Thursday, March 12, 2020
"That's CNN... Fake News"
One More Reason Jim Acosta is an Idiot
He Finally Admits He’s Not a Reporter: In New Book, Jim Acosta Insists ‘Neutrality’ Doesn’t Work in the Age of Trump
#FurtherFail: Jim Acosta Says He Regrets the News Media Isn’t More United Against Trump
For Interdimensional Traveler Jim Acosta, Truth Is a Virus That Can’t Be Caught
Jim Acosta Tattletales on Kanye, and Dana Loesch’s Earth-Scorching Response is Hilarious
Anti-Reporter Jim Acosta Attacks Sarah Sanders, Highlights the Death of News
Gimme More, Gimme More, Gimme Moron: Unable to Comprehend His Job, Acosta Debates Sanders on Dems
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Democrats will allow a baby to die after she is born
Senate rejects effort to advance anti-abortion bills
Dems thwart Senate Republicans on 2 abortion-related bills
Senate Democrats have blocked a pair of Republican bills that would ban most late-term abortions and threaten prison for doctors who don't try saving the life of infants born alive during abortions
The measures have been defeated multiple times in recent years, but Senate Republicans pushed for renewed votes to allow GOP lawmakers to make an election-year appeal to conservative voters.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell accused Democrats of bowing to “the radical demands of the far left" to “drown out common sense” and the views of millions of Americans.
"It almost defies belief that an entire political party could find cause to object to this basic protection for babies,'' the Kentucky Republican said.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer blasted McConnell for taking up the Senate's time on what he called "fake, dishonest and extreme legislation that has nothing to do with improving the lives of ordinary Americans.''
Noting that existing laws protect infants, Schumer said the GOP bills would, in effect, “criminalize" women’s reproductive care and intimidate health care providers.
“Putting these already defeated bills up for a show vote is not a good faith attempt to improve the lives of ... American women,'' the New York Democrat said. "Every single Senate Republican knows that these bills cannot and will not pass. But they’re putting them on the floor anyway to pander to the hard right. And to cover up the fact that they won’t provide good health care for women.''
Senators voted 56-41 for the born-alive bill, and 53-44 for a separate measure banning most abortions after 20 weeks. Both tallies were short of the 60 votes needed to end Democratic delaying tactics and force a Senate vote.
Democratic Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Doug Jones of Alabama and Joe Manchin from West Virginia were the only lawmakers to cross party lines on the born-alive bill. Jones and GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska opposed the late-term abortion ban.
Three senators seeking the Democratic nomination for president — Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota - did not cast votes.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said the Senate debate was not about passing laws or even health care. "It is really about Republicans’ crass political calculation that they can fire up their far-right base with an all-out war against the constitutionally protected right to safe, legal abortion,'' she said.
Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said the bill he sponsored was not about limiting access to abortion at all. Instead, the bill is intended to make sure that every newborn baby "has a fighting chance — whether she’s born in a labor and delivery ward or whether she’s born in an abortion clinic.”
Sasse's bill would make it a crime to deny care to a baby that’s survived an abortion. “Are we a country that protects babies that are alive, born outside the womb after having survived a botched abortion?'' he asked.
Or is the United States a country “that says it’s okay to just sit back and allow that baby to die? It’s a plain and simple question and we all know what the right answer is,'' Sasse said. ”This isn’t a hard call.”
A separate bill sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., would essentially ban abortion after 20 weeks, the point at which many scientists say an unborn child can feel pain.
Graham said he believe a majority of Americans oppose allowing abortion in the fifth month of pregnancy. The United States is currently one of seven countries in the world that permit elective abortion after 20 weeks.
"The United States should not be in that club,'' Graham said.
The two votes marked the latest instance in which Republicans have tried to go on offense on the issue of abortion and put Democratic lawmakers who support abortion rights in an uncomfortable position.
"It’s hard to believe that, in 21st century America, the life of a baby more than halfway through pregnancy is considered up for debate, but it’s true,'' said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that works to elect anti-abortion candidates.
Opponents, noting the rarity of such births and citing laws making it a crime to kill newborn babies, said the GOP bills were unnecessary. They called the proposals part of a push by abortion opponents to curb access to the procedure and intimidate doctors who perform it, and said late-term abortions generally occur when the infant is considered incapable of surviving after birth.
