This is the third “Meet X” article I have written which demonstrates the utter hypocrisy of the fake news media, the Left, and BLM Inc. (but I repeat myself) when discussing unjust killings of people.
First, there was Ryan Whitaker, who was killed by police officers back in May of 2020, but whose story was not widely reported because Ryan was a white man and the narrative surrounding police is that they only kill black people.
Then, there was Cannon Hinnant, who was a five-year-old white kid executed by his black neighbor while riding his bicycle. His story was not widely reported because 1) the kid was white and 2) the killer is black. CNN, by the way, now has three stories where they mention Cannon Hinnant, and egregiously, they dare include the following paragraph in the last story where they mentioned him: “And in the midst of the same racial unrest experienced throughout the rest of the country, our collective hearts were broken over the senseless killing of 5-year-old Cannon Hinnant, who was White. Though the suspect, a Black man, was apprehended… many people in Wilson and throughout the country politicized this tragedy to counter the legitimacy of those protesting generations of institutionalized and overt racism…”
First of all, their hearts did not break over the killing of Cannon, because they took their sweet freaking time talking about Cannon, their first story was the length of 222 words, and have now mentioned George Floyd over 2,200 times in their own articles. And, by the way, this latest article wasn’t about Hinnant himself, but about elections in North Carolina.
Second of all, a bit rich to accuse others of politicizing that tragedy considering JUST WHO THE HELL THESE PEOPLE ARE. The media narrative is that white people are racist and black people are oppressed by them and their racism. That story ran contrary to that narrative, so they swept it under the rug as much as possible in order to focus on things which help their own agenda. Invert the races in that story and you would watch a nation cry for justice, as it should. But because Hinnant was white and his killer is black, that story is not only buried, but ATTACKED as being a political tool for countering “the legitimacy of protesting generations of… racism.” What a load of utter bullcrap, but what can you expect from the demons at CNN?
At any rate, now that that’s out of the way, let’s talk about Robert Howard, who himself was killed by a cop for no apparent reason whatsoever.
Robert Howard was a 30-year-old black man, who was killed by a Memphis police officer on January 5th, with the officer reportedly having forced Howard into his squad car and executing him while on duty.
According to WREG Memphis, “Patrick Ferguson, 29, is charged with first-degree murder, including aggravated kidnapping, tampering with evidence and abuse of a corpse in the death of 30-year-old Robert Howard.”
Memphis police released a statement on Sunday outlining the allegations. “On Jan. 6, Howard’s girlfriend called police to report him missing. He had last been seen around 5 p.m. the day before in the 3500 block of Mark Twain Street in Frayser.”
“Police said an investigation revealed that Ferguson, armed with a handgun, encountered Howard outside his residence and forced him into his squad car. The two knew each other, police said.”
“Ferguson then drove to Frayser Boulevard and Denver Street, where he shot and killed Howard, according to MPD.”
“Another man, 28-year-old Joshua Rogers, also is charged with tampering with evidence and abuse of a corpse in this case. Police say he was an acquaintance of Ferguson and helped him relocate the body.”
Assuming we have just about the full story here, what we have is a pretty gruesome and awful situation. A man was seemingly minding his own business when a police officer, whom Howard knew, used force to get him into the back of his squad car and, at some point, killed him and abused his corpse, with the help of an “acquaintance” of the officer who helped the officer move the body.
Howard does not seem to have committed a crime here and was seemingly just kidnapped. The only thing I really question here is that “acquaintance” status for Rogers, seeing as no acquaintance would just help someone with getting rid of a body. I imagine, if Ferguson didn’t really know Rogers all that well, that Ferguson paid Rogers to help him with that.
But at any rate, why do you think the fake news media didn’t cover this or that BLM hasn’t made this a massive spectacle? Now, you might guess that the date of these events had something to do with it. Howard was kidnapped and, likely, killed on January 5th, when the biggest subject was the Georgia run-off elections. He was reported as missing on the 6th, when the biggest subject was the pro-Trump protest which eventually led to some people rioting and storming Capitol Hill (while some also seemingly were just allowed to go in).
However, stories like these usually don’t get reported until a good deal later, so the vast majority of people were not even aware that this had happened. WREG initially posted the story on January 10th, so not that long ago. One could argue that a couple of days is not enough for BLM and the fake news media to make a big deal out of this, but here’s the thing: they won’t make a big deal out of this no matter how much time passes.
The reason for this is simple: both the officer who kidnapped and killed Howard, Patrick Ferguson, and the officer’s “acquaintance” accomplice, Joshua Rogers, are black themselves.
Without that fact, the story of a black man killed by a cop, particularly when it was almost certainly an illegitimate execution, would make national news and BLM would demand you to “say his name” and sports athletes would take a knee supposedly in his honor. But that narrative doesn’t really work very well if the police officer who carries on such an illegal execution is black himself.
The narrative only works if the following parameters are met: the “victim” (sometimes, they actually are the victim, such as in Howard's case, but not most of the time) is black and the officer(s) is/are white.
As with the case of Ryan Whitaker, the cops that undoubtedly extrajudicially killed him hardly matter because the first parameter was not met. Whitaker was shot and killed by a white police officer, but because he was, himself, white, his story was not told.
And with Cannon Hinnant, though it wasn’t a police-involved killing, it does involve race in a way. The killer was black and the victim was white. The narrative of black people being oppressed and white people being the oppressors doesn’t work here, so it’s largely ignored, and when people point out that fact and the hypocrisy that goes alongside it, the fake news media acts as though those people are just playing political games.
It’s really quite disgusting the way in which the “free” press acts in this country. Only *certain* groups of people get a story about them made into a big deal. Even then, only if *certain* conditions are met. If a white man is killed by a white cop, the story doesn’t get covered a whole lot. If a white man is killed by a black cop, the story definitely doesn’t get covered. If a black man is killed by a black cop, the story doesn’t get covered a whole lot. Only if a black man is killed by a white cop does the story get plenty of coverage.
And the reason for the killing doesn’t really matter. They made Rayshard Brooks into a big story, despite the fact that he had stolen a cop’s taser and tried to use it against him. They made Michael Brown a big story despite the fact that he quite literally tried to beat a cop with his own squad car’s door. They made George Floyd into a big story because, despite the fact he was not really a threat to the officers, he died in their custody (and despite the fact that he was later discovered to have been under the influence of drugs and he overdosed).
But if a black man is brutally and extrajudicially executed by a black cop, that story doesn’t get much outrage and outcry and coverage despite how absolutely awful that is.
Now, I can suspect the motive for the killing in the first place. Ferguson and Howard, as WREG reported, knew one another, so this clearly wasn’t a random kidnapping and execution. If I had to guess, it might have had to do with some unpaid debt or some sort of strife between the two men. But the fact of the matter remains that a cop kidnapped and killed a person for any given reason. That idea ought to frighten people, regardless of motive. And the officer should well face serious charges and, if found guilty, face serious consequences.
But despite the fact that such an astoundingly disgusting thing happened, the incident doesn’t help the narrative of the Left. Granted, they are currently trying to just orchestrate a not-so silent coup against the President of the United States, so I think that even if the cop had been white in this scenario, this story likely would not have been talked about much, but the point remains that they will not cover even extrajudicial executions of people by police if a narrative cannot be drawn from it to advance their agenda.
The fake news media disgusts me to my core.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.”
Do you remember back in early October that CNN released audio tapes of a secretly recorded conversation between First Lady Melania Trump and a former friend of hers, Stephanie Winston Wolkoff? Remember how they made a huge deal about the content of the phone call and how the First Lady supposedly hated Christmas or something akin to that?
Well, it seems Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe did something similar to CNN and they are crying to the police about it.
Let me give you some context.
On Tuesday, December 1st, James O’Keefe crashed a CNN daily call with company head Jeff Zucker, in which he revealed to him, and whomever else was on the call, that he has months’ worth of secret recordings of calls which cover a multitude of issues, all of which point to something we all well and truly knew about them: they are pushing the Democrat agenda.
