News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Washington Post attacks The Nation for being intellectually honest about ongoing Russia 'hacking' conspiracy theory being used to convince US taxpayers to bomb Russia-Disobedient Media...(Washington Post wants so badly for US taxpayers to bomb Russia it's spun a conspiracy theory that to this day lacks a single person stepping forward with evidence proving how Wikileaks got DNC emails)

8/17/17, "The Washington Post Attacks The Nation For Intellectual Honesty," Disobedient Media, Elizabeth Vos

"Disobedient Media has previously reported on the Guccifer 2.0 persona as analyzed by Adam Carter, and the NGP-VAN metadata analysis performed by The Forensicator. Disobedient Media was the first outlet to report on the findings published by the Forensicator, which found that the NGP-VAN files published by the Guccifer 2.0 persona last summer were most likely locally copied in the East Coast of the U.S., as opposed to hacked. We have been very happy that some legacy media has begun to report on this important story, and that the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) used the information provided by the Forensicator as the basis for their memorandum to President Trump. Outlets such as The Nation, Salon and Bloomberg have given the issue very fair coverage.

Some establishment press, including the Washington Post, New York Magazine and The Hill have provided very biased reports on the matter. Disobedient Media previously reported the attack on the part of New York Magazine against Patrick Lawrence of The Nation.

It has also emerged today that Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks may settle the matter by revealing additional information which would prove the DNC was never hacked by Russia or any other entity. If this takes place, it would not only put an end to increasing U.S. tension with Russia, but would reveal the depth of corruption to which the DNC has sunk, not only as revealed in the content of the DNC emails, but in the prolonged efforts to hide the true origins of this information. To be very clear, the information received by Wikileaks is very likely not the same data that is examined in the Forensicator‘s analysis. 

Adam Carter has also responded to dishonest legacy media coverage of this topic, with an article specifically refuting a number of points made by the New York Magazine. Carter wrote: “Feldman saw fit to omit critical qualifiers that were actually in Lawrence’s article, so, while Feldman’s misrepresentation of the argument was bizarre, the original argument was not.”

The Washington Post also published an article on the Forensicator‘s work, admonishing The Nation’s Patrick Lawrence for his report on the subject. In doing so, the Washington Post makes a number of false and misleading statements regarding The Nation’s report as well as claims made in the Forensicator’s analysis. The Washington Post article even goes so far as to insult The Nation for engaging in ‘an intellectual free-for-all.’ 

That freedom of thought would be hurled as an insult by the outlet which broke the Watergate scandal, towards the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in America, is a severe indictment against the current state of legacy media integrity.

The Washington Post wrote of the Forensicator’s analysis:  

“the piece relies to a significant degree on a finding that hackers working remotely couldn’t possibly have downloaded all the information that they allegedly secured and passed along to WikiLeaks.

The Forensicator never made the statement that this was impossible, only very unlikely. Additionally, his analysis has nothing to do with files which were later published by Wikileaks. Discussion of the Guccifer 2.0 persona’s publication of the NGP-VAN files – which are the subject of the Forensicator’s analysis – are completely separate from any information received by Wikileaks in whatever fashion.

This focus purely on dismissing transfer speeds leaves out a whole host of technical details which provide a strong indication that the most likely explanation for the metadata from the NGP-VAN files is that the information was locally copied on the East Coast of the US, in the physical presence of a computer which had access to DNC data. The Forensicator never claimed to have proven that the information was leaked by an insider. Gross misrepresentations of the Forensicator‘s findings are the latest in a string of legacy media debacles which have unfolded during months of repetitious Russian hacking claims, including the infamous, falsified ‘pissgate‘ dossier. 

The discussion at hand is not in regards to Wikileak’s source; it is a discussion about whether the information published by Guccifer 2.0  was the result of a hack, as the Guccifer 2.0 persona claimed responsibility for hacking the DNC.

At this point there is no publicly available evidence which would indicate the DNC was ever hacked, and authorities have still, to date, not examined the DNC servers. Despite this deeply concerning lack of evidence, Guccifer 2.0 is still referenced as having “hacked” the DNC.

The Forensicator, Disobedient Media, The Nation and others who have honestly reported on this issue have stated explicitly that the metadata in question was only relevant to the Guccifer 2.0 persona’s publication of the NGP-VAN files, and should be understood separately from data which made its way to Wikileaks for eventual publication as the DNC emails. When the Washington Post sarcastically portrays the analysis as having claimed that the DNC was never hacked, the Post’s statement is completely incorrect and mischaracterizes the report entirely. However, should Julian Assange reveal more evidence that the DNC was never hacked, then the argument that there is ‘no proof’ would be utterly nullified.

The Washington Post cites an article published by New York Magazine which was extremely biased in its coverage of this topic, going so far as to stoop to character attacks while providing no substantial evidence to counter the Forensicator’s report. Disobedient Media has reported on New York Magazine‘s disgraceful attack on The Nation.