Only 1% of all abortions occur after 21 weeks of pregnancy, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights. Abortions during the final weeks are rarer still.
Doctors' and abortion-rights groups say it is extremely unusual for live infants to be born during attempted late-term abortions, which they say usually occur when the baby is extremely deformed or deemed unable to survive after birth. In such cases, families sometimes decide they want to induce labor so they can spend time with the infant before it dies.
“Families across the country have actually faced these decisions, have spoken out to make clear politicians should have no part in them,'' Murray said. ”Pressing for these awful bills year after year may be nothing more than a cynical political tactic for Republicans, but passing them would be an unconscionable exercise in cruelty.''
———
Associated Press writer Alan Fram contributed to this story.
Thursday, February 20, 2020
'You Didn't Build That, Barack'
Jesse Watters on Obama Taking Credit for Trump Economy: 'You Didn't Build That, Barack'
Jesse Watters on Obama Taking Credit for Trump Economy: 'You Didn't Build That, Barack'
Fox News host Jesse Watters was not having it when Barack Obama appeared to take credit for the current booming U.S. economy, saying the 44th president “didn’t build that.”
Of course, it’s a reference to Obama’s comments during his 2012 re-election campaign when he said, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”
Obama went on to argue that government services — such as roads and scientific research — create the foundation for success in the private sector.
In a similar vein on Monday, the former president tweeted, “Eleven years ago today, near the bottom of the worst recession in generations, I signed the Recovery Act, paving the way for more than a decade of economic growth and the longest streak of job creation in American history.”
Eleven years ago today, near the bottom of the worst recession in generations, I signed the Recovery Act, paving the way for more than a decade of economic growth and the longest streak of job creation in American history.
192K people are talking about this
Obama’s message clearly was, “President Donald Trump is merely continuing what I started.”
He pointed out that the approximately $800 billion stimulus legislation was a “punchline” when it was passed in February 2009 with the promise of putting Americans back to work with “shovel-ready” projects.
Does Trump deserve the credit for the current booming economy?
97% (476 Votes)
3% (13 Votes)
It all sounded very FDR, Works Progress Administration-like, i.e., the government is the prime mover lifting the nation out of recession.
Unfortunately in June 2011, Obama himself had to admit, “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.”
At best, the stimulus package was a Band-Aid that provided temporary assistance to local and state governments facing revenue shortfalls due to the economic downturn.
The legislation also funded unemployment and food stamp benefits, which again are helpful in the short term, but aren’t what makes economies grow.
The trillions of dollars the Federal Reserve pumped into the economy — while keeping the prime interest rate at 0 percent — and the individual initiative of American businesses led the nation out of recession.
Many economists have argued that Obama’s policies actually restrained economic growth. He oversaw the most anemic economic recovery since World War II. Even CNN conceded that fact.
Historically, the deeper the hole, the more robust the recovery.
Ronald Reagan’s tenure as chief executive offers the closest parallels to what Obama faced when he took office.
When Obama took over in 2009 during the “Great Recession,” unemployment peaked at 10 percent, while Reagan faced an even higher 10.8 percent.
Additionally, Reagan had to grapple with double-digit inflation, destroying Americans’ buying power, and a prime interest rate over 20 percent.
After the 40th president implemented his economic policies — cutting taxes and regulation and unleashing the energy sector — the annual gross domestic product shot up to 4.6 percent in 1983, followed by 7.2 percent in 1984 after being minus-0.3 percent during President Jimmy Carter’s final year in office in 1980.
The economic growth rate did not fall below 3.5 percent per year during the rest of Reagan’s presidency.
Meanwhile, Obama never saw an annual growth rate above 3 percent, despite coming out of a major recession.
In the last year of Obama’s second term, the GDP grew at a paltry 1.6 percent.
“If there had been a Democrat who had taken the reins in 2016, you would’ve had strangling Obamacare regulations, a Green New Deal, Paris climate deal, war on coal, no new trade deals, tax hikes instead of the cuts, no bonuses,” Watters argued. “It would’ve been an absolute disaster.
“They can’t name one single metric that has gotten worse when Trump came over and took over the Obama economy.”
After taking office, the new president made four very un-Obama like moves: He cut government regulations on businesses more than any president in U.S. history; he signed tax cuts for businesses and individuals into law; he promoted domestic energy production; and he negotiated new pro-American trade deals.