O’Keefe recorded himself live on Periscope unmuting himself from the call and confronting Zucker directly about the recorded calls, mentioning that an insider gave them access to those calls.
O’Keefe began by saying: “Hey, Jeff Zucker, are you there? Hey, this is James O’Keefe. We’ve been listening to your CNN calls for basically two months, recording everything. Just wanted to ask you some questions if you have a minute. Do you still feel you’re the most trusted name in news, because I have to say, from what I’ve been hearing on these phone calls, I don’t know about that and we got a lot of recordings that indicate that you’re not really that independent of a journalist.”
Zucker responded, “Ok, thank you for your comments. So everybody, in light of that I think what we’ll do is we’ll set up a new system and we’ll be back with you. We’ll do the rest of the call a little bit later.”
O’Keefe then went on to say that he would begin releasing the recordings later that day. “It’s important that we hold accountable the mainstream media. The media has to be held to account. They are hurting the American people with their lies, their innuendo, their slander, the defamation, the hyperbole and I think Mr. Zucker is shaking in his boots right now. I think he’s very afraid of what might be coming.”
And Zucker would have very good reason to be afraid, because in one of the calls (actually the first call which Veritas released), they are shown considering the idea of creating a conspiracy theory of Trump withholding crucial national security information from the Biden transition team, which “would lead” to a 9/11-type terrorist attack. Basically, they want to blame any future terrorist attacks under a potential Biden administration on Trump and his “lack of transparency” during the transition.
The video begins with CNN Special Correspondent Jamie Gangel talking about how politicians whom she has talked with, both Republicans and Democrats, have urged that news organizations should not make a big deal about Trump not conceding, because they believe that the transition can go forward anyway, and how “they (Democrats) don’t want us to exaggerate that Trump isn’t leaving office.”
After that, CNN Field Producer Stephanie Becker is recorded as saying: “On the issue of why it’s important to get the transition going right, the 9/11 report talks about one of the problems was that the trouble was brewing that lost during the transition. So, if you want a good, concrete example of what happens when you don’t have a good transition, well, look at the twin towers.”
Jeff Zucker then chimes in, saying how that is “an important point,” and he would “encourage folks (his employees) to think about that 9/11 commission report and the lack of transition.”
In another one of the calls which Veritas released, a number of topics were discussed. One was about Trump’s “erratic behavior” shortly after he was diagnosed with the Chinese coronavirus, and how they “cannot normalize what has happened here in the last week with Trump and his behavior,” Zucker said.
Don’t really know what behavior they considered erratic, but considering these are the people who ran with Russian collusion for three and a half years, I’m willing to bet it’s just more nonsensical fake news.
At any rate, they also talked about how their banners “have been too polite” and that they “need to go well after Lindsey Graham… There is a lot of news out there, and Lindsey Graham really deserves it.”
At the end of the video, Zucker seemingly admits that they have just been making up “scandals” about Trump:
“Each of these so called ‘scandals’ for Trump. Each of these things, we should just once again be careful to say that this one is going to undo him with his voters.”
So, again, Zucker seemingly is admitting here that the “scandals” that they had been pushing about Trump were not actually real, and that they have to be careful about pretending as though such “news” would separate him from his voters.
But in any case, these are just two videos, from two different daily calls, out of what O’Keefe says is two MONTHS of recorded calls, and already, they have some pretty damaging stuff, particularly that first one. Some people in CNN’s team, including Zucker himself, are recorded as at least CONSIDERING creating a conspiracy theory about Trump potentially endangering the United States and keeping secret potential deadly terrorist attacks.
And then, they have the gall to seemingly go to the police about this? After Project Veritas released the video about O’Keefe crashing CNN’s daily call, CNN’s Communications Twitter account replied directly to James O’Keefe, saying: “Legal experts say this may be a felony. We’ve referred it to law enforcement.”
Like I said in the title: they can dish it, but they can’t take it. They have absolutely no problem obtaining and releasing a secret recording of THE FIRST LADY, which could really be considered a national security breach, but when a real journalist does the exact same thing to a fake news organization (therefore, not a national security breach and not illegal), CNN whines and cries to, most likely, the FBI about it?
I hope whatever Project Veritas releases from here on will be so damaging to CNN that it would be ruinous for the organization. That conspiracy to create a conspiracy theory about Trump withholding critical national security information from the Biden transition team is already pretty bad, and again, it was the first thing Project Veritas chose to release. I can only imagine what else they have in store, because I doubt that they would release the worst thing first.
“’There is no peace,’ says the Lord, ‘for the wicked.’”
Last month, France was attacked multiple times by radical Islamic terrorists, beginning with an attack against a teacher who was beheaded for showing cartoons mocking Mohammed, and which included an attack on a church in Nice which killed three people as well as an explosion in a French ceremony in Saudi Arabia.
French President Emmanuel Macron, interestingly enough, did not care to join the far-Left in apologizing to the deranged psychopaths who committed these heinous crimes for the “sin” of being “racist” or “Islamophobic” or whatever. Matter of fact, he went the opposite direction, rejecting the far-Left’s attempts at rewriting history and tearing down statues, as well as outright cracking down on Muslim extremist groups and even now, lambasting the fake news media for trying to rationalize and “legitimize” the violence France has recently seen.
Macron said: “When France was attacked five years ago, every nation in the world supported us. So when I see, in that context, several newspapers which I believe are from countries that share our values – journalists who write in a country that is the heir to the Enlightenment and the French Revolution – when I see them legitimizing this violence, and saying that the heart of the problem is that France is racist and Islamophobic, then I say the founding principles have been lost.”
“We will be inflexible when it comes to tackling racism, anti-Semitism and discrimination, and new strong decisions will be made to reinforce the egality of chances. But this noble fight is perverted when it turns into communitarianism, into a false rewriting of history.”
“This is unacceptable when it is picked up by separatists. I tell you very clearly tonight my dear fellow citizens, the Republic will not erase any trace or name from its history. It will not forget any of its deeds or take down any statue. What we need to do is to look all together with lucidity on all of our history and all our memory. Our relation to Africa in particular so we can build a present and a possible future from one to the other side of Mediterranean.”
While there are plenty of things that I dislike about Macron, particularly the fact that he is imposing more strict lockdowns in France, I can’t help but side with him on this one.
The fake news media, both in the U.S. and in many other countries, has a particular standard when it comes to covering Islamic terrorist attacks: never blame the attackers and, in some cases, even go so far as to blame the victims.
When it comes to France, the country’s “racism” and “Islamophobia” are to blame, which is blaming the victim and a roundabout way of saying “they deserved it.” They may not think that that’s what they are saying but that’s because they are so inundated in their own bullcrap that they cannot see it.
They ascertain that it was “justified” to behead a school teacher in France just because he showed cartoons which mocked Mohammed, which is abhorrent. They maintain that it was “justified” for the church in Nice to be attacked because of Macron’s response. They are, in effect, saying that the very clearly horrible acts are rational and just. It is, again, absolutely abhorrent.
All the while, they attack Christians like Madison Cawthorn for trying to convert Jews and Muslims to Christianity, as though it is an outrageous thing to try to do.
To the fake news media, killing someone in the name of Mohammed is fine, but trying to guide people to Christ is an unpardonable and heinous crime.
And you and I both know the reason for doing this at all: Islamic terrorists are a natural ally to the American Left.
I’ve said this before plenty of times, but it bears repeating. The American Left and radical Islamic terrorists both have in common that they wish for America to go down. They don’t want a dominant America in the least bit. They don’t want it to be the lone world superpower or even a superpower whatsoever. The American Left wants a global government, which would naturally be communistic, and for them to be a part of the global power. Radical Muslims want a global caliphate.
They both want the power to rule the world, and only differ in how to go about it. Of course, under the Hegelian Dialectic model, these two will eventually collide because of their relatively differing objectives. Radical Muslims are no fans of the American Left either, and consider them to be as much an enemy as the likes of Trump and pro-America conservatives.