Worse, The Washington Post then attacks The Nation on the grounds that Breitbart had published a positive article regarding the story written by Lawrence. This is a framing device, where the Post implies that The Nation and the substance of its content is tainted by the reaction of separate outlets. In this way, the content of the report itself is disingenuously framed as ‘tainted’ by the opinions of individuals or groups who had nothing to do with writing the article. 

As Lawrence specifically pointed out in his article, Disobedient Media was the first outlet to report on this story. We are an independent entity, which focuses on being factual, and to the best of our ability we do not engage in politically biased reporting.

The Washington Post‘s report sank lower when it accused The Nation pejoratively of participating in an “intellectual free-for-all.” Such an accusation indicates that intellectual freedom is an insult, and explicitly appears to accuse The Nation of having committed a ‘thought crime,’ in publishing a report which questioned the Crowdstrike’s statement that the DNC was hacked last summer by Russian Hackers.

The lack of journalistic integrity which emerges from The Washington Post’s coverage of this issue would not come as a surprise to most. The Washington Post has been dogged by allegations that it has a conflict of interest when reporting on deep state rhetoric. The Nation related that The Washington Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, had received a $600 million contract from the CIA, saying of the large sum: “That’s at least twice what Bezos paid for the Post this year.”

Independent journalists including Caitlin Johnstone, H.A. Goodman and others have also been deeply critical of the Washington Post’s connection to the CIA. Johnstone wrote

WaPo continues to violate universal journalistic protocol by failing to disclose that its sole owner has received a 600 million dollar contract directly from the CIA, despite the fact that the CIA is mentioned by name no less than 19 times in the article itself….”

The fundamental issue at play in the reporting of this story by The Hill, The Washington Post and New York Magazine is that they have continued to disingenuously portray The Forensicator as having made absolute claims that were never stated in their analysis. These outlets also engage repeatedly in character attacks against  those few who report on the subject honestly, such as The Nation‘s Patrick Lawrence.

This is an important ongoing story, and Disobedient Media will continue to provide coverage as it unfolds."


Added: The CIA is a major problem: "Three Days of the Condor," a 1975 movie about the CIA way ahead of its time starring Robert Redford, Faye Dunaway, Max von Sydow, directed by Sydney Pollack. Robert Redford has learned what a smug, murderous bunch of thugs the CIA is and that he's on their hit list. He writes about it and gives his story to the NY Times for publication. At the end of the movie Redford, standing near the NY Times building, tells one of the CIA thugs who's been trying to kill him that the NY Times is going to run his expose about the CIA. As Redford walks away (at 1 min, 05) the CIA thug says, "Hey Turner, how do you know they'll print it?...You can take a walk but how far if they don't print it?" The implication being that Redford would be dead in short order or would have to go into hiding for the rest of his life.  

From You Tube page:


Friday, August 18, 2017

The Swamp confers immunity to Antifa and Black Lives Matter and Death to America. One should hardly be surprised at the arrogant fury of the victors-James George Jatras, Strategic Culture Foundation...(The Republican Establishment Swamp is completely disconnected from this country and is happily watching America burn to the ground)

8/18/17, "The Death Of A Nation," James George Jatras via The Strategic Culture Foundation 

"He who says A must say B. When one accepts demonization of part of our history and placing those who defend it beyond the pale of legitimate discourse, one should hardly be surprised when the arrogant fury of the victors is unleashed. That takes two forms: the nihilist street thugs of «Antifa» and «Black Lives Matter», and the authorities (both governmental and media, a/k/a the Swamp) who confer on them immunity for violent, criminal behavior. The former are the shock troops of the latter. 

They’ve been at it for months, well before Charlottesville, across the country, with nary a peep from the [Republican] party that supposedly has uniform control over the federal government.

Our First Amendment rights as Americans end where a black-clad masked thug chooses to put his (or her or indeterminate «gender») fist or club. To paraphrase U.S. Chief Justice Roger Taney in Dred Scott, loyalists of the old America have no rights which the partisans of the new one are bound to respect. Where’s the Justice Department probe of civil rights violations by this organized, directed brutality. (Or maybe there will be one, including looking into George Soros’s connection. If not, what’s the point of having RICO?)"...


Thursday, August 17, 2017

CBS News asks 3 Trump voters in Georgia: 'Has your support for Trump lessened one bit?' 'Absolutely not, Not at all, No.' CBS News: How do you explain your support for Trump given criticism he's received on race issue? African American Trump voter responds: 'I think for myself, period. Nobody's going to tell me what to think or how to think. He's not going to lose my support anytime soon'-Rush Limbaugh

8/17/17, "CBS News Talks to Trump Voters and Can’t Believe What They Found," Rush Limbaugh

"RUSH: You know, yesterday on this program we made mention of the fact that on the CBS Evening News on Tuesday (8/15), the entire broadcast was devoted to Trump and Charlottesville and the whole newscast. There was not one other story. So last night — I don’t know if the suits at CBS heard us talking about that or not, but they decided to go out and try to find some Trump supporters, gave them some time maybe to balance what they had done the previous night. 

