Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Unmasking the Relationships Between the Media and Democrats

So, the Main Stream Media (MSM) went nutso when they found out Michael Cohen, Trumps attorney, also had a relationship with Sean Hannity.  Hannity has publicly stated he was never a client of Michael Cohen's, that he never received an invoice or paid Cohen any money for his 'legal advice', which largely centered around real estate investments.

Let's do a little analysis.  There was one attorney in the room how asked specifically for Hannity's name to be released in relation to Cohen. 

"Before the name [Hannity]was revealed, [Cohen's attorney] Mr. Ryan argued that the mystery client was a “prominent person” who wanted to keep his identity a secret because he would be “embarrassed” to be identified as having sought Mr. Cohen’s counsel.
Robert D. Balin, a lawyer for various media outlets, including The New York Times, CNN and others, interrupted the hearing to argue that embarrassment was not a sufficient cause to withhold a client’s name, and Judge [Kimba] Wood agreed." - Link here.
So, let's get this straight. An attorney for NYT & CNN, but with no relation to the case, interrupted proceedings to argue for the release of Hannity's name?  (Oh, does the name Kimba Wood sound familiar?  She was once nominated for the Supreme Court by Bill Clinton, but had to recuse herself after it was revealed she employed an illegal house keeper/nanny.  Coincidentally, so did Bill's 1st nominee  Zoe Baird.)

So, Hannity's name caused a stir among the elite MSM.  So let's look at the MSM...

George Stephanopoulus:

George Stephanopoulus was worked on Michael Dukakis' 1988 campaign and was the "floor man" for Dick Gephart.  George was a leading member of Bill Clinton's advisory team in the 1992 campaign and became White house Communications Director and later senior policy advisor.  Link here

He went on to manage all of Bill's 'bimbo-eruptions' by destroying the lives of the accusers. Link here

Fun-fact:  George donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation to the tune of $75,000 and never disclosed this to ABC, for which he later apologizes.

But, we are to believe he is a fair and honest arbiter on all things politics.

Chuck Todd:

Chuck Todd is host of Meet the Press and is political director for NBC News.  Oh, Chuck's wife's company billed the Bernie Sanders campaign $1.3 million in the last presidential election. Link here

She also managed Democrat Senator Jim Webb's 2006 campaign.  Link here

Here's an article with more information about the sanctimonious Chuck Todd and his claims. 

Jake Tapper:

Jake Tapper was the spokesman for Handgun Control, a pro-gun control group in 1997, yet CNN did not disclose this when he moderated the CNN town hall following the Parkland, Florida shootings. 

Does that seem to be in direct conflict with the topic?

         "In 1992, Tapper served as a Campaign Press Secretary for Democratic congressional candidate
          Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (PA-13), and later served as her congressional press     
          secretary." Link here.

Fun-fact: Marjorie Margolies-Mezinsky is the mother-in-law of Chelsa Clinton. 

David Rhodes:

David Rhodes is the President of CBS News.  His brother, Ben Rhodes, was the foreign policy speech writer for Barack Hussein Obama and later Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications in the Obama regime.  Seems like a pretty big deal.  

Fun-fact: Ben Rhodes is married to Ann Norris, who was chief foreign policy adviser to former U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). 

I'm sure David Rhodes played it right down the middle on Obama coverage and will do the same for Trump.
Jane Pauley:

Jane Pauley works for CBS News Sunday Morning. She also campaigned for Barack Hussein Obama. Link here

Jeffrey Tobin:

Jeffrey Toobin works for The New Yorker and is a CNN analyst. He was an associate counsel on the Iran-Contra investigation, is a close friend of liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. 

Fun-fact: He also fathered a child in an extra-marital affair with Casey Greenfield, daughter of Jeff Greenfield.

Matthew Miller:

Matthew Miller is a journalist and appears on CNN & MSNBC.  He works with the Center for American Progress founded by Clintonite John Podesta. He was spokesman for Attorney General Eric Holder, communications director for Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ).  He also worked on John Kerry's presidential campaign.


Ari Melber:

Ari Melber is a reporter for NBC and MSNBC.  

             "He previously served as a legislative aide to Sen. Maria Cantwell, and as a national staff
              member of the 2004 John Kerry Presidential Campaign." - Link here

Still, no disclosure. 