For crying out loud, bin Laden had planned assassination attempts for OBAMA, who was undoubtedly the biggest ally for radical Muslims that they’d ever had in the White House (unless Biden becomes occupier-in-chief). Granted, the reason they think of Leftists as enemies is probably because Leftists have largely become very pro-war because Trump is so anti-war, and the military industrial complex makes a profit off of blowing up children in the Middle East, but still. These terrorists don’t like even the closest thing to allies that they have in the U.S.
But even with all of that, the American Left still views radical Islamic terrorists as allies, in some capacity, because of their shared goals. Which is why the fake news media, which is run by Leftists, is so keen on legitimizing horrific acts of violence so long as it is radical Islamic terrorists who are perpetrating them. The Muslims don’t even have to have been offended at any capacity either, the MSM will legitimize their actions because they want to keep selling the idea that Western nations, particularly the U.S., are systematically racist and, as such, invite these kinds of horrific attacks.
Which, again, is blaming the victim. So I can definitely sympathize with Macron here in his pushback against the Leftist media. It’s altogether rather surprising that he is even taking this approach in the first place, considering his is, himself, a Leftist, but a welcome action nonetheless.
There is no reason for anyone, least of all national leaders, to be apologizing to people who BEHEAD teachers who do things they find “offensive” and to go along with the message that their countries are, foundationally, racist or whatever else. All countries have had injustices in the past and still have injustice to this day. I mean, look at the U.S. right now. The Democrats are probably the closest they’ve ever come to outright violating the will of the American people and stealing the election away from the duly-re-elected president, Donald Trump. In France, Macron himself is instituting unjust lockdown measures. But to pretend as though France or the U.S. or any other Western country is inherently and systematically racist and/or Islamophobic, or altogether unjust, particularly in the face of horrific acts of violence against the people of France, is outrageous.
So, again, I can’t help but to side with Macron on this one. The fake news media should be ashamed of itself for their coverage of the terrorist attacks in France. They won’t be ashamed because these people are sinverguenzas, but they should be.
“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”
The fake news media will lie about anything and everything if they think it would even slightly help the Democrats out, no matter how utterly ludicrous and divorced from reality that lie may be. This is seemingly what they have chosen to do recently regarding yet another Joe Biden gaffe.
During a campaign “rally”, Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden once again showed his senility and his early stages of possible dementia when talking about the election. This is what Joe said at one point in that “rally”:
“This is the most [consequential election], not because I’m running, but because [of] who I’m running against, this is the most consequential election in a long, long, long time. And the character of the country, in my view, is literally on the ballot, what kind of country we’re going to be.”
“Four more years of George, uh, George, uh, he, uh… gonna find ourselves in a position where if Trump gets elected we’re gonna be, we’re gonna be in a different world.”
It is clear where the guy made the mistake. Joe Biden mistakenly believed that George W. Bush was still president, not Donald Trump. At least, he did this for a brief moment but caught himself quickly enough and remembered that he was running against Trump, not Bush.
However, that is far too logical for the fake news media, who are seemingly willing to die on the hill that Biden was not talking about Bush, but about actor and “comedian” George Lopez, who has never even run for president.
Dave Weigel from The Washington Post said: “1.1 million views and a Fox story based on the premise that Biden was confusing Trump with George Bush. He was talking to George Lopez.”
While George Lopez was a part of the livestream, the context does not make any sort of sense for Biden to have been referencing George Lopez.
“Four more years of George…” Lopez? How is that better than Biden confusing Trump with Bush? At least if he was confusing Trump with Bush, he was confusing presidents, not a guy who never even has run!
And yet, this is what the idiots on the fake news media are running with. CNN’s Brian Stelter tweeted: “NBC has added an editor’s note to this morning’s ‘Today’ show segment that played a clip of Biden saying ‘four more years of George, uh…’ without noting that he was talking to George Lopez.”
Jake Tapper tweeted: “Lie after lie after lie,” siding with Weigel and attacking conservatives on this.
“No, you silly conservatives, Joe Biden wasn’t confusing Trump with George Bush, he was confusing Trump with George Lopez!”
Ah, ok, much better, then.
But seriously, how is that a better argument than just admitting the guy briefly confused Trump with Bush? It’s not like this is the first time Biden has confused people or gotten their names wrong.
During an Illinois campaign rally in 2008, after having been tapped to be Obama’s running mate, Biden said: “A man who will be the next president of the United States – Barack America!”
During an interview with CBS Evening News, Biden criticized Bush’s handling of the financial crisis, saying: “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed.”
Herbert Hoover was president during the stock market crash of 1929, not FDR, and there was no television back then.
Earlier this month, Joe Biden forgot he was running for president, not the Senate, and forgot Mitt Romney’s name, calling him “the senator who was a Mormon, the governor, ok?”
Following his Super Tuesday victories, Biden confused his wife for his sister and vice versa.
He has, repeatedly, forgotten where he is and outright confused states. He claimed to have gone to an exclusively black college in Delaware. And he has, repeatedly, forgotten who was president at any given time.
This is a pattern for Joe Biden and it’s all public, even though the fake news media never covers it. This close to an election, given how utterly biased the fake news media is, I expected them to try and cover for Biden’s gaffes to try and minimize them, but this is an utterly strange hill to die on.
How does it make more sense to claim that Biden meant George LOPEZ when talking about getting “four more years” of a person named George?
If the media is wrong (which of course they are), that just makes Biden look senile. If the media is right and Biden meant George Lopez, it makes him look like a moron. How is that a better alternative?
It’s not like Joe didn’t recognize his momentary gaffe. He immediately tried correcting himself and rather promptly got it right. This gaffe, had it been left alone, would have largely been swept under the rug. He has confused people many times before, as I have just shared. Yeah, it still makes him look senile, but claiming he was talking about George Lopez in the context of getting four more years, a context of presidential terms, would actually make the guy look even worse if true.
How is it better for Biden to have meant that George LOPEZ was president than for him to have meant that George Bush was president?
Not that I want these idiots to correct themselves, this kind of gaslighting and obvious attempt at protecting one candidate over another further proves to everyone how much of a partisan hack these people are, particularly this close to the election.
Instead, I shall relentlessly mock these fools for their horrid miscalculation which they will be far too proud and stubborn to correct.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
Much as Leftists might try and delude themselves into believing Kamala Harris is in any way a competent or even likable person, there is no question as to who won the vice presidential debate: VP Mike Pence.
And you know that this is the case because of the various excuses the fake news media is throwing as well as the various distractions they are trying to make, such as attempting to make a huge story about how a fly was on Pence’s head or how one of Pence’s eyes was a little red or how Karen Pence went up to her husband to congratulate him without wearing a mask (because why would she? He is her husband). They have to distract people from thinking that Kamala was utterly destroyed because that is exactly what we saw, so these excuses have to come out in droves.
However, predictably so, the biggest excuse to come out of this debate is that Pence is at fault for debating a woman and that he is a sexist for “mansplaining” things to her, which is code for simply pushing back against the b.s. she was trying to spew. In the mind of the Left, Pence had to take everything Harris threw at him without any sort of pushback whatsoever in order to stave off being called a sexist. Of course, had he done that, they still would’ve called him that for the briefest of moments, but they would’ve focused more on how “Kamala Harris wiped the floor with VP Pence.”
Again, an indication that that is exactly what DIDN’T happen is that that’s not the topic of conversation. Had she won, all the fake news media would be talking about would be about how she won, not about how Pence was “condescending” or “mansplaining” or “sexist”, which is utterly ludicrous considering Mike Pence is one of the politest politicians around.
They levy the same accusations at Pence that they did at Trump in 2016, when Trump was debating Hillary. Back then, they also accused him of “sexism” and utter crap like that (because Hillary also lost her debates) and now, they are just repeating the same thing but about Pence.