They found two black and one white Trump supporter, three people, and I want you to hear what these sounded like. The names involved here, correspondent Mark Strassman, the three female supporters for Trump are Janelle Jones, Ellen Diehl and Lucretia....Anyway, these three women, two black, one white, CBS found them to talk about Trump controversy, here’s the first bite. 

STRASSMAN: Has your support for Trump lessened one bit?

(Lucretia) HUGHES: Absolutely not. 

DIEHL: Not at all. 


STRASSMAN: Not one bit? 

JONES: No, I don’t look at him as, you know, my pastor or my moral leader. I look at him as the leader as it relates to governmental issues.

DIEHL: We’re not looking for somebody charming. We’re looking for a man who knows how to turn things around, and he’s got a track record of turning things around. 

RUSH: Sound bite number two. 

STRASSMAN: When you saw Charlottesville, what did that say about where we are as a country? 

DIEHL: It wasn’t necessarily a completely black-white issue, but I think that the media is turning it into a black-white issue. It’s definitely a left-right issue, but it’s left fringe and right fringe. 

STRASSMAN: The Confederate statues don’t bother you? 

(Lucretia) HUGHES: No. It’s history. I wasn’t born back then. You wasn’t, either. So why is that affecting us? If anything, we should grow and learn from it just like Martin Luther King said. You don’t judge people by the color of their skin. You base that on their character.

RUSH: See, these people understand something here. And these people at CBS, I guarantee you they were genuinely shocked that they were able to find them, and then what they said. Remember people in the media do not really think people like this exist. They have an arrogance about them that is just automatic. Whatever they believe and think, they assume 80% of the country is the same way, and that’s how they go about reporting these stories.

But this woman, that was Lucretia, by the way, who said, “No, I wasn’t born back then, you weren’t either. Why is that affecting us? If anything, we should grow and learn from it like Martin Luther King said.” What does she know? She knows that black people who were never slaves are fighting white people who were never Nazis over a Confederate statue or statues that Democrats put up. And now for some reason the Democrats don’t want to live with what they did and it’s now become Trump’s fault. And these people are not buying it. Sound bite number three. 

STRASSMAN: How do you explain what your support is for a president, given the criticism that he’s had on this race issue?

(Lucretia) HUGHES: I think for myself, period. Nobody’s going to tell me what to think or how to think. I’m not gullible and I’m not blind. It’s my decision if I’m going to support someone or not, not go by what other people has to say. And to me, what I’ve seen, and what I love, I’m not– he’s not going to lose my support any time soon.

JONES: I’ve been a Republican before Donald Trump. I will be a Republican afterwards. I honestly don’t think we will see this issue of racial divide addressed until we remove identity politics out of the political process

STRASSMAN: These Republican women say if a president deserves blame for making racial tensions worse, it’s Obama, not Trump for the identity politics they say Democrats have practiced for the last eight years

RUSH: And that’s exactly right, by the way. So there you have three Trump voters, two of them black and one white, all females, Trump voters. They’re not idiots. They’re not racists. They’re not Nazis. They’re not members of the Klan. They’re independently intelligent. They’re not mind-numbed robots being led down the path by Steve Bannon or anybody else. They make up their own minds. Exactly contrary to the way the media depicts Trump voters

The media depicts Trump voters as the people in Charlottesville, for example."


CBS images from 


Referenced above:

8/16/17, CBS: ""I Think for Myself": Trump Voters Voice Their Support Despite Charlottesville Comments," Strassman, Atlanta, Ga.

"With the president under fire for remarks about Charlottesville, CBS News checked in with some Republicans who voted for him. Janelle Jones, Ellen Diehl and Lucretia Hughes say their support for President Trump has not lessened.

"I don't look at him as my pastor or my moral leader," said Jones. "I look at him as the leader as it relates to governmental issues."

"We are not looking for somebody charming," Diehl said. "We are looking for a man who knows how to turn things around and he's got a track record of turning things around.""...


Slavery is bustling in Libya in 2017 thanks to US taxpayer funded bombing in 2011 which destroyed most of Libya's civil society-Consortium News, James W. Carden...(US taxpayers have been forced to become greatest cause of misery and death in the world. As such, we're also slaves)

Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama dropped at least 26,171 bombs in 2016. He left office having authorised ten times more drone strikes than George W Bush. In 2015, Obama dropped 23,144 bombs on Muslim majority countries. Apparently it helped the Taliban, who per recent Foreign Policy magazine analysis control more territory in Afghanistan than at any point since 2001.

August 17, 2017, "Refusing to Learn Lessons from Libya," Consortium News, James W. Carden

"Exclusive: Official Washington never likes to admit a mistake no matter how grave or obvious. Too many Important People would look bad. So, the rationalizations never stop as with the Libyan fiasco, observes James W. Carden." 