The first year after the tax cuts were implemented, growth shot up to 2.9 percent in 2018, and while it fell back in 2019 to 2.3 percent, that can be attributed, at least in part, to tough trade stands Trump took against China that led to a deal and the Federal Reserve tightening the money supply and raising interest rates.
Thanks to the president’s policies, an economy that was slowing down took off again, leading to the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years and significant wage growth for the first time in over a decade.
Under Trump, the economy is now experiencing the longest sustained growth in U.S. history.
“Wages have gone up, stock market has gone up, manufacturing jobs up, every job has gone up,” Watters said.
“They can’t have a little fingerprint on any of this success, and the American people see that, and that’s why they’re giving Donald Trump credit for the good economy,” he continued. “They are saying they’re optimistic and they say they’re better off now than they were three years ago, and that is why I believe he’s going to win re-election.”
Gallup, in fact, reported a record 61 percent are saying they are better off than they were three years ago.
This is “a higher percentage than in prior election years when an incumbent president was running,” the polling organization said.
By comparison, when Obama ran in 2012, only 45 percent of respondents said they were better off.
More Americans credit Trump for the current economy too.
A combined 62 percent give him either a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of the responsibility compared with 52 percent for Obama.
“The Five” co-host Greg Gutfeld observed that Democrats have flipped their talking point about the economy from it being bad to it not having to do with Trump.
“The Trump economy is so great that Trump haters now want credit for it,” he said.
Well, (to mimic a Reaganism), it’s not going to work.
The American people know as we near the end of Trump’s first term in office who gets the credit.
Sorry, Obama, you didn’t build that.
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
Trump Unchained
Posted at 2:30 pm on February 19, 2020 by Stu Cvrk
The Democrats’ greatest fear has been realized: President Trump is unchained and is on the attack/counterattack:
- AG Barr farmed out multiple federal cases for review by prosecutors outside Washington, DC.
- Trump has Obama holdovers in the National Security Council “reassigned.”
- Trump diverted an additional $7.2 billion from DoD accounts to border wall construction.
- Trump sanctions continue to block the Germany Russia Nordstream 2 pipeline. (Not a Putin stooge after all)
- Trump publicly questions the Roger Stone sentencing recommendation.
- Trump pardons Eddie DeBartolo, Jr., Michael Milken and ex-NYPD commissioner Bernie Kerik.
- Trump commutes the sentence of Democrat Rod Blagojevich while inferring Comey was a corrupt prosecutor in his case.
- Trump fingers Obama Judge Amy Berman Jackson. Trump attacks the “Mueller prosecutors” in a tweet storm.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened to file retaliatory lawsuits “all over the place” for damages he claims to have incurred as a result of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.In a multi-post morning Twitter screed, the president fiercely condemned the 22-month-long probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also appeared to weigh in once again on the federal criminal case against his longtime political adviser Roger Stone.
All of these were apparently enough to trigger disgraced former FBI director James Comey, whose Washington Post editorial yesterday sanctimoniously complained that “justice is supposed to be blind” while castigating President Trump and AG Barr:
ugh! Out! Loud! Also, why do you suppose the leftists at Protect Democracy scrambled to get that open letter published from 1,140 former Democrat hack DoJ prosecutors calling for AG Bill Barr’s resignation? They are trying to derail AG Barr’s actions to clean house at Main Justice and at the US attorney’s office in Washington DC. It’s also why CNN’s Brian Stelter’s Reliable Sources program on Sunday was an unhinged attack on President Trump’s supposed “authoritarianism.” His opening monologue was dissected and debunked here.
Most if not all of the President’s actions listed above would not have been possible with the clouds of first Russian collusion and then the impeachment farce hanging over his head because such actions would have been construed to be “obstruction of justice.” As the impeachment farce was an entirely political operation by the Democrats, the avoidance of any improprieties – no matter how legal – was an important temporary tactic. No sense giving the media cycle more ammunition!
That impediment – which the Democrats used to shackle, impede, and thwart Trump policies for three years – is now consigned to the dustbin of history. And their greatest fears have not only been realized – that the President is unshackled – but despite the Democrat-media efforts to undermine him with his base and Republicans in Congress, the exact OPPOSITE has happened. The Republican Party is more united now than at any time over the last 60 years. Republican support nationwide for the President hovers around 94% (Gallup poll). And he broke the turnout record for ANY incumbent president in the New Hampshire primary. In the impeachment farce, only one Republican in both Houses broke ranks to vote against the President – Willard (Mitt) Romney – whose personal enmity toward the President is well-known and well-documented.