Ironically, while you can reasonably claim that Trump is abrasive and that can come off as rude (this is where I should remind people that in the first debate, Joe Biden was the first one to interrupt Trump), you absolutely cannot make the same claim of Mike Pence, who never shows an aggressive side or anything of the sort.
So to say that Pence was “out of line” or was “rude” or whatever else is utterly divorced from reality, not that that’s any surprise considering the people making these claims also claim that a baby in the womb is not a human, that binary gender is not biological fact, and that our air conditioning systems are warming up the planet or cooling it down whenever one argument is more favorable (which is usually in the corresponding seasons).
It actually reminds me of something interesting. I have been recently re-watching The Apprentice, beginning with the first season, and one aspect of the people (specifically some of the women) in the show that I noted is that they are very rude, classless individuals. This was the season where that moron Omarosa appeared, and throughout it, she displayed an utter lack of class (though others did as well). It actually got me to wonder how it was that Trump ever thought of hiring her in his administration in the first place, but I digress.
The reason I bring this up is because one thought that ran around as I was watching the show is that you can completely destroy someone else while also having and displaying class. The fictional character on the show “Dynasty”, Alexis Carrington, is such an example, someone who was often outright called a “superbitch” but who never failed to show class when tearing apart those she considered to be opponents.
That’s not to say that Mike Pence is Alexis Carrington, or that he is a “superbitch”, but that is to say that he destroyed his debate opponent without sacrificing his class or dignity. Keep in mind, I’m also not saying that Trump sacrifices dignity or anything, but his more abrasive style does make one think he has less class than someone like Pence (though if one watches The Apprentice, one can see that he does, indeed, have plenty of class).
Kamala getting decimated should not really be a surprise to anyone. I remember vividly how some idiots on the Left believed Kamala would “destroy” Pence in their debate, which confused me considering the fact that she got so obliterated by Tulsi Gabbard, someone the vast majority of people on the Left really don’t like because they think she was a Republican spy or something, and shortly after suspended her campaign, being the first Democrat to do so.
She is a woman utterly rejected by the Democrat base and someone who was decimated totally by the only Democrat I relatively tolerated in that entire primary, and yet, she was going to destroy Pence? Her, a woman whose sole qualifications for being a running mate, to the acknowledgement of Jim Crow Joe, are being brown and having a vagina? Give me a break.
She went into that debate completely unprepared, ready to spout out talking point after talking point and hoax after hoax, hoping that it would be a 2-on-1 like the first presidential debate was, and when Pence masterfully destroyed her arguments, she began to condescendingly smirk and dismiss Pence, to the point where even an independent pollster (who believes Biden is winning the election) recognized that Harris came off extremely poorly here.
People were reminded, in that 90-minute debate, just why it was that Kamala was the first person to end her primary campaign: she’s a horrible debater and people don’t like her. The first point is the most relevant one out of the two, but it’s worth reminding people how unlikable she is. She is basically the Jamaican version of Hillary Clinton, if Clinton had considerably less power and her family directly benefited from slave ownership.
And because of that, fake news pundit after fake news pundit came out lambasting Pence for debating a woman, as though it’s his fault that Joe Biden chose Harris for no other reason apart from her skin color and gender (something which normal people would consider racist and sexist but liberals consider “woke”). “Mike Pence is a sexist!” screams the ignorant, petulant Leftist child who is so entitled that he believes a man effectively debating a woman is some sort of cardinal sin.
Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire points this out perfectly well: “[A]s we have learned time and again, feminists actually want special treatment even while clamoring for equal treatment.” These rabid Leftists shout “sexism” at Pence treating his debate opponent as a debate opponent and not as a delicate little flower whom should be protected from the evils of the world.
These “feminists” are whining about the very thing that they claim to support: equality. Pence treated Harris as an equal, not underestimating her because she’s a woman or because she has a different skin tone to him. That, in the mind of the hypocritical liberal, cannot be allowed to stand. Leftist women must be treated like queens while conservative women, though they also are women, can be treated like utter garbage. This much is clear in their coverage of women like Kayleigh McEnany, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Melania Trump, Sarah Palin, etc., etc.
They don’t support equality whatsoever. They support Leftist supremacy under the guise of equality. If a black man supports Trump, he is a race traitor. If a woman supports Trump, she is a traitor to her gender. If a Latino supports Trump, he is betraying his Latinx (have I mentioned how much I hate that word?) brothers and sisters. This is their mentality because they believe blacks, Latinos, women and minorities in general all belong to them. They never abandoned the slaveowner’s mentality.
And when they see an old, white man effectively decimating their young, brown queen, despite her own clear faults and lack of preparedness for the debate, they screech about the “patriarchy” and how this is an example of it running rampant in politics.
It’s, yet again, nothing but a massive temper tantrum. Pence destroyed Harris and let me tell you something: if Kamala were Trump’s conservative VP and Pence were Biden’s communist running-mate, aka if the roles were completely reversed, the news media would be attacking Kamala for some of the same reasons I just described: she’s a race and sex traitor.
Their exclamations that Kamala was unfairly attacked by Pence because she is a brown woman are full of crap because we all know what would’ve happened had the roles been reversed.
Pence decimated Harris. This much is clear given the Left’s neurotic and nonsensical response.
“With God we shall do valiantly; it is he who will tread down our foes.”
While this story is not the most important one regarding the First Family, as they are currently in quarantine due to the President and First Lady testing positive for the Chinese coronavirus (and I pray for a speedy recovery for the both of them), this is a story that shows both how unethical and pathetic CNN is.
Last Thursday, CNN’s Anderson Cooper held a segment with a former friend of Melania’s, Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, who secretly recorded messages she had with the First Lady to write a tell-all book (which I won’t reference because I don’t want to draw attention to it after what this backstabber did).
In this segment, CNN played various clips of calls the First Lady had with Wolkoff, ranging from things such as the migrant children held in shelters to the arranging of Christmas decorations.
The WORST thing that CNN pulled from the clips was Melania complaining about having to decorate the White House with Christmas decorations and hosting parties with people she barely knows.
But we’ll get to that in a moment. First, let’s talk about Jerk-… err, I mean, Wolkoff, and the things that she said on this segment with Cooper. During the interview, she criticized and outright insulted Melania, Donald and their supporters, saying things like: “You know, she’s complicit in everything that’s going on,” and “We are watching our democracy turned into a dictatorship at this point. And it’s a brainwash type of cultish,” as well as “The traditions of First Lady and President have gone out the window with this couple.”
That first thing, ironically, inadvertently helps push back against a bogus narrative that the Left had been pushing for a few years now: that Melania was constantly at odds with her husband or that she doesn’t even like him. The media, whenever they get an opportunity, will lie about how Melania “refused to hold the president’s hand” or some such nonsense, trying to drive a wedge between the married couple. It’s absolute nonsense and that first comment by Wolkoff, while she tried to attack Melania, inadvertently helped her out (which is a constant theme in this news story).
Melania being “complicit” in these things shows her support. Funny enough, Cooper asks Wolkoff about this, asking “Is [Melania] a cheerleader for the president? Is she a supporter of the president? Does she like the president?”
Normally, asking if the First Lady supports or likes the president would be an incredibly asinine question to ask, but since we are talking about the fake news media, nothing is off the table for these jackals. At any rate, Wolkoff answered: “Yes, she actually does, very much so. I mean, Melania holds a role like no other person in the White House. I mean, anyone, she doesn’t shake in her boots ever. And she tells Donald exactly how she feels. She is his biggest cheerleader. And she does believe that, if he’s going to do it, he better do it right. And you better do it with brass knuckles, and he better do it now. And those are her words.”
I’m sorry, but wasn’t she supposed to be lambasting Melania for… something? I mean, she’s writing a tell-all book about the Trump family in the White House, siding with the Left and trying to paint the First Couple as a highly dysfunctional and horrid couple whom should not be allowed another four years in the White House, so why is she making Melania look good and speaking well about her here?