"In recent weeks, the Washington Post’s Cairo bureau chief Sudarsan Raghavan has published a series of remarkable dispatches from war-torn Libya, which is still reeling from the aftermath of NATO’s March 2011 intervention and the subsequent overthrow and murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

April 2011, McCain in Benghazi
On July 2, Raghavan reported on what amounts to Libya’s modern-day slave trade. According to his report, Libya is “now home to a thriving trade in humans. Unable to pay exorbitant smuggling fees or swindled by traffickers, some of the world’s most desperate people are being held as slaves, tortured or forced into prostitution.”

The numbers help tell the tale. “The number of migrants departing from Libya is surging,” writes Raghavan, “with more than 70,000 arriving in Italy so far this year, a 28 percent increase over the same period last year.”

On August 1, Raghavan returned to the pages of the Post with a disturbing portrait of life in Tripoli, reporting that: “Six years after the revolution that toppled dictator Moammar Gaddafi, the mood in this volatile capital is a meld of hopelessness and gloom. Diplomatic and military efforts by the United States and its allies have failed to stabilize the nation; the denouement of the crisis remains far from clear. Most Libyans sense that the worst is yet to come.”

Raghavan notes that “Under Gaddafi, the oil-producing country was once one of the world’s wealthiest nations.” Under his rule, “Libyans enjoyed free health care, education and other benefits under the eccentric strongman’s brand of socialism.” It would be difficult not to see, Raghavan writes, “the insecurity that followed Gaddafi’s death has ripped apart the North African country.”

Taken together, Raghavan’s reports should come as a rude shock to stalwart supporters of NATO’s intervention in Libya. Yet the embarrassing fervor with which many embraced the intervention remains largely undiminished – with, as we will see, one notable exception.

An Upside-Down Meritocracy

Anne Marie Slaughter, who served as policy planning chief at the State Department under Hillary Clinton, emailed her former boss after the start of the NATO operation, to say: “I cannot imagine how exhausted you must be after this week, but I have never been prouder of having worked for you.” 

Five months after the start of NATO operation against Gaddafi, Slaughter went public with her approval in an op-ed for the Financial Times titled “Why Libya Skeptics Were Proved Badly Wrong.” Proving, if nothing else, that the foreign policy establishment is a reverse meritocracy, Slaughter holds an endowed chair at Princeton and is also the well-compensated president of the influential Washington think tank New America.

President Obama’s decision to intervene received wide bipartisan support in the Congress and from media figures across the political spectrum, including Bill O’Reilly and Cenk Uyghur.

Yet the casus belli used to justify the intervention, as a U.K. parliamentary report made clear last September, was based on a lie: that the people of the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi were in imminent danger of being slaughtered by Gaddafi’s forces.

The report, issued by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, states that “Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence.”

The report also noted that while “Many Western policymakers genuinely believed that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered his troops to massacre civilians in Benghazi…this did not necessarily translate into a threat to everyone in Benghazi. In short, the scale of the threat to civilians was presented with unjustified certainty. US intelligence officials reportedly described the intervention as ‘an intelligence-light decision.’”

Even as it became clear that the revolution had proved to be a disaster for the country, the arbiters of acceptable opinion in Washington continued to insist that NATO’s intervention was not only a success, but the right thing to do. It is a myth that has gained wide purchase among D.C.’s foreign policy cognoscenti, despite the judgment of former President Barack Obama, who famously described the intervention as “a shit show.”

Still Spinning

A full year after the commencement of NATO’s campaign against Gaddafi, former NATO Ambassador Ivo Daalder and NATO Supreme Allied Commander James Stravidis took to the pages of that reliable bellwether of establishment opinion, Foreign Affairs, to declare that “NATO’s operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model intervention.” 

According to Daalder and Stravidis, “the alliance responded rapidly to a deteriorating situation that threatened hundreds of thousands of civilians rebelling against an oppressive regime.”

In 2016, a Clinton campaign press release justifying the ill-starred intervention, claimed “Qadhafi and his regime made perfectly clear what their plans were for dealing with those who stood up against his reign, using disgusting language in urging his backers to cleanse the country of these rebels. This was a humanitarian crisis.”

Astonishingly, the campaign “Factsheet” goes on to assert that, “there was no doubt that further atrocities were on the way, as Qadhafi’s forces storming towards the county’s second biggest city.” Yet there is, as both the U.K. parliamentary report and a Harvard study by Alan J. Kuperman found, no evidence for this whatsoever.

“Qaddafi did not perpetrate a ‘bloodbath’ in any of the cities that his forces recaptured from rebels prior to NATO intervention — including Ajdabiya, Bani Walid, Brega, Ras Lanuf, Zawiya, and much of Misurata — so there was,” writes Kuperman, “virtually no risk of such an outcome if he had been permitted to recapture the last rebel stronghold of Benghazi.”