That’s the worst possible nightmare for Democrats in an election year: a popular incumbent president, near-100% support among elected Republicans, and historically high support among the Republican base and also in other demographics not known for voting Republican.
Meanwhile, the Democrat Party is in near-complete disarray, with much consternation among Democrat strategists about the possibility that a “Democrat Socialist” (in reality, a Communist) or a former Republican billionaire may head their ticket in November. The reliable Deep State outlet thehill(dot).com posted this hand-wringing article just yesterday:
Senate Democrats are privately acknowledging that President Trump will be very tough to beat in November if the economy stays strong and he draws on the substantial advantages of running as an incumbent.Publicly, Democratic lawmakers are putting on a brave face, but behind closed doors anxiety is mounting over the unraveling of former Vice President Joe Biden’s White House bid and the failure of impeachment to put a dent in Trump’s approval ratings.
More Laugh. Out. Loud! The Democrat-media complex have no idea about the pain and anguish that are headed their way this year, especially when some Spygate (and other) indictments start dropping.
Meanwhile, President Trump is on the offensive. Consider this: what we are now seeing in the President’s actions are what we would have seen from the beginning of his presidency had he not been shackled by the Russia hoax and the manufactured collusion story that led to years of the Mueller investigation followed by the Democrats’ six-month impeachment farce.
We are just now getting a glimpse of the real President Trump in action, of which we were deprived for three long years by the political chains placed on him by the execrable Democrats and their AntiTrumper and legacy media allies. Imagine what he could have accomplished with just a modicum of support from Democrats over the past three years! I suspect that “we ain’t seen nothing, yet.”
President Trump is a human dynamo and political juggernaut who is changing America, American politics, and the world for the betterment of all. And the people will reward him for it in November.
The end.
Saturday, February 15, 2020
It’s the Server, Stupid; Do All Roads Lead Back to the DNC and CrowdStrike?
It’s the Server, Stupid; Do All Roads Lead Back to the DNC and CrowdStrike?
Image created by Brandon Morse for RedState.com
Campaign strategist James Carville has been considered a political genius for pointing out a simple truth, that people vote with their wallets.
As impeachment mania swept through Washington last fall, Democrats trumpeted the message that ‘Trump threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine unless the country would agree to investigate the Bidens. He tried to force a foreign power to dig up dirt on his political opponent. Trump is unhinged. He’s vulgar. He’s doing tremendous damage to the country.’ Their rhetoric, however, conspicuously ignored the great white elephant in the room.
None of them mentioned the “favor” Trump had requested early in his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. After Trump had congratulated Zelensky for his party’s victory in the parliamentary elections, Trump noted that member countries of the EU, especially Germany, were not doing enough to help Ukraine and suggested that Zelensky speak with them about it.
Then Trump abruptly changed the subject. He asked Zelensky for a favor, the only “favor” he asked for on the call. President Trump said:
I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike...I guess you have one of your wealthy people…The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.
One of the most intriguing parts of the Democrats’ reaction to this call was that they ignored Trump’s request for a favor to learn more about CrowdStrike, the American computer security company that performed a forensic examination on the DNC’s server after they claimed they’d been hacked. CrowdStrike determined that the server had been hacked by the Russians and issued a report stating their conclusions.
Oddly, the DNC had refused to allow the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security to conduct their own analysis of the server. The FBI was forced to accept the report from CrowdStrike.
I’ve just read a piece written by American Greatness’ Michael Thau in which he focuses on the Democrats’ refusal to give oxygen to any discussion of the hacking of the DNC server prior to the 2016 presidential election which he sees as the most “crucial” question we should be asking. “Why did the DNC repeatedly reject FBI and Department of Homeland Security requests to examine their supposedly hacked machines?”
Whenever this issue is raised, Democrats assert that this issue has been settled. The Russians hacked the DNC’s servers to help Trump win the election. Case closed. Anyone who questions this conclusion is labeled as a conspiracy theorist. And they quickly pivot back to accusing Trump of whatever the charge du jour happens to be. Thau says this is “all misdirection and blatant lies.”
The American Spectator’s George Parry writes that this may be “the seminal lie” in the Democrats’ storyline.