Does she not know that that’s the message she’s sending here? Does she not know she’s helping the First Lady? Saying that “she doesn’t shake in her boots” is not an insult at any capacity – in fact, it’s a massive compliment that describes Melania as tough and resilient in the face of adversity.
I guess even when you’re trying to insult Melania, you have to give her respect.
At any rate, as far as the other two comments go, about the “turning democracy into a dictatorship and it’s brainwashing cult stuff” and “traditions are dead with this couple,” might I suggest these people find a new script? They’ve been calling Trump “Hitler” since before the 2016 election, asserted that he’s a dictator (if he was, they wouldn’t be able to say that he was) and that the people who support him are part of a “cult”, meanwhile the Left tells people to raise their fists in “solidarity” with BLM and that they have to “#VoteBlueNoMatterWho” among other things that paint THEM as the cult.
So there isn’t much point in me going over those things because this is something the Left always claims about Trump and something I have always pushed back against because it’s absurd. Not to mention that I have other things that I want to get to and I don't want this article to be extremely lengthy.
Moving on to the actual clips, first we have the one about the migrant children being held in shelters at the southern border:
Melania is heard saying: “All these kids that I met, they were – they are here in the shelters because they were brought by it through coyotes. The people who were trafficking. And that’s why they put them in jail. And the kids that they go in shelters and the way they take care of them, it’s, you know, they even said the kids, they say, 'wow, I will have my own bed, I will sleep on the bed, I will have a cabinet for my clothes.' It’s so sad to hear it, but they have – they didn’t have that in their own countries. They sleep on the floor. They are, you know – they are taking care nicely there. But, you know, yes, they are not with their parents, it’s sad. But you when they come here alone, or with coyotes, or illegally, you know, you need to, you need to do something. And a lot of, you know, a lot of like moms and kids, they are teaching how to do it, they go over and they say like, 'oh, we will be killed by a gang member, we will be the – you know, we will be it’s – so dangerous.' So they are allowed to stay here. Do you understand what I mean?”
Funny enough, despite the fact that Wolkoff inadvertently pushed back on the idea that Melania is against her husband, they play that off as Melania being against her husband on the issue of the children held in shelters at the southern border. At no point did Melania even slightly come off as being against her husband on this. She showed her humanity, that she was sad about the situation altogether and how the children, for the first time, had beds to themselves in a SHELTER. She blamed the coyotes who TRAFFICK the children into the U.S., not her husband’s policies regarding illegal immigration.
Matter of fact, in the next bit is when she further sides with her husband.
In a bit of a back and forth with Wolkoff (which I won’t bother writing what Wolkoff said during the call since it’s not relevant), Melania said:
“They say I’m complicit, I’m the same like him, I support him. I don’t say enough. I don’t do enough. Where I am. I put – I’m working… my ass off at Christmas stuff that, you know, who gives a [expletive] about Christmas stuff and decoration, but I need to do it right?”
That’s the part where the Left was attacking her for “hating Christmas stuff and decorations” or whatever, which clearly shows that it is rather annoying to put up the Christmas decorations (something everyone who has done it can relate to. We still do it because we love Christmas, of course, but still). It’s annoying to do that in a regular house, now imagine doing that in THE WHITE HOUSE. A lot of planning has to go into it and there is a lot that needs to be covered and it’s almost entirely up to the First Lady to do this.
Which, you would think, given how much of a feminist these Leftists are, they would support Melania on this and say that it’s “beneath the office of the First Lady to decorate the White House for Christmas” or how it’s a sign of “the patriarchy holding power over the First Lady” or something, but no, they can’t even think to do that. They HAVE to side against the Trumps no matter what, so this angle is completely missed by them.
Anyway, getting back to the clip, Melania continued: “And Ok. And then I do it. And I said I’m working on Christmas planning for the Christmas. And they said, ‘oh, what about the children? They were separated.’ Give me a break. Where are they saying anything when Obama did that? I cannot go. I was trying to get the kid reunited with the mom, I didn’t have a chance, needs to go through the process and through the law.”
Cooper, completely disregarding the jab at Obama’s policy regarding putting kids in cages (much like the rest of the fake news media did when it was discovered that the photos taken of kids in cages were from 2014), attacked Melania for the comment regarding the Christmas decorations.
It’s asinine and a non-attack. Anyone who has decorated their house for Christmas knows the labor that has to be put into it. I decorate my house during Christmas and don’t have to put too much planning into how I want things to look, as long as they look fine. I can’t imagine having to decorate THE WHITE HOUSE and having to put a ton of work into just planning things out. That’s the job of the First Lady.
That Cooper and the rest of the fake news media tried to make a story out of that is really telling that they have NOTHING.
The call also discussed that infamous jacket that Melania wore during one of the visits to those shelters, where her jacket read: “I don’t care, do you?” Wolkoff brought up the jacket in the phone call, asking Melania: “So what prompted you to want to buy that jacket?”
And this is the truly great part that makes me love Melania even more: “I’m driving liberals crazy, that’s for sure. And that’s, you know, that’s what – and they deserve it. You understand.”
Brilliant! She likes to troll the Left much like her husband! Love it.
In any case, like I said, the fake news media had nothing here. Wolkoff comes off as a horrible friend, secretly recording a private conversation she had with Melania in order to profit off of her, and the fake news media comes off as unethical for playing it.
Not surprising that they played it, considering they’ve also played that Access Hollywood tape and the secret recordings made by Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, but those things all show how unethical they are. Not that we need much more evidence of this after four years of spreading the Russia hoax.
In revealing these calls, they made Melania more relatable. They displayed how saddened she was to see children whose lives were marginally BETTER BEING INSIDE A SHELTER by them merely having a bed to sleep in and a cabinet to put their clothes in. Wolkoff, during the segment, complimented (likely inadvertently) Melania for her resilience. They displayed how she has to do a tough task of decorating the White House for Christmas, which is cumbersome for anyone who has decorated their house. They showed that she understood perfectly that Obama did much worse in terms of taking care of migrant children at the border but that the fake news media never covers that fact, and they showed that she has no respect for the Left with her trolling of them, which makes her even more relatable (for many, though obviously, not all).
I hope and pray that the president and First Lady recover quickly and swiftly from the Chinese coronavirus, that they only display mild symptoms, and that they take Hydroxychloroquine and tell people how it helped them recover.
The First Family is great.
“Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.”
You know it’s election season when trust in the fake news media is down and the lowest it has ever been. While a strong case can be made that no one, not even liberals, ought to have trusted the fake news media ever since Trump won the 2016 presidential election, trust in the fake news media had gone up a bit following the election (though with many points where it fell drastically) and now, we are once again at an all-time low in trust for the MSM.
A new Gallup poll finds trust in the fake news media to be extremely low. Only 9% report trusting the media “a great deal” and 31% trust it “a fair amount.” Meanwhile 27% of people have “not very much” trust in the mainstream media and a full 33% have “none at all,” making the split between “trust” and “not trust” at 40%-60% respectively, a 20-point differential.
The poll also notes that the percentage of people who have no trust at all is a record high and up five points since last year.
According to the poll: “33% who do not have any confidence this year reflects a five-point uptick and is the highest reading on record. Republicans are the main drivers behind this change: 58% of them now express this view, marking a 10-point increase and the first-ever majority-leading reading.”
The poll shows that just 10% of Republicans trust the news media with just 3% have a “great deal” of trust in them. And we can clearly see who the Never Trump RINOs are in this poll, particularly with that second number. Only someone who hates Trump to the core would consider the fake news media responsible for the fabrication of numerous different hoaxes to be in any way trustworthy.
I’m less worried about that 10% because, despite the fact that it’s the lowest level on record from Gallup, as far as I could see, I can imagine some of them had sources like Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh in mind when answering this question, and such sources are largely trustworthy.
The question was framed as follows: “In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media – such as newspapers, TV and radio – when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly – a great deal, a fair amount, not very much or none at all?”
While there are liberal radio hosts and stations, such as NPR, most Republicans will think of “radio” and will immediately picture Rush Limbaugh’s show, which to many, is a great source for news and political commentary that is trustworthy. So there is definitely the possibility that at least some of the people who said they were Republicans in the poll answered with conservative publications in mind.
At any rate, perhaps entirely unsurprisingly as well, the poll also finds that 73% of Democrats trust the fake news media, which is up 21 points since 2016. I imagine being fed the things they wanted to hear at extreme rates made them have a lot of trust in the anti-Trump media, which can explain these numbers. These Democrats largely hate Trump and love to watch and hear and read of any news story which is exclusively bad for Donald Trump (which is literally more than 90% of the time).
Gallup also noted that many hold the belief that the media is an important element to a strong democracy (we are a Republic, for one. Two, I agree but only when it is honest media), but that their opinions of the current news media do not purport to a great deal of support for it, which is rather obvious given the numbers.
When the news industry is actually fair and balanced, with reporters who will share all the details that they can without blatantly and obviously intentionally omitting important aspects that help shape the context of the news in order to attack people they don’t like, that is going to help any country with almost any system of government. Most definitely, a constitutional Republic would benefit tremendously from honest media.
But that’s not the kind of media that we have today. We have the kind of media banana republics and second- and third-world dictatorships have. We have the kind of media which will blatantly favor one side and which will lie for the government if the government is run by the people they like.
The fake news media helped sell the Iran nuclear deal to the American people. They asked no real questions of Obama, then-Secretary of State John Kerry, or anyone. They fully bought into the idea that we were giving Iran $150 BILLION for them to “build bridges and roads.” No one in the fake news media questioned it, acting as though we are Russia or China or North Korea.
The fake news media is basically state-sanctioned media whenever there is a Democrat in the White House. Such political partiality does damage to democracy and leads people astray (not that they do it by accident – it’s entirely purposeful).
In any case, Gallup’s “Bottom Line” analysis in the end says: “Americans’ confidence in the media to report the news fairly, accurately and fully has been persistently low for over a decade and shows no signs of improving, as Republicans’ and Democrats’ trust moves in opposite directions. The political polarization that grips the country is reflected in partisans’ views of the media, which are now the most divergent in Gallup’s history.”
This is also not at all surprising. When the fake news media drives, for four years, the hoax that the sitting President of the United States colluded with a foreign power to steal the 2016 election, that is bound to divide people greatly. At no point did the media have a shred of evidence to support their claims and yet talk about it as though it’s settled science – as though it’s an undeniable fact that Trump colluded with Russia. It’s nothing but b.s., so of course people who support the president aren’t exactly cool with these people.
Now, the poll itself was conducted from August 31st to September 13th, and a lot of news stories, including one debate, have occurred since then which ought to have driven confidence down a bit (not that there was a lack of fake news stories in that time period or before), but as we get closer and closer to the actual election, I hope that trust in the media further plummets.
They keep trying to tell the lie that Biden is far ahead in multiple states and that he has an even greater chance than Hillary did to win this election, which is a total load of crap. What reason do I have to believe polls conducted by the fake news media, particularly when they routinely oversample Democrats and under-sample Republicans?
They are not to be trusted by anyone, even liberals. The fake news media assured them in 2016 that that election was Hillary’s to lose and that she was all but assured to win it and look where that got them. Why would anyone, even liberals, be willing to trust what these people say, at least when it comes to who is the likely winner of the election, when they got it so wrong last time?
“And Jesus answers them, ‘See that no one leads you astray…’”
Over the weekend, The New York Times (illegally) disclosed some of the details in Trump’s tax returns over the last few decades and the biggest takeaways they had are that Trump paid just $750 to the IRS in 2016 and 2017 (he paid $1 million in 2016 and $4.2 million in 2017, but “virtually all that liability was washed away when he eventually filed, and most of the payments were rolled forward to cover potential taxes in future years”, according to The NYT, so that talking point is dishonest) and that he paid no income taxes in several years because of losses made in those years.
And the Left and media (but I repeat myself) are acting as though this is a massive new revelation that is sure to undermine Trump’s chances at re-election and especially with blue-collar workers. What a load of crap, for a few reasons.
First of all, and perhaps most importantly, we know exactly why THIS is the story and not something else: the media and the Left overhyped Trump’s tax returns for the past four years, claiming that it is where we are definitely going to find evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, through some sort of payment or whatever made out to Putin.
In the end, The New York Times reports “[The returns] report that Mr. Trump owns hundreds of millions of dollars in valuable assets, but they do not reveal his true wealth (side note: this is the case for literally everyone who pays taxes because of the way the tax law is written. This is not an anomaly special to Trump). Nor do they reveal any previously unreported connections to Russia.”
And THAT is the biggest takeaway from this, but it deflates the Left’s narrative. For four years, Rachel Maddow and others in the media kept pointing to Trump’s tax returns as being the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow – the definitive place where Trump would be caught red-handed in making shady deals with the Kremlin relating to the 2016 election and maybe other things as well. For four years, they assured their base that once they got his tax returns, they would be able to find evidence of criminality and finally get rid of Trump.
After four years, they finally got Trump’s tax returns and they show nothing, zip, zero, nada. Nothing about paying Putin to do something about the election. Nothing about making shady deals with Russia. The best they got is Trump complying with the tax system the Washington Establishment created for years. He's taking advantage of the rules that the Bidens and Pelosis established decades ago. And they think that this somehow hurts Trump, which is hilarious.
Which brings me to the second reason this is all a load of crap: THIS ISN’T NEW! TRUMP HAS ADMITTED TO TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE TAX SYSTEM!
Here is The New York Times on October 10, 2016: “Donald Trump Acknowledges Not Paying Federal Income Taxes for Years.”
Almost four years to the date, The NYT comes back with a similar story, this time with Trump’s tax returns, and they think this is a blow to Trump?
Trump has the financial muscle to hire tax lawyers and accountants to find loopholes in the crappy tax system that globalists in Washington have created. If there was any illegality in what Trump did, THAT would be the story, but it’s not alleged. Trump didn’t skip out on paying income taxes because he’s Charlie Rangel or something. He didn’t evade paying taxes. He took advantage of loopholes that made it so he didn’t have to pay taxes.
It’s perfectly legitimate and, if anything, praiseworthy. Taxation is theft, the IRS are crooks, and paying the government the least amount of money necessary is pretty patriotic. If anything, this exposes the liabilities of the current tax system: the rich people have the muscle to find loopholes to avoid unnecessarily paying taxes while the little guy cannot do that and will often pay more than he has to.
Do you really think Trump is the only rich guy to take these sorts of advantages? Why do you think it is that uber rich guys like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett call for higher income taxes for the rich, but oppose things like Warren’s wealth tax? They can take advantage of income tax loopholes they know quite well, so they have no issue with higher income taxes (not to mention it makes them appear “selfless” in the eyes of the ignorant Leftist base). But a wealth tax goes after their net worth directly, which is a big problem for them.
Rich people can take advantage of the system the Washington Establishment has created. And somehow, Trump is the one who is rotten here for playing the game that others play? It’s somehow a massive scandal that Trump pays so little in taxes, something he has ADMITTED TO FOUR YEARS AGO?!
No, it isn’t. But the Left is strapped for stories that make Trump look awful, which is why they have to tell lies and half-truths about him. They lied about his comments regarding the military. They lied about his attitude towards handling the Chinese coronavirus. And they are lying about what Trump’s tax returns say about the guy.
Again, one of the BIGGEST reasons they are going with this angle is because they overhyped the idea that his tax returns would prove collusion with Russia and basically affirmed to their base that that’s exactly what the tax returns would show if they could get their hands on them. Now that they saw them and there is nothing about Russian collusion, they have to save face with little nothing burgers that are not even news.
Trump playing within the rules of the system to gain an advantage is something HE ACTIVELY HAS BRAGGED ABOUT. It’s not a new story, it’s not a controversy, and most importantly, it's not illegal. All it shows is that the last lead the Left had to “finding” Russian collusion regarding anything related to Trump ended up going nowhere. This is something EVERYONE should have expected because the IRS has had Trump’s tax returns on file for DECADES and would have turned them over to either the FBI or the Mueller Special Counsel if they had anything about Russian collusion.
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Special Counsel specifically asked for the tax returns because the Leftists in the media were so sure that they would point to collusion, and ultimately found nothing. If there had been something about the Russians that proved collusion in his tax returns, trust me, we would’ve known A LONG TIME AGO.
Mueller found nothing, the corrupt FBI found nothing, the corrupt media found nothing, and they continue to find nothing. All of these years, with perhaps the most extreme vetting of a public official in the history of this country, and no one can find any sort of illegality or criminal behavior at any point?
People will talk about how “Trump is immoral” but considering how squeaky-clean the guy is, I can’t help but roll my eyes at such an “argument”. If he were as immoral as people say he is, everyone would have found something which would have led to his removal from office. At the end of the day, all the Left had was a phone call made to Ukraine which passingly touched on Hunter Biden and the Democrats went ballistic, opting to impeach him in an effort to save Biden’s and Obama’s behinds. It was an entirely partisan effort with only one GOP traitor, the most expected one of them all, joining the Democrats in voting to remove Trump on one of the two articles of impeachment the Left ultimately put forth, neither of which had anything to do with the phone call or Ukraine.
A false basis for an impeachment is all they had because Trump is not immoral (not to say he’s free of sin, what I mean is that he’s not the immoral demon that the Left has made him out to be) and has not committed any crimes that anyone can reasonably point to.
The Left says he’s corrupt but in the past week, we have found that he legally played within the boundaries of the system (again, he’s bragged about doing this) and that Hunter Biden received millions of dollars from the wife of a former mayor of Moscow (among other large payments).
And yet, the former is the story? I shouldn’t be so surprised, to be frank. The Left had to try and cover Biden’s behind and simply not covering the Hunter Biden story wouldn’t have been enough (and I think this is another big reason for this NYT story, apart from trying to save face about the contents of the tax returns). They have to try and go on the offensive, particularly as the election draws near, so they push out a nothing burger story that will be the center of everyone’s attention over the real story of the corrupt business dealings of the Bidens.
This, among many other reasons, is why the fake news media is the enemy of the people.
2 Timothy 3:13
“While evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.”
Behold, brethren, for I bring you good news: The highly historically inaccurate steaming pile of crap that is the 1619 Project has pretty much failed, as New York Times Magazine quietly began to change certain aspects of the essays to gaslight us about its original intention.
You see, originally, the 1619 Project was intended to rewrite this country’s history, arguing that the country’s true founding was not upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776, but rather, upon the first slave ship arriving on Virginia’s coast line on August 20th, 1619.
The Project attempted to change the country’s founding to make it not about liberty, but its opposite: Slavery. That it was Africans’ slavery, not Colonists’ liberty, that marked the founding of this country.
The Project declared as much, as its online version’s original text read as follows: “The 1619 Project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.”
“In August of 1619, a ship appeared on this horizon, near Point Comfort, a coastal port in the British colony of Virginia. It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonialists. America was not yet America, but this was the moment it began. No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the 250 years of slavery that followed.”
In essence, despite how utterly wrong and not factual this entire enterprise was, the New York Times and the 1619 Project aimed to shift the nation’s founding away from the liberty it was actually founded upon and towards the slavery that BRITISH AND EUROPEAN GLOBAL POWERS brought to the Colonies.
The Project argued many things, none of which were true, among which was the idea that the American Revolution started because the rebels wanted to keep their slaves, supposedly citing The Dunmore Proclamation, which as I have already written in a previous article regarding this pile of garbage of a project, is fundamentally incorrect. No revolutionary was fighting to keep slaves. They weren’t Democrats.
At any rate, like I said in that other article, the Project was nothing more than an attempt at bashing America and indoctrinating children into believing this country’s very foundation is ripe with sin and evil, when it is most definitely not.
But now, after months of historian after historian fact-checking the garbage essays, and after months of pushback for its many inaccuracies, both the creator of the Project and the NYT Magazine have backed off on the claim that 1619 is the nation’s literal founding, though still arguing that the events detailed in the essays are of as much significance to this country as 1776 was.
Now, the Project’s text has taken out any suggestion that 1619 is our “true” founding, editing that part where it said “understanding 1619 as our true founding” entirely out of it, with the text now reading: “It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.”
The part where it also said: “America was not yet America, but this was the moment it began,” was also edited out, with the text now reading: “It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonists. No aspect of the country that would be formed…” etc. etc.
Even Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the 1619 Project, has stopped claiming that 1619 was this country’s “true” founding and instead has opted to simply argue that while it’s not this country’s founding, it was still a very significant year. But more than that, instead of simply saying that 1776 is our true founding, not 1619, she is gaslighting people by saying that SHE NEVER CLAIMED 1619 TO BE OUR “TRUE” FOUNDING, WHICH IS UTTERLY UNTRUE.
Not just in the Project’s text itself would you find that to be untrue, but also in Hannah-Jones’ own words. Back when the Project had first been launched, Hannah-Jones specifically said: “I argue that 1619 is our true founding… Also, look at the banner pic in my profile.”
Here is her banner pic:
As you can see, it shows the date “July 4, 1776” being crossed out and “August 20, 1619” in a bigger font size and not crossed out.
She has made every argument she could that 1776 was not our true founding and now, she is lying about what she lied about months ago.
Now, Hannah-Jones argues that “The wording in question never appeared in the 1619 Project text. It appears nowhere in the printed copy… It didn’t appear in my essay nor any of the actual journalism we produced.”
Funny that she would bring up the printed copy, considering that it’s not something that The NYT Magazine can revise and change. Let’s read what it says, shall we?
“It is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country’s history. Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation’s birth. What if, however, we were to tell you that this fact, which is taught in our schools and unanimously celebrated every Fourth of July, is wrong, and that the country’s true birth date, the moment that its defining contradictions first came into the world, was in late August of 1619?... It is the country’s very origin.”
The printed copy itself proves this idiotic woman wrong. The 1619 Project was meant, as I have previously stated, to bash this country and indoctrinate children and people in general into accepting a historically erroneous belief that this country’s founding was not set upon the Founding Fathers’ fight for freedom but upon the arrival of 20 to 30 African slaves on a ship.
It was meant to discredit and delegitimize the very founding of this country and to lead people to the desire to “start anew”, creating a new country in which Leftist, communist ideals would serve as the foundation. It was meant to start a hijacking of this country by the Left.
For those purposes, it clearly has failed. The NYT Magazine would not be editing things and Hannah-Jones would not be gaslighting people about what she said, and has previously proclaimed, if they believed the Project was anywhere close to successful.
This, of course, doesn’t mean that the Left will cease trying to delegitimize the country or argue that the country was founded on racist beliefs. It just means that there is still enough common sense and sanity in this country for a radical Leftist hit-piece aimed at the very founding of this country to sputter and fail.
The Left will still be teaching kids that this country was founded on racism and other crap like that, which is why it’s imperative to pass education reform with patriotic (or, at least, REAL) education.
But we can be happy that, at least for this instance, the Left’s attempt to hijack the very meaning and date of our nation’s founding was so beaten back as to leave people at the New York Times licking their wounds and pretending they didn’t do what they very clearly did.
Now, they will claim the 1619 Project to be not a historical rewriting of our nation but an “origin story” as though this country itself were a work of fiction.
No, deceiving liars, 1619 isn’t an “origin story.” Bruce Wayne witnessing the murder of his parents in a dark alley in Gotham is an origin story. Superman coming from a doomed planet and landing on Earth as a baby is an origin story. They are origin stories because, as the name suggests, they tell the origins of those characters. The arrival of slaves on a ship on the colonies does not mark the origin of this nation. If anything, the settlers arriving and settling in America in 1607 is more of an origin story.
Slavery is not a part of the origin of this nation, because this very nation’s founding is predicated on the liberty of people, who are created equal by God. And as I have said in the past, slavery was a dying practice (helped by the fact that this country banned slave ships from coming in in its early years) that would naturally have gone away had it not been for the invention of the cotton gin, which brought slavery back in droves.
At any rate, the 1619 Project is basically dead. It has failed, even if the people behind it cover their ears and shut their eyes, yelling that “it’s not true! It’s not true!”
The 1619 Project has failed. Hallelujah.
1 Thessalonians 5:21
“But test everything; hold fast what is good.”
“Police have charged a 25-year-old man with first-degree murder after they say he shot and killed a 5-year-old boy last week in Wilson, North Carolina.
Austin Hinnant told CNN affiliate WRAL he was inside the home when his son, Cannon, was playing outside and was shot.
Hinnant says he ran outside and scooped up the injured child and held him in his arms.
‘I screamed “somebody help me, please help me save my son,”’ he said.
Hinnant told the affiliate he looked up and saw his neighbor, Darius Sessoms, in the yard next door with a gun in hand, pacing and frantic.
‘I was looking at him as I was picking up Cannon, and I was so full of rage, but I could not leave my son's side,’ he said. ‘I just wanted to be with my son.’
Hinnant's fiancé called 911, he said, and Sessoms drove away.
In a news release, the Wilson Police Department said officers were dispatched to the 5100 block of Archers Road on August 9 in reference to a shooting and found a 5-year-old suffering a gunshot wound, who later died at a nearby hospital.
Police identified Sessoms as a suspect and arrested him after he was found Monday in a Goldsboro residence about 30 minutes south of Wilson. It is unclear if Sessoms has an attorney.”
This is literally all CNN had to say about Cannon Hinnant. Roughly one week after the gruesome and heartless execution of the 5-year-old child, after multiple conservative outlets had already covered it and after multiple conservative accounts started the trend of “#SayHisName” in reference to the little boy, one mainstream news outlet (that’s not Fox News) has finally come around to begrudgingly talk about Cannon Hinnant.
Well, sort of.
Allow me to explain. What you just read above came from CNN INTERNATIONAL. Not even the main branch of CNN quite talked about it, just the international branch.
So that’s one ghastly and disgusting aspect of this scenario. The other is the fact that that entire excerpt amounts to only 222 words. That’s local news level coverage. That’s not even close to what I usually write or what other news outlets usually write about anything.
There is an article on CNBC about a mall owner acquiring denim retailer Lucky out of bankruptcy for $140.1 million. That article has a higher word count than CNN International’s article about Cannon Hinnant. Who the hell cares about a mall owner acquiring a denim company, other than the people involved in the deal and possibly the investors in those companies? Well, seemingly, more people on the fake news media care more about that random story than about the EXECUTION of a 5-year-old. This should be sickening, regardless of the races involved in the story.
Just for reference, CNN has 1,709 stories that mention George Floyd by name. For every word in that Cannon Hinnant article, there are EIGHT STORIES about George Floyd.
CNN also has 1,204 stories that mention Trayvon Martin. For every word in the Cannon article, there are five and a half stories that talk about Trayvon Martin.
CNN has 148 stories about attempted cop-killer Rayshard Brooks. For every word in the Cannon article, there are 0.66 articles about Brooks.
CNN has 73 stories about whiny, attention-seeking NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace, who faked a hate crime by pretending a garage door pull was a racist noose. CNN talked far more at length about this hoax than Cannon Hinnant.
So not only did it take CNN nearly a week to cover a horrific story that you and I both know perfectly well they would’ve covered as soon as they got a whiff of it had the races been reversed (a white man executing a 5-year-old black child), and not only did it take their INTERNATIONAL branch to begrudgingly talk about it, but they could not even spare 300 words, minimum, to talk about it.
Notice also that at no point in the story do they mention the races of the people involved. In the actual article, they have a picture of Sessoms, so those who read it will see that the suspect is black, but they don’t, at all, mention that Cannon is white.
This, again, you and I both know, would NEVER be the case if the races were reversed. This story, especially the races involved, would be ALL we would talk about for the next month, and likely even to election day.
If we had heard a story of a 25-year-old crazy bastard of a white man EXECUTING an innocent 5-year-old black boy in front of his two older sisters, supposedly for riding his bike over the white man’s lawn, people would have lost their MINDS. While there are still riots going on since George Floyd’s death, this story would have led to even more riots, and maybe even worse ones than what we saw.
The fake news media made the Trayvon Martin a national story. Like I said in the first article covering the Cannon Hinnant story, Trayvon’s name is ingrained in the minds of this nation. We remember his name roughly 8 years after his death. Despite the fact that Trayvon was the aggressor in that situation, his story gets remembered and told and retold whenever issues of race are brought up JUST because he was a black kid killed by someone who was only HALF white. The media does not extend the same courtesy to a 5-year-old white child who is gruesomely and unjustifiably executed by an evil s.o.b. of a neighbor who happens to be black.
It's not even like Cannon having been black would have made much of a difference to the fake news media.
Remember Secoriea Turner? The 8-year-old child who was killed by BLM terrorists who occupied the burned-down Wendy’s where Rayshard Brooks was justifiably killed by police? CNN only has 10 stories about her.
The first one covering the story has to do with Atlanta’s mayor talking about the incident. Had she not brought it up, CNN wouldn’t have covered the story.
The next three stories they wrote about it had more to do with overall crime, more specifically, what they called “gun crime” and “gun violence”, blaming guns in America as opposed to DOMESTIC TERRORISTS CAUSING CRIME ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO SKYROCKET BECAUSE OF LIMP-STICK DEMOCRAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS NOT DOING A THING TO PROTECT THE CITIES AND STATES THEY RUN!
The last article that CNN ran that mentioned Turner’s name was in July 16th (as of this article going live). Meanwhile, they are still trudging out stories that mention George Floyd.
The reason for CNN not covering the death of an 8-year-old black girl is because of just who was responsible: the very people that CNN roots for and covers for. A black BLM terrorist killed that girl. CNN lies for, covers for and gaslights for BLM terrorists. CNN does not cover black-on-black crime.
This is why I say that, even if Cannon had been black, CNN wouldn’t have talked about it because his killer was black. How many other black men kill black kids that hardly, if at all, get covered by the mainstream media? That number is infinitesimally smaller than the stories they write about ONE instance of a black man dying seemingly at the hands of a white person or a white cop.
Again, they have mentioned Floyd’s name in nearly 2,000 DIFFERENT ARTICLES. They have mentioned Trayvon’s name in 1,200 different articles. They mentioned Brooks in roughly 150 articles so far.
8-year-old Secoriea Turner, meanwhile, only gets 10 articles, at least 30% of which are meant to attack guns and blame guns, as opposed to radical Leftist terrorists. And 5-year-old Cannon Hinnant gets ONE article that one could read multiple times while riding in an elevator.
Meanwhile, other fake news outlets have not even talked about Hinnant at all, so I suppose I should give CNN SOME credit for finally kinda sorta talking about Cannon Hinnant in passing. That was their “there, we talked about the kid, now leave us alone” article. Their “there, we covered what you were pestering us about” article.
They don’t care about journalistic integrity or truth. Like I said, a white person being the victim of a black person runs contrary to the Leftist narrative of white people being oppressive and dominant over black people. At this point, I’m rather surprised they don’t cover these stories through the lens of black people “fighting back” against their “white oppressors” but I think we are still a bit away from that level of moral bankruptcy, even from the Leftist fake news.
To rephrase my ending note in the first article covering Cannon’s story: the fake news media’s treatment of this story tells us everything we need to know about them. Evil bastards, the lot of them.
“’There is no peace,’ says the Lord, ‘for the wicked.’”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...