Nevertheless, the myth persists. Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Shadi Hamid, the author of Islamic Exceptionalismcontinues to insist, against all evidence, that the intervention was a success.

“The Libya intervention was successful,” says Hamid, “The country is better off today than it would have been had the international community allowed dictator Muammar Qaddafi to continue his rampage across the country.”

In this, Hamid is hardly alone. Left-activists in thrall to a Trotskyite vision of permanent revolution also continue to make the case that NATO’s intervention was a net positive for the country.

In a recent interview with In These Times, Leila Al-Shami claimed that “If Gaddafi had not fallen, Libya now would look very much like Syria. In reality, the situation in Libya is a million times better. Syrian refugees are fleeing to Libya. Far fewer people have been killed in Libya since Gaddafi’s falling than in Syria. Gaddafi being ousted was a success for the Libyan people.”

That danger in all this is that by refusing to learn the lessons of Libya (and Kosovo and Iraq and Syria) the U.S. foreign policy establishment will likely continue to find itself backing forces that seek to turn the greater Middle East into a fundamentalist Sunnistan, ruled by Sharia law, utterly hostile to religious pluralism, the rights of women, minorities and, naturally, U.S. national security interests in the region." 

"[For more on this topic, see’s “Hillary Clinton’s Failed Libya ‘Doctrine.’”]"

"James W. Carden served as an adviser on Russia policy at the US State Department. Currently a contributing writer at The Nation magazine, his work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Quartz, The American Conservative and The National Interest."


Added: Murderous neocon McCain is given hero's welcome in Benghazi, Libya in April 2011 for his role in diversion of millions of US taxpayer dollars to weapons for Libyan "rebels." "Mr McCain called on critics of intervention to tour Benghazi to see a 'powerful and hopeful example of what a free Libya can be.'" On Sept. 11, 2012, heavily armed Islamist militants in Benghazi, Libya, attacked the US Consulate and a nearby CIA compound, killing 4 Americans. 

4/22/2011, "'Let's get this thing over with,' says McCain as he calls for more help for rebels in Libya," Daily Mail 

McCain said more "help" is needed, ie, US taxpayers should buy even more weapons for Benghazi "rebels." 


Republicans are about 30 years late in worrying about their brand. Republicans have never fought back against being called racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe. They just try to kiss up to the media-Rush Limbaugh

8/17/17, "Leftists Are Tearing America Apart While the GOP Stands Aside," Rush Limbaugh 

"If I may be bold here, if I may be helpful, Republicans, the idea that you fear damage to your brand? You’re about 30 years late in realizing this, and the reason that you have ongoing fear of your brand is that for the first time it somebody’s fighting back against these allegations, and that’s what’s making you nervous.

You’ll note that it’s Donald Trump fighting back against all this that’s really what makes the Republicans nervous. The Republicans have never pushed back on this. You know it as well as I do, especially you who have voted for them based on their promises to push back, to fight back.

They never do!

For 30 years, the Democrats have been able to call Republicans anything with impunity--racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe, and add on to that--and there’s been never any pushback. All there is, is Republicans trying to kiss up to the media so that they individually are not included in the smear. Well, this is what pushing back looks like, just like this is what trying to strip power away from the establishment looks like....

It was never gonna be easy, and it was never gonna be pretty.

Somebody is trying to save the Republican brand by defending it against all of these smears: Racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia. Too many Republicans have been conditioned to go along with the allegation and to ask for exemption from it."....(near end of page)


The Hill: GOP Fears Damage to Brand from Charlottesville


Missouri Democrat State Senator's hope that Trump is assassinated is condemned and disavowed by Missouri State Senate Democrat leader-St. Louis Post-Dispatch

8/17/17, "I hope Trump is assassinated!" says Missouri Democrat State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal on Facebook post subsequently deleted, via Mark Reardon, KMOX twitter

August 17, 2017, "Secret Service investigating Mo. state senator over Facebook post hoping for Trump's assassination," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Kevin McDermott

"Updated with comments from the U.S. Secret Service and the Missouri Senate Democratic leader."...

"The statement from Walsh, the Senate Democratic leader, read in part: “I strongly condemn and disavow Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal’s horrible comments. Promoting, supporting or suggesting violence against anyone, especially our elected leaders, is never acceptable. There is too much rancor and hate in today’s political discourse, and Sen. Chappelle-Nadal should be ashamed of herself for adding her voice to this toxic environment."...
The U.S. Secret Service is investigating a Facebook post from Missouri state Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, D-University City, in which she stated: "I hope Trump is assassinated!"

As outage over the comment spread Thursday, a top leader in Chappelle-Nadal's own party declared that Chappelle-Nadal "should be ashamed of herself."

Chappelle-Nadal's comment, referring to President Donald Trump, has since been removed. But Chappelle-Nadal confirmed to the Post-Dispatch that she had written it in response to another commenter before deleting it.