Thau believes that Democrats’ efforts to avoid scrutiny of this episode is at the root of the whole Russian collusion narrative and that it is essential to find the truth.
Both FBI Director James Comey and Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson testified before Congress about the DNC’s refusal to allow their forensic teams anywhere near their server. Yet Thau points out that Democrats repeatedly treat their stated conclusion, that Russians hacked their server, as if it’s a proven fact.
At that time, a senior FBI official told The Hill: “The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise . . . This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information.”
The third party he mentions is CrowdStrike.
But the establishment press spent a couple of days bullying the American reading and viewing audience into thinking any concerns about CrowdStrike were nuts. Then Democrats started shouting hysterically their patent nonsense that Trump’s remarks about Biden were an impeachable offense. The unrelenting media coverage of their obviously hopeless quest to oust him kicked in.Within just a few days of hearing their name, everyone had forgotten all about CrowdStrike. And a public discussion of the very questionable role the company played in the Democrats’ efforts to destroy the president was, thus, forestalled.
By blaming Russia for the hacking, and putting out the story that they had done so to help Trump win the election, Democrats were able to deflect criticism for the damaging and embarrassing content of the emails.
The DNC and the Clinton campaign were assisted by The New York Times who published an article entitled, “Democrats Allege D.N.C. Hack Is Part of Russian Effort to Elect Donald Trump.” The Times, rather than naming “CrowdStrike,” wrote that “researchers” determined that “the DNC’s server had been breached by Russian intelligence agencies.”
Thau writes that the FBI got in on the act.
Anonymous FBI officials just happened to leak information to the New York Times for a follow-up story with the incredibly useful headline: “Spy Agency Consensus Grows That Russia Hacked D.N.C.”According to the Times, a “federal investigation, involving the F.B.I. and [other] intelligence agencies” had concluded that “the Russian government was behind the theft” of the emails WikiLeaks had just published. So certain was Russia’s guilt that senior intelligence agency officials had even informed President Obama.It sure was lucky that CrowdStrike’s conclusions turned out to be so useful for Hillary Clinton. The DNC’s tech firm couldn’t have come up with something better suited to transform WikiLeaks’ disturbing revelations about her into suspicions about her opponent if they’d concocted it out of thin air just for that purpose.
Just to recap:
1. The DNC’s server was hacked.
2. WikiLeaks announced they had obtained and planned to release emails that were damaging to Clinton.
3. The DNC hired a private contractor, CrowdStrike, to examine their server. They concluded that the Russians were responsible.
4. The DNC refused to allow the FBI or Homeland Security anywhere near their server. The FBI accepted CrowdStrike’s unverified and redacted report, even passing it on to the Mueller team.
5. The New York Times wrote an article supporting the DNC’s version of the story. The FBI leaked information to bolster this narrative and the Times ran a second story.
6. The DNC version of events was repeated so frequently and with such conviction that ultimately, it became accepted as the truth.
7. The DNC not only deflected criticism of the content of the emails, but they managed to put out the narrative that the Russians were trying to help Trump win the election. This planted the first seeds of the Trump/Russian collusion narrative. The DNC had turned a negative into a positive.
Noteworthy Facts:
1. CrowdStrike’s Chief Technology Officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a nonresident senior fellow in cybersecurity at The Atlantic Council, a pro-Clinton, anti-Russian, Washington-based think tank.
2. Ukrainian billionaire and longtime contributor to the Clinton Foundation Victor Pinchuk serves on the International Advisory Board of The Atlantic Council along with James Clapper, who served as Obama’s Director of National Intelligence.
3. Thau notes that Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Roger Stone “were the only establishment figures known to have pushed the idea that CrowdStrike’s story about Russia having hacked the DNC was complete nonsense. Flynn and Manafort were even trying to convince Trump.”
4. Additionally, Thau points out that “the other CrowdStrike executive in charge of investigating the alleged DNC breach along with Dmitri Alperovitch was Shawn Henry, who was in charge of the FBI’s cyber operations before joining the firm. Henry was promoted to the position by Robert Mueller.”
The DNC’s claim that their server was hacked by the Russians to sway the election to Donald Trump is the root from which their entire narrative sprung.
Note: Thau goes into detail about Comey’s testimony before Congress (January, March and June 2017) and discusses the specific malware CrowdStrike claimed they found on the DNC’s server. Read the whole article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)