John Harwood:

John Harwood is a Washington contributor to CNBC. From emails leaked by Wikileaks in 2016:

             "CNBC Correspondent John Harwood emailed [John] Podesta numerous times, on some      
               occasions to request an interview and other times to offer advice.  On May 8, 2015      
               Harwood wrote and email with the subject line " Watch out".

               "Ben Carson could give you real trouble in a general [election]," harwood wrote before 
                 linking to video clips of an interview Harwood did with the former pediatric 
                 neurosurgeon." - Link here

Fun-fact: John Harwood stared in a 1968 Robert Kennedy for President ad.

Ron Brownstein:

Ron Brownstein was a staff writer for Ralph Nader as late as 2012.  

Fun-fact:  He was married to Nina Easton (Fortune Magazine) and is now married a former communications director for John McCain.

Mark Leibovich

Mark Leibovich is a NYT Reporter:

               "In a July 2015 email, New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich emailed communications 
                director Jennifer Palmieri several chunks of an interview he did with Hillary Clinton, and 
                seemingly asked permission for the “option to use the following” portions. Palmieri 
                suggested he cut a reference Clinton made to Sarah Palin and remove Clinton’s quote, 
               “And gay rights has moved much faster than women’s rights or civil rights, which is an 
                interesting phenomenon.”

                Palmieri ended one email: “Pleasure doing business!” Link here
Maggie Haberman
Maggie Haberman is a Politico reporter:

               "In a January 2015 memo, former Politico reporter Maggie Haberman, who now works for                   The New York Times, was described as having “a very good relationship” with the

                 “We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed,” the       

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

The State of the Union is strong (and getting stronger....)

There was not much President Trump (yes, I still find it to be odd to have a President Trump - though not nearly as much as the left) didn't address in his speech.

He gave a remarkable speech.  And the democrats responded as we've all come to expect.  Sitting there dour, San Fran Nan continually adjusting her dentures (I hope), the democrat black caucus sitting and not clapping after hearing the African American unemployment was at an ALL-TIME low, booing the parents of two girls murdered by MI-13, Luis Gutierrez Stormed out Of House Chamber During SOTU when the "USA!, USA!" chant started.  You get he picture, typical classless, unpatriotic, crap they've been spewing forever.

You can watch the entire thing here.  It might be faster to read it here

Here is some commentary from FNC..

The best line of the night was, "Americans have dreams too!"

Friday, October 13, 2017

Has it really been this long?

I have not posted in 15 months.  What a 15 months it has been!

The big news is Trump crushed 17 other GOP Nominees and then trounced Crooked Hillary to steal the White House right out from under the establishment.  It was an incredible thing to watch.  I did not believe The Donald would win against Crooked Hillary.  Right up until the establishment media called the race for The Donald. I thought the democrats would find a way to cheat enough to win.  They're so good at it after decades of polishing the steal.  The biggest surprise was the way the American people fought back the lies from the establishment mainstream media.  Trump was able to right over the MSM's heads directly to the people via Twitter, of all things.  

Now that The Donald is not The POTUS, he's still managing to stick it to the establishment, both the political and media establishments and both inside the GOP and the dems.  Political historians will be analyzing this era for decades to come.  If they do it fast enough, they might even stick us with a president Oprah in 2020 or 2024.  

But, what has fascinated me most about all of this is how The POTUS has exposed the MSM as complete an utter frauds.  Now we have Project Veritas and it's newesexposé, American Pravda.  It's another in a long line of under cover journalism ala 60 Minutes circa 1970's.  

In addition to Project Veritas, there is also ousted investigative journalist, Sharyl Attkisson's, Full Measure, an honest to God Sunday Morning investigative news show from a completely unbiased viewpoint.  (The same cannot be said of Project Veritas, despite how much I enjoy them outing the hypocritical leftists.) 

The left is crumbling and they know.  That is why their tactics are getting so aggressive.  The antifa is a far more violent version of 'occupy' democrats.  Democrats have lost over 1,000 seats since 2008.  Currently there are:

39 Republican Governors vs 15 democrats (1 independent)........................................78% GOP
32 Republican State legislature vs 14 democrats (3 are slit/tied - 1 is non-partisan)...64% GOP
52 Republican Senators vs 46 democrats (2 independents)..........................................52% GOP
240 Republicans in the House of Representatives vs 194 democrats (1 vacant)..........55% GOP

So, why?

In my opinion, it's because the democrats went to far left too fast.  The U.S. was not ready for Obamacare.  It was not ready for homosexual marriage.  It was not ready to lose its standing in the world by 'leading from behind'. 

What are we to take away from all this?  Trump was elected as counter balance to the leftist activism that went unchecked for 8 (some would argue longer) years.  Look at Trump's promises:

1) Border wall (i.e., secure the borders - specifically the SW border): Illegal immigration down 61%
2) Repeal & Replace Obamacare - Lost at the hands of Mitch McConnell
3) Get us out of Iran Deal - Almost there as of 10/13/17
4) Renegotiate NAFTA - Not officially started, but the talk are beginning.
5) Deal with North Korean - Again, he's working on it.
6) Tax Reform - He has laid out his blueprint of what that would look like.  Congress needs to act.

All in all not bad considering he has dealt with 3 major hurricanes and a mass shooting since he was sworn-in in January. 

Oh,  Here's some nuggets I left out:

The stock market has gained 25% since his election (about %5.2 trillion in value).
Consumer confidence is at the highest level since 2004.
Unemployment at 4.2% the lowest since march of 2001.

Like I said, not bad for a guy every MSM journalist believes is a moron.  Reminds me of how they trashed Bush 43. 

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Jeff Bezo & The Washington Post

So the presidential general election cycle is almost upon us and here we go....

‘Not an appropriate way for a presidential candidate to behave’: Bezos fires back at Donald Trump 

A story by The Washington Post.  

Are you thinking what I am thinking?  Jeff Bezos owns The WaPo. The WaPo is now doing a story on the owner of their paper saying that Donald Trump does not 'behave like a presidential candidate'.

There are two ways to go with this story.  Shall I focus on the WaPo doing a story quoting the owner who was, at the time of the quote, appearing at a WaPo sponsored event called Transformers where he was interviewed by the WaPo Executive Director Martin Baron at the WaPo headquarters.  What's wrong with that?

Or, should I take their bait and discuss whether The Donald is correct?  Nah...

Let's go with option #1:  

Where to start?  Oh yeah,  let me set the scene.  The reporter, Paul Farhi, is sent to cover an event called Transformers.  This event is held (conveniently) at his place of work, thus cutting the travel expenses, I suppose.  So there he is listening attentively and taking notes at the event held at his place of work when there appears his boss (actually, probably his bosses boss) to apparently lead a Q & A discussion at the Transformers event held at his place of work.  Then his boss, introduces the owner of the company he works for (his bosses, bosses, boss?) for the interview.  Can't you just feel the pressure on this reporter to cover this event Transformers held at his place of work.

So when it is all said and done poor Paul Farhi had to write a story about the owner of the company he works for being interviewed by his bosses boss.  He needs to play this straight done the line, right?

Let's look:

Here's a good one,in one paragraph the report writes:  
Bezos was responding to criticism leveled against him and The Post by Trump last week.
He followed this up with this: 

An an interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity on Thursday, Trump accused Bezos of using The Post to protect himself from higher taxes. He presented no evidence for his assertion.[emphasis mine]
Oh, really? So poor Paul went on:
“Amazon is controlling so much of what they’re doing,” he said. “And what they’ve done is he bought this paper for practically nothing, and he’s using that as a tool for political power against me and against other people, and I’ll tell you what, we can’t let him get away with it.”
To prove The Donald wrong, poor Paul pulls this gut punch the The Donald:
The paper’s editorial board, which is separate from its newsroom, has editorialized in favor of taxing online retailers such as Amazon the same as bricks-and-mortar stores. The paper’s position hasn’t changed since Bezos bought the paper, said Fred Hiatt, the editorial-page editor.
Oh.  Well then that settles it, right?  Wait.  Where is the evidence for this assertion?  Maybe he was trying to back up this statement when poor Paul wrote this:
“As the individual who oversees The Washington Post’s news staff, I can say categorically that I have received no instructions from Jeff Bezos regarding our coverage of the presidential campaign — or, for that matter, any other subject,” Baron said. “The Post has a long tradition of publishing thorough examinations of the major-party nominees for president. The decision to write a book on Donald Trump came entirely from the newsroom.”[emphasis mine]
But, here's the head scratcher:
Trump’s latest criticism of Bezos was sparked by comments made by Post reporter Bob Woodward last week during a speech to a business group. Woodward said, accurately, that the paper had assigned some 20 reporters to produce a biography of Trump. He added that Bezos has urged the newspaper to produce multiple stories on the presidential candidates as part of its duty to inform voters about the next president.
He said, ‘Look, the job at The Washington Post has to be tell us everything about who the eventual nominee will be in both parties — 15-part, 16-part series, 20-part series, we want to look at every part of their lives, and we’re never going get the whole story, of course, but we can get the best attainable,” Woodward told the group.[emphasis mine]
So which is it Paul? Does Bezo instruct the newsroom, or doesn't he? 

Friday, December 04, 2015

My take on Syed Farook and TashFeen Malik's Terrorist Attack

I know.  You have all been waiting for my thoughts on the California shootings.  So here it goes (liberals should leave now).
Investigation predictions:
1) Syed Farook (the husband) found a 'devote' Muslim via match.com for muslims.  He was likely prone to extremism.  Why else would he seek for a suitable 'wife' on the other side of the world when he was actively involved in his local mosque and could have found a suitable wife right here in the good 'ol USA?
2) Tashfeen Malik was sent to Saudi Arabia to 'school' where she was radicalized, whether she was sent there to be radicalized or not, she was radicalized and/or learned her tradecraft in Saudi Arabia.
3) Some entity financed the relationship and the ensuing purchase of their arsenal consisting of readily available weapons & ammunition plus pipe bombs and remote control cars for delivery.  I believe (while, likely untraceable) the money came from Saudi Arabia.
4) Once here and married (or visa versa) they readily adapted to their surroundings.  They did what any newly married young couple would do, they made a baby.  Here is a disturbing part.  The child was not a result of a loving relationship between a married couple.  It was a prop in a masquerade as a happily married muslim couple.  No mother who had any vision of a life-long relationship with their child would voluntarily leave their baby behind to a likely suicide mission along side their husband.
5) Once here and married (and likely before - probably by whoever introduced them in Saudi Arabia) they began to plan a terrorist attack.  The attack they planned was likely much larger than the one they carried out, this the pipe bombs and transportation remote control cars for a delivery method.
6) Once here and married, as time ticked on, they began to plan an attack.  The more time they spent planning the attack, the more Syed felt dissed at work.  His anger grew at work and his radicalization was fed by his far more radical wife at home.
7) They decided an attack was likely imminent so they began to destroy their digital footprint by destroying hard drives and untraceable cell phones.
8) At the Christmas party, someone said something that pushed Syed over the edge.  He decided to push up the timeline of the planned attack. So he went home where he got loaded up with weapons, ammunition and bombs.  His wife insisted on joining him as he returned to the party to kill his co-workers.  They left their baby with their live-in baby sitter, his mom [ a likely co-conspirator].  They loaded up and returned to the party which was held in an insecure 'gun-free' building.
9) The big reveal (which will probaly NEVER be reported) is that all the money and all of the training came from Saudi Arabia.  remember 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi born citizens.
Here is something to think about:

All the crap going on in the muslim world and NO ATTACKS of any consequence has occurred in Saudi Arabia.  I do not believe in coincidences. The Middle-east is burning to the ground all around them (literally - look at a map) and Saudi Arabia is silent and unaffected? How is that possible? Muslim refugees are fleeing Syria and Iraq and NONE are seeking refuge in Saudi Arabia?  How is that possible?  Saudi Arabia has almost ALL the OIL money (not most of which is the USA's anymore, thankfully).

Now is the time to jam it up the Saudi's a**.  They cannot escape this anymore.  It is time to stand up to Saudi Arabia.
Want some background on Saudi Arabia?  Why not watch the last straight journalist left in the USA.

Monday, October 26, 2015

American Dominance is Being Challenged....

This article from the Economist is interesting, but as I point out in my comments below, the author doesn't really scratch the surface of the material facts.

Here is the article from The Economist:

The new game
American dominance is being challenged

There are a number of things being overlooked by the author. 

First, China as it exists today in untenable.  It is far more likely to collapse from within than any of the 'superpowers' or BRIC countries.  Its one child policy has left it with an aging workforce and not enough younger workers to fill the jobs necessary to sustain their economy (circa 2008 it took an additional 25 million new jobs a year to sustain their economy - I'm not sure the number today).  The chances of the yuan becoming the world currency is practically nil, at least until the Chinese government allows it to float, which is very unlikely under a communist regime. China does not have enough of its own natural resources and must import a massive amount of raw materials from other countries, largely from South America and the African Continent.  This makes them as dependent on those countries as those countries are on China.  

Which leads to my second point, the USA rules the seas - all of the seas - and no other single country can come close.  For example:
  • Of the 19 active air craft carriers the U.S. has 10 of them, China and Russia 1 each.  
  • Destroyers: U.S.: 62, China 25, Russia 12.  
  • Were the U.S. does lag behind is subs.  The U.S. has 71 missile & attack subs to China's 69 and Russia's 49.  
  • All in the U.S. has approximately 3+ Million tons of naval power, China 1 million and Russia 900,000.  
Additionally, the U.S. currently has 2 subs to be commissioned in 2016, 2 more currently under construction, and 20 more announced (7 already named).  There are an 44 more vessels in various stages.  All in that's 68 new vessels added to our fleet (not sure how many are scheduled to be decommissioned).  Regardless, my point is we are not, by nature of the number of vessels, going to lose control of the seas anytime soon.  However, another 8 years of foreign policy [or. lack thereof] like the last 8 years may have the U.S. simply cede control of the seas.

While I agree with the author that we are certainly not leading in the fight against ISIS and the Assad regime, I will acknowledge there is a possibility that the Obama regime may have dumbed into a scenario where Russia will get bogged down in the Middle East.  That is not something their economy can withstand long term unless oil prices jump dramatically.  If the U.S. manages their Middle Eastern policy correctly in the coming years, this could have one of two results.  First and most desirable would be for it to drive Putin from power – highly unlikely given his control over state-run media; or second he could be driven to do something extremely foolish in the region which would result in the world coalescing against Russia and beating them back from their expansionary plans via strict economic sanctions. Of course, there is a third option, which is Putin may simply go off the deep end and pull the world into WWIII.  

I would note that the U.S. did not lead the world in nuclear arms talks with the Iranians, the Obama regime lead the rise of Iran to be a legitimate nuclear armed country in less than a decade.  No one, save this author apparently, believes that Iran will abide to any agreement with the U.S.

Tuesday, October 06, 2015

POTUS: Let's talk about 'mass shootings'...

As the POTUS prepares to milk yet another tragedy to further his goal of limiting our 2nd Amendment Rights, we take a hard look at the data.  


246 homicides through September 26, 2015, September 2015 homicides up 39% from the same month in 2014 and 52% YTD over the previous year.  (non-fatal shooting are up 80% over 2014)
For the year, the 246 homicides recorded through Sept. 26 put Baltimore dangerously close to the record pace of 1993, when 353 people were victims of homicide. The fact that the spike occurred after April 19 bodes even worse: Before the unrest following the Gray arrest, Baltimore had recorded 65 homicides for the year. A four-decade high of 42 homicides in May was topped in July when 45 people were killed in homicides, making Baltimore the second deadliest city in America on a per capita basis, trailing only St. Louis.

Los Angeles.

486 homicides YTD [184 Black - 38%, 212 Latino - 44%, 61 White - 13%, 20 Asian - 4%]

Here are some graphics by the LA Times that show more detail.

New York City.

208 YTD up 9% over YTD 2014


351 YTD up 54%  over YTD 2014

Here is the data for the some of the largest U.S. cities:

2015 % Change
104 76%
St. Louis
136 60%
Baltimore 138 215 56%
Washington 73 105 44%
New Orleans 98 120 22%
Chicago 244 294 20%
Kansas City, Mo. 45 54 20%
Dallas 71 83 17%
New York 190 208 9%
Philadelphia 165 171 4%
1168 1490 30%
Year-to-date time periods range from Aug. 11 to Aug. 31.
Source: City police departments
By The New York Times

Can anyone please tell me what the common denominator is for these cities?  

Milwaukee:            Democrat or Socialist controlled since 1908
St Louis:                Democrat controlled since 1953
Baltimore:              Democrat controlled since 1967
Washington D.C.:  Democrat controlled since 1961 Last Republican 1883.
New Orleans:         Democrat controlled since 1936 Last Republican 1872.
Chicago:                 Democrat controlled since 1931
Kansas City, MO:  Democrat controlled since 1930 except for 1 Republican mayor
Dallas:                    Democrat Controlled since 1987 except for 1 term Republican
New York City:      Aside from the 8 years of Mayor Giuliani, it has been Democrat controlled since
                               1946 [Michael Bloomberg changed from Dem to Rep to get elected, then back to
                               Dem to stay elected.]
Philadelphia:          Democrat controlled since 1952

Do you notice any patterns?

According to Albert Einstein the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  

It is not difficult to conclude that the citizens of these cities are indeed insane.