"I didn't mean what I put up. Absolutely not. I was very frustrated," Chappelle-Nadal told the newspaper. "Things have got to change." The U.S. Secret Service's St. Louis field office "is looking into this," the office confirmed.

Kristina Schmidt, special agent in charge, told the Post-Dispatch that "hypothetically" in such investigations, agents try to "determine intent, to determine if there was a violation of federal law. If there is, then we refer it to the U.S. Attorney."

"Our primary goal is to determine if there is intent and meaning behind it," Schmidt said.

According to a screenshot of the now-deleted conversation obtained by the Post-Dispatch, another commenter named Chistopher Gagne' was writing about a cousin of his who he said was on Trump's Secret Service detail.

"But, what I posted earlier, I truly believe will happen, sooner ... not later," he wrote.

In a subsequent interview with the Post-Dispatch, Gagne' said that wasn't a reference to assassination, but to his earlier-stated belief that Vice President Mike Pence will use the 25th Amendment of the Constitution to have Trump removed from office.

"Damn," Gagne' then wrote, "now I'll probably get a visit from the secret service smdh."

Chappelle-Nadal responded: "No. I will. I hope Trump is assassinated!"

In an interview, Chappelle-Nadal said her comment stemmed from frustration over the events in Charlottesville, Va., over the weekend, in which a white supremacist protester allegedly rammed his car into a group of counter-protesters, killing a 32-year-old woman.

Trump's reaction to the tragedy, which included the assertion that "both sides" of the protests were to blame for the violence, has drawn criticism across the political spectrum.

"I put that up on my personal Facebook and I should not have," Chappelle-Nadal said. "It was in response to the concerns that I am hearing from residents of St. Louis. I have deleted it, and it should have been deleted, but there is something way more important that we should be talking about."

Chappelle-Nadal said that in the wake of Charlottesville, "there are people who are afraid of white supremacists, there are people who are having nightmares. there are people who are afraid of going out in the streets. It's worse than even Ferguson."

On Facebook, Gagne identifies himself as an "investigative journalist covering police misconduct and shootings," and the head of a group called the United States Prisoners Rights Defense League. Chappelle-Nadal said she knew of him from his involvement in protests during the unrest in Ferguson."... 

8/17/17, "Missouri Senator: ‘I Hope Trump Is Assassinated!’," Daily Caller

Image of Missouri State Senate Democrat Maria Chappelle-Nadal from Daily Caller


We have no way of knowing if the speakers at Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally last weekend were 'Nazis,' 'white supremacists,' or passionate Civil War buffs, since they weren't allowed to speak. The governor of Virginia shut the event down, despite a court order to let it proceed-Ann Coulter


"Apparently, as long as violent leftists label their victims "fascists," they are free to set fires, smash windows and beat civilians bloody.

No police officer will stop them. They have carte blanche to physically assault anyone they disapprove of, including Charles Murray, Heather Mac Donald, Ben Shapiro, me and Milo Yiannopoulos, as well as anyone who wanted to hear us speak.

Even far-left liberals like Evergreen State professor Bret Weinstein will be stripped of police protection solely because the mob called him a "racist."

If the liberal shock troops deem local Republicans "Nazis" -- because some of them support the duly elected Republican president -- Portland will cancel the annual Rose Festival parade rather than allow any Trump supporters to march.

They're all "fascists"! Ipso facto, the people cracking their skulls and smashing store windows are "anti-fascists," or as they call themselves, "antifa."

We have no way of knowing if the speakers at the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally last weekend were "Nazis," "white supremacists" or passionate Civil War buffs, inasmuch as they weren't allowed to speak. The Democratic governor shut the event down, despite a court order to let it proceed.
We have only visuals presented to us by the activist media, showing some participants with Nazi paraphernalia. But for all we know, the Nazi photos are as unrepresentative of the rally as that photo of the drowned Syrian child is of Europe's migrant crisis. Was it 1 percent Nazi or 99 percent Nazi?

As the "Unite the Right" crowd was dispersing, they were forced by the police into the path of the peace-loving, rock-throwing, fire-spraying antifa. A far-left reporter for The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, tweeted live from the event:

"The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding 'antifa' beating white nationalists being led out of the park."

That's when protestor James Fields sped his car into a crowd of the counter-protesters, then immediately hit reverse, injuring dozens of people, and killing one woman, Heather Heyer.

This has been universally labeled "terrorism," but we still don't know whether Fields hit the gas accidentally, was in fear for his life or if he rammed the group intentionally and maliciously.

With any luck, we'll unravel Fields' motives faster than it took the Obama administration to discern the motives of a Muslim shouting "Allahu Akbar!" while gunning down soldiers at Fort Hood. (Six years.)

But so far, all we know is that Fields said he was "upset about black people" and wanted to kill as many as possible. On his Facebook page, he displayed a "White Power" poster and "liked" three organizations deemed "white separatist hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. A subsequent search of his home turned up bomb-making materials, ballistic vests, rifles, ammunition and a personal journal of combat tactics.

Actually, none of that is true. The paragraph above describes, down to the letter, what was known about Micah Xavier Johnson, the black man who murdered five Dallas cops a year ago during a Black Lives Matter demonstration. My sole alteration to the facts is reversing the words "black" and "white."

President Obama held a news conference the next day to say it's "very hard to untangle the motives." The New York Times editorialized agnostically that many "possible motives will be ticked off for the killer." (One motive kind of sticks out like a sore thumb to me.)

In certain cases, the media are quite willing to jump to conclusions. In others, they seem to need an inordinate amount of time to detect motives.

The media think they already know all there is to know about James Fields, but they also thought they knew all about the Duke lacrosse players, "gentle giant" Michael Brown and those alleged gang-rapists at the University of Virginia.

Waiting for facts is now the "Nazi" position.

Liberals have Republicans over a barrel because they used the word "racist." The word is kryptonite, capable of turning the entire GOP and 99 percent of the "conservative media" into a panicky mass of cowardice.

This week, Mitt Romney and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) -- among others -- instructed us that masked liberals hitting people with baseball bats are pure of heart -- provided they first label the likes of Charles Murray or some housewife in a "MAGA" hat "fascists."

Luckily, the week before opening fire on Republicans, critically injuring House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, Bernie Sanders-supporter James Hodgkinson had used the vital talisman, calling the GOP "fascist." So you see, he wasn't trying to commit mass murder! He was just fighting "Nazis." Rubio and Romney will be expert witnesses.

And let's recall the response of Hillary Clinton to the horrifying murder of five Dallas cops last year. The woman who ran against Trump displayed all the moral blindness currently being slanderously imputed to him.

In an interview on CNN about the slaughter that had taken place roughly 12 hours earlier, Hillary barely paused to acknowledge the five dead officers -- much less condemn the shooting -- before criticizing police for their "implicit bias" six times in about as many minutes.

What she really wanted to talk about were the two recent police shootings of black men in Baton Rouge and Minneapolis, refusing to contradict Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton's claim that the Minneapolis shooting was based on racism.

Officers in both cases were later found innocent of any wrongdoing. Either the left has had a really bad streak of luck on their police brutality cases, or bad cops are a lot rarer than they think.

Some people would not consider the mass murder of five white policemen by an anti-cop nut in the middle of a BLM protest a good jumping-off point for airing BLM's delusional complaints about the police. It would be like responding to John Hinckley Jr.'s attempted murder of President Reagan by denouncing Jodie Foster for not dating him.

Or, to bring it back to Charlottesville, it would be as if Trump had responded by expounding on the kookiest positions of "Unite the Right" -- just as Hillary's response echoed the paranoid obsessions of the cop-killer. Trump would have quickly skipped over the dead girl and railed against black people, Jews and so on.

That is the precise analogy to what Hillary did as the bodies of five Dallas cops lay in the morgue.

Thank God Donald J. Trump is our president, and not Mitt Romney, not Marco Rubio and not that nasty woman."


Wednesday, August 16, 2017

When Palm Beach social clubs barred African Americans and Jews in the 1990s, Donald Trump sent copies of 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner,' a film about upper class racism, to Palm Beach town council members and filed a lawsuit against them-WSJ 1997

April 30, 1997, "Trump’s Palm Beach Club Roils the Old Social Order," The Wall Street Journal, by Jacqueline Bueno. "Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner"

1967 film

Nov. 2015 article references 1997 WSJ above:

11/13/2015, "When Trump Fought the Racists," American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord 

"A 1997 Wall St. Journal story featured his Florida fight against anti-Semitism, racists." 

"The WSJ story...focuses on the battles Trump faced as a new arrival to Palm Beach, including his new competition with the social clubs of the old order....

It revolves around Trump’s purchase and operation of the famous Mar-a-Lago estate, built in the 1920s by Post Cereal heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post. Trump had recently purchased the sprawling, seaside estate and turned it into a club. This being located in upscale Palm Beach, Florida, there were other prestigious clubs in the area, clubs that catered to the old order of upper crust Palm Beach society. The problem? Quietly, these other clubs had long barred Jews and African Americans— which is to say they practiced a quiet but steely racism.... 

The (WSJ) story, which quotes Abe Foxman, the longtime head of the Anti-Defamation League, says, in part, the following:

"Mr. Trump also has resorted to the courts to secure his foothold here, and many residents wince at the attention his legal battles with the town have drawn — to the town in general, and to the admission practices at some of Palm Beach’s older clubs in particular.

…The culture clash began to approach a climax last fall, when Mr. Trump’s lawyer sent members of the town council a copy of the film “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” a film that deals with upper-class racism. Mr. Trump then approached the town council about lifting the restrictions that had been placed on the club. He also asked some council members not to vote on the request because their membership in other clubs created a conflict of interest. 

Last December, after the council refused to lift the restrictions, Mr. Trump filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Palm Beach, alleging that the town was discriminating against Mar-a-Lago, in part because it is open to Jews and African-Americans. The suit seeks $100 million in damages."...
In other words? In other words, long before he was running for president, there was Donald Trump battling racism and anti-Semitism in Palm Beach society. Using every tool at his disposal. 

The film he chose to send the Palm Beach town council was no accident. Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner was released in 1967 and starred film legends Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, and Sidney Poitier. The Oscar-winning story revolved around a liberal, upper-class older couple who are stunned and discomfited when their daughter, played by Katharine Houghton, brings her new fiancĂ© — Poitier — home to dinner and an introduction to her white parents. As liberals, her parents were staunch supporters of racial equality and had raised their daughter accordingly. Yet suddenly, in comes the very personal reality of equality when their daughter waltzes in the door after a vacation with husband-to-be Poitier, a black widower and doctor. Soul searching about just how devoted to equality they really are ensues.

Thus it was no accident that Trump selected this movie to tweak the members of both the Palm Beach town council and the larger white society it represented. Trump understood exactly what the game was and he would have none of it. In addition to sending a copy of the movie, he launched his lawyers, who filed that $100 million lawsuit “alleging that the town was discriminating against Mar-a-Lago, in part because it is open to Jews and African-Americans.”... 

Yet here comes the utterly predictable charge of racism from 

The harsh reality of the racism charge against Trump is not only that it is bogus, utterly false from start to finish. The reality is the charges of racism against Trump are coming from the one political force in the country that has a long, deep, and immutable history of racism. A racism that is no relic of a long ago past but both current and visceral, used now as it has always been used — to divide and judge by skin color for political profit. 

The good news here that in Donald Trump someone — finally — is standing up to fight back. Just as he fought back all those years ago in Palm Beach when no one was looking."

Added: [Comments on this article welcome at Facebook here] 

Above images from UK Telegraph article, link inactive as of 8/17/17: 11/3/2015, "How Trump Fought Racism and Anti-Semitism in Palm Beach Two Decades Ago," UK Telegraph blog, by brakeshoe

Following is excerpt from UK Telegraph article posted in 2016 at Free Republic: 

"How Trump Fought Racism and Anti-Semitism in Palm Beach Two Decades Ago," U.K. Telegraph ^ | updated 3/17/2016 | Blogger Blakeshoe

Posted on 3/18/2016, 9:50:29 AM by SueRae

"[Comments on this article welcome on Facebook here] Updated March 17, 2016 — See below lede"] 

"Amidst the shuffle of the Trump candidacy is how well he is polling in the Black community, over twice as high as any other GOP candidate, which we documented back on November 2nd. 

What’s not as well known is Trump’s successful battles against racism and anti-semitism over the last three decades and more. From this April 1997 Wall Street Journal story about his Mar-a-Lago property and his roiling the old social order in the then–racist Palm Beach scene, we have this little tidbit worth bringing to your attention (photos added by me):

March 17th Update:

Since the original November 3rd publication, more on Donald Trump’s fight against the rampant racism and anti-Semitism in Palm Beach has come to our attention, going as far back as 1985 in Vanity Fair; and also in the Washington Post...See navy blue text."...

(Excerpt) Read more at ..."

"[Note: Despite the UK domain, I am happily ensconced in Cherry Hill, NJ]"


Proving unfit to be Virginia Governor, Terry McAuliffe statements incited racial fear and hatred. His deadly claims were not only false but contradicted Va. State Police. McAuliffe told Black Lives Matter activist that 'white nationalists' had stashed weapons around town, which was false. Families had to worry their children might find them and possibly kill themselves or others. NY Times had to remove McAuliffe claim that 80% of rally attendees had semi-automatic via Disobedient Media

8/16/17, "Virginia State Police Say They Didn’t Find Caches Of Weapons in Charlottesville," disobedient media 

Source: "Virginia State Police Say They Didn’t Find Caches of Weapons in Charlottesville,", C.J. Ciaramella 

"Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe said police found weapons stashed by white nationalists. Police say they didn’t.

Contradicting statements by Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Virginia State Police say they did not find caches of weapons stashed around Charlottesville in advance of last Saturday’s deadly white nationalist rally. 

In an interview Monday on the Pod Save the People podcast, hosted by Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson, McAuliffe claimed the white nationalists who streamed into Charlottesville that weekend hid weapons throughout the town. 

They had battering rams and we had picked up different weapons that they had stashed around the city, McAuliffe told Mckesson.

McAuliffe’s comments were picked up by other news outlets and spread through social media. But Corinne Geller, a spokesperson for the Virginia State Police, says that no such stashes were found.

“The governor was referring to the briefing provided him in advance of Saturday’s rally and the extra security measures being taken by local and state police,” Geller tells Reason. “As a safety precaution in advance of August 12, such searches were conