hillary campaign, taking the work of her Brit spy and putting it directly into FISA warrant applications.
Meanwhile, Strzok was darting over to the CIA for Brennan’s “working Langley group” meetings, where they hashed out plans for an October surprise through Halper’s brushing up against the campaign. British intelligence must have been kept apprised of these plans, as Halper’s field of entrapment fell upon British soil. The Five Eyes agreement between the two countries requires that they give each other fair warning about spy operations in their backyards. Besides, the Brits already had a proprietary interest in the Obama administration’s spying on Trump, having supplied the first batch of unverified fragments about Trumpworld to Brennan in 2014 and 2015.
Brennan and Strzok, relying upon media propagandists in their pockets, have worked hard to leave the impression that the pre-probe “tips” from “allies” were devastating. In fact, they were so threadbare Mueller hasn’t even bothered to interview Brennan about them, according to Brennan’s own admission. Mueller could find any of those tips in “CIA files,” Brennan has said with reckless vagueness.””
LikeLike
“The New York Times’ Hit Piece On Mike Pence Is Anti-Christian Bigotry, Plain And Simple”
http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/06/new-york-times-hit-piece-mike-pence-anti-christian-bigotry-plain-simple/
“Vice President Mike Pence’s original and most damning sin is that he’s a Christian who actually believes what Christians actually believe.”
“The New York Times’ Frank Bruni really upped his game this week. In an atrociously brutal piece, he called Vice President Mike Pence a “holy terror,” claiming he’s multiple degrees more sinister than President Trump, the otherwise most sinister person on the planet. Bruni actually warns the best case against impeaching Trump is the much greater danger of Pence.
Think about that a moment though. For all the venom and apocalyptic hysteria being spewed at everything Trump has ever said, done or probably even thought — and there is plenty there of concern — there is someone even “worse” than this president. Bruni makes Chicken Little seem measured.
So what makes Pence so evil, other than the fact that he is, as Bruni has it, “self-infatuated,” “a bigot,” a “liar” and “cruel”? Pence’s original and most damning sin is that he’s a Christian who actually believes what Christians actually believe. Imagine that.
Pence is really no different than your run-of-the-mill evangelical, like millions of Americans. He believes that God governs the affairs of men, that prayer is effectual and worth doing, that marriage and family are best when built upon a married mother and father, that life is sacred and abortion destroys life, and that God appoints our government’s leaders, even those who are hostile to Him.
Bruni adds that Pence is a greater threat to the universe than Trump because he holds, “…the conviction that he’s on a mission from God and a determination to mold the entire nation in the shape of his own faith, a regressive, repressive version of Christianity.”
Besides sliming the Blues Brothers, he fails to appreciate that he has done so to millions of simple middle-Americans who believe that seeking to serve God in one’s life and work is a profound virtue and desirable life trait. Bruni continues on this remarkable trail: Trade Trump for Pence “and you go from kleptocracy to theocracy.”
How does one even respond to such meteoric hyperbole masquerading as thoughtfulness? “
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yet another indictment of our failing “education” system.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/06/new-york-times-anti-white-hire-exactly-western-education-trains-people/
“The New York Times’ Anti-White Hire Is Exactly What Western Education Trains People To Be
To understand where Sarah Jeong came from, look to the tax-funded activist departments within Western universities, which teach what Jeong preaches.”
————
“They Don’t Think They Need to Apologize
Jeong’s vacuous apology, and The New York Times’ defense, for her vicious tweets would make Jacques Derrida sound like Aesop’s fables, it was so twisted and meaningless. It wasn’t even an apology, more like a justification for her tweets. This, coming from someone whose parents fled a country where more than 30,000 Americans died to save some from totalitarian tyranny.
For someone who grew up in an affluent American city, went to Harvard University, and obtained a job at the country’s paper of record before 30, the amount of victimhood she expresses is incomprehensible. The life Jeong has, refugees fleeing North Korea would give up an arm to get.
However, it is not difficult to understand. It is actually very simple. Jeong’s tweets are not stupid. It is not just a performative art by an affluent, urban, middle-class imbecile, a way of signaling in-group communication to people of similar economic and ideological bent.
Jeong didn’t tweet she hates “white people” because she wanted to be accepted among a certain section of society, where rhetoric like this is a common way of bonding. She channelized a very common idea among certain university circles. A scroll through post-colonial, feminist and gender research, and other “activist” departments will show exactly the same sentiments, in more jargon fueled writing. Claire Lehman, the editor of Quillette, has called it neo-Marxism.
When American Sociological Association President Eduardo Bonilla-Silva bizarrely advocates “equality of outcome” and writes that “to fight color-blind racism…blacks and their allies would be the core of a new civil rights movement demanding equality of results,” one should know the education system of the West is broken beyond repair, and due to a handful of disciplines. Jeong didn’t just appear in a vacuum.”
LikeLike
My mantra of late has been that anyone who thinks today’s politics and President are worse or different than ever before needs to study history. I’m reading the book “American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House” and I’m telling you, it reads as though it is about our last election and Trump. There are too many similarities to mention so I’ll just recommend that you read it. I do have to mention two that are almost funny: Clay, who lost to Jackson in 1828, said that his election was “the worse calamity to ever befall the country” and once he was in office, Jackson’s opponents severely criticized him for taking his message directly to the people by having his thoughts published in the newspaper (only because Twitter wasn’t invented yet).
LikeLiked by 5 people
I’m on a train from Stockholm to Copenhagen. The scenery isn’t much different than I would see 2-300 kms north of my place. Rocks treees and water…..and the occassionally farm or village. So I’m a little bored….
1st.post Twitter is a corporation not a branch of the government. As Romney said corporations are people too and people can be bias. Personally I think its the algorithm which is continuously adjusted. Twitter is also motivated by profit….if minimizing Republican tweets is profitable then who are we stop capitalism
2nd post….parsing hairs. So the new defence is Trump jr went to the meeting prepared to colluded but didnt. Oh he wanted to be a traitor but the Russians had other…..and one wonders why Mueller does shut it down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not collusion. It’s opposition research, and all sides do it.
But you already know that. 🙄
LikeLike
On the same note Linda mentioned……. I much prefer a china smashing Jackson type.
I could care less about looking presidential. All I care about are results.
https://spectator.us/2018/08/who-cares-if-donald-trump-is-presidential-as-long-as-hes-successful/
“Who cares if Donald Trump is ‘presidential’, as long as he’s successful?
He is a leader utterly unlike his predecessors — and we’re all better for it.”
———————
“What does it mean to be “presidential”?
Literalists might say: “It’s whatever behaviour and affect a President exhibits.”
But most of us will have something more rigorous in mind. To be “presidential” means to be dignified but masterly, simultaneously courteous yet decorous, friendly in a self-contained sort of way. The problem with this view is that so many presidents throughout history have violated it, from Andrew Jackson and his smash-up-the-china parties at the White House to Bill Clinton’s novel deployment of cigars with Monica Lewinsky.
Donald Trump recently mocked the traditional idea of being presidential, explaining that behaving in that way is “a lot easier than what I do.” His demonstration of what he meant at a rally had the twin virtues of being amusing and appealing to his base.
From the very beginning of his campaign, Donald Trump has acted in ways that shatter our usual notions of what it means to be presidential. Think of his comment during the campaign to Megyn Kelly about canines and Rosie O’Donnell, his description of Kim Jong-un as “Rocket Man” from the floor of the UN’s General Assembly, or indeed his steady stream of provocative tweets about world leaders, contentious domestic issues, and even members of his own staff.
Back around the time of the Republican convention in 2016, I wrote a column called “Dr. Donald and Mr. Trump” suggesting that Donald Trump was a bit like the Robert Louis Stevenson character Dr. Jekyll whose demonic alter-ego Mr. Hyde kept peeking through and upsetting his personality. No sooner had candidate Trump outlined some splendid plan for dealing with urban blight (say) than he suggested that Rafael Cruz, the father of Senator Cruz, was somehow involved with Lee Harvey Oswald. Yikes!
Back then, I was a reluctant, at-least-he’s-not-Hillary supporter of Donald Trump. As the months have gone by, however, and I have watched him pile up victory after victory—with his judicial appointments, his roll back of the regulatory environment, his handling of the economy, his bold and innovative foreign diplomacy — I have to wonder whether I was being too staid, too stuck in the mud.”
LikeLike
The Con.
3 Card Mueller and his moving goalposts.
But thankfully the marks (the public) have figured out the game is rigged.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/threecard_mueller.html
“Three-card Monte is a centuries-old con game in which the dealer and his shills trick the unsuspecting mark into betting on a rigged card game. Only the dealer and his people know where the winning card is, though the mark believes he’s smart enough to find out where the winning card is buried.
The public – in this case, the mark – has been led to believe that the entire years-long Mueller investigation was into Trump’s “collusion” with Russians. But the dealer (Mueller himself) knows that it is part of a plan to undermine the president and reverse the 2016 presidential election, in which the only real Russian collusion was with Hillary. By now his press supporters surely should know this, but they continue to feed the fiction that the game is to find the collusion in the one campaign in which there was none.
A recent Harvard-Harris poll shows that the universe of marks is getting smaller: sixty percent of Americans believe that the FBI demonstrates bias against the president and has set out to wound him politically. Mueller’s popularity keeps plummeting. By mid-June (the last figure I’ve seen), “a record 53 percent [are] now saying they view the lead Russia investigator in an unfavorable light. That’s a 26-point spike since July [2017], when the poll first started asking voters whether they viewed Mueller favorably or unfavorably. … Thirty-six percent of all registered voters are also seeing Mueller unfavorably, which represents the highest level since the polling first raised the topic 11 months ago. Back then, 23 percent of all voters said they viewed Mueller negatively.” “
LikeLike
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/08/epa-maybe-adding-ethanol-to-gasoline-wasnt-smart-after-all/
“A hot, new report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates that requiring ethanol made from corn and soybeans to be added to gasoline in the name of “environmental protection” is doing more harm than good.
The report, Biofuels and the Environment: The Second Triennial Report to Congress, is four years overdue and contains many findings that should be troubling to those of us interested in real environmental protection. Here are some of the analysis:
The substantially increased acreage used for crop production has impacted local environments (e.g., loss of natural habitat for wildlife).
Ethanol from corn grain has higher emissions of harmful pollutants than ethanol from other feedstocks. These emissions include s nitrogen oxides (NOx gases), which can ultimately form ground-level ozone that contributes to smog).
Fertilizer-infused runoff water from the new farms has contributed to harmful algal blooms (e.g., as in the case of Lake Erie).
These issues are on top of all the other troubles associated with ethanol-infused fuel, as described by John Stossel in a 2016 report:”
LikeLike
Twitter’s hypocrisy gets exposed. Say it about white people and it’s fine. Say it about another ethnicity and it’s the worst thing ever and grounds for suspension.
LANGUAGE WARNING!!!! Sorry, but the lefty at the NY Times has a foul mouth.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/08/twitter-suspended-candace-owenss-account-for-wrong-racism-apologizes-for-mistake/#more-256839
“Twitter Suspended Candace Owens’s Account for Wrong Racism, Apologizes for ‘Mistake’
Owens: “It’s horrifically racist, but somehow we’ve gotten to a point in society where it’s OK to say the exact same thing about white people, and that’s problematic.”
Conservative commentator Candace Owens, a black woman, wanted to make a point on Twitter and boy did she ever. The New York Times new editorial board member Sarah Jeong has dominated the news cycle these past few days due to her old racist tweets against white people. The left has defended her because, after all, white people cannot experience racism. Duh.
Owens decided to expose the double standard by changing Jeong’s tweets. Instead of white, she used Jewish and black. Twitter immediately suspended her account for 12 hours.”
————————
The suspension led to backlash, which caused Twitter to restore Owens’ account. From The Daily Caller:
“Twitter takes reports of violations of the Twitter Rules very seriously,” Twitter’s support team wrote in an email to Owens, who shared it with TheDCNF. “After reviewing your account, it looks like we made an error.”
“This was our mistake and we’ve apologized to the account owner for the error,” a spokeswoman for Twitter told TheDCNF. The spokesperson did not say whether a human content monitor or an algorithm was responsible for suspending Owens’ account.
Owens spoke to The Daily Caller and said the experiment worked:
“The thing is, I wouldn’t have minded if I was locked out, because I actually agree with Twitter that that language is inappropriate,” Owens said.
“My point in tweeting that and replacing the word with black and Jewish yesterday was to show how different that mentality is when you see it in that context and you see talking about Jewish people and predisposed to burning under the sun or black people saying they should live underground,” she said.
“It’s horrifically racist, but somehow we’ve gotten to a point in society where it’s OK to say the exact same thing about white people, and that’s problematic.””
————————–
I’m sure it’s the algorithm, right HRW? 🙄
LikeLiked by 1 person
On being “presidential” – Remember when conservatives disliked Jimmy Carter wearing sweaters in the Oval Office instead of a suit jacket? Then when Ronald Reagan began his terms, there was much ballyhoo about him and Nancy bringing class back to the White House.
I suspect that if the next Democratic president (and there will be another one eventually, maybe sooner, maybe later) follows in Trump’s footsteps in his speech and behavior, conservatives are going to be once again very concerned about the president not being presidential enough.
LikeLike
On racism – I’m wondering if this is another case of the connotation of a word changing over a period of time. The word racism now supposedly means not only a feeling of bias or prejudice, but also the imbalance of power. So, if we look at it with that connotation, whites don’t face that kind of racism, at least not nearly on the scale that minorities do.
However, there is still the matter of prejudice. Remember when that was the word we used? At some point, rather than saying someone was prejudiced, we started saying they were racist. And yes, some minorities can be just as prejudiced against whites or other minorities as some whites are of certain minorities.
(My Aunt Gert loved black people and had black friends. If she heard any prejudice expressed against blacks, she would reprimand the person. And yet, she hated “PRs”, as she referred to Puerto Ricans. She couldn’t see her own prejudice there.)
LikeLike
“The word racism now supposedly means not only a feeling of bias or prejudice, but also the imbalance of power. So, if we look at it with that connotation, whites don’t face that kind of racism, at least not nearly on the scale that minorities do.”
That’s hogwash, and exactly the type of linguistic gymnastics I’ve come to expect from the left. It seeks to excuse their prejudice/racism. Saying people aren’t and can’t be racist against whites is absurd and clearly false. One look at the vile and yes, racist posts by the new NY Times editor show that it goes both ways. She’s no better than the white supremacist types she rails against.
LikeLike
Re Mike Pence at 6:567
A friend sent me this. It isn’t all, but enough:
Obama: It was You.”
* It was you who spoke these words at an Islamic dinner -“I am one of you.”
* It was you who on ABC News referenced -“My Muslim faith.”
* It was you who gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to re-build foreign mosques.
* It was you who wrote that in the event of a conflict-“I will stand with the Muslims.”
* It was you who assured the Egyptian Foreign Minister that -“I am a Muslim.”
* It was you who bowed in submission before the Saudi King.
* It was you who sat for 20 years in a Liberation Theology Church condemning Christianity and professing Marxism.
* It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay.
* It was you who refused to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, but hastened to host an Islamic prayer breakfast at the White House.
* It was you who ordered Georgetown Univ. and Notre Dame to shroud
all vestiges of Jesus Christ BEFORE you would agree to go there to speak, but in contrast, you have NEVER requested the mosques you have visited to adjust their decor.
* It was you who appointed anti-Christian fanatics to your Czar Corps.
* It was you who appointed rabid Islamists to Homeland
Security.
* It was you who said that NASA’s “foremost mission” was an outreach to Muslim communities.
* It was you who as an Illinois Senator was the ONLY individual who would speak in favor of infanticide.
* It was you who was the first President not to give a Christmas Greeting from the White House, and went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the White House tree.
* It was you who curtailed the military tribunals of all Islamic terrorists.
* It was you who refused to condemn the Ft. Hood killer as an Islamic terrorist.
* It is you who has refused to speak-out concerning the horrific executions of women throughout the Muslim culture, but yet, have submitted Arizona to the UN for investigation of hypothetical human-rights abuses.
It was you who appointed your chief adviser, Valerie Jarrett, an Iranian, who is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
* It was you who said this country is not a Christian nation.
LikeLike
AJ – I wasn’t saying that there is no racism/prejudice against whites, but that the connotation of the word racism has changed to fit a different paradigm involving power structures, not only prejudice. So, from their point of view, there can be no racism against whites. But obviously, there is prejudice and hate against us by some. It’s playing with words.
LikeLike
Chas – I don’t think that all of those are true.
LikeLike
It appears Candace Owens must now pay for her crime……..
Once again LANGUAGE WARNING!!!!!
You do realize this will all eventually turn bloody, right?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/34084/watch-leftist-mob-screams-throws-drink-tpusas-ben-shapiro
“On Monday, Turning Point USA head Charlie Kirk and communications director Candace Owens were sitting at a restaurant in Philadelphia when members of a Leftist activist group spotted them through the window. Within minutes, Kirk told Daily Wire, 20-30 of these rabble-rousers mobilized, and proceeded to harass Kirk and Owens inside the restaurant before attacking them outside. Police were required to separate the mob from Kirk and Owens.”
LikeLike
Karen, I don’t know that all of those are true. I do know that some of them are.
And I have heard from more than one source that the Muslim Brotherhood had access to the White House. I heard that it was through Valerie Jarrett, but I don’t know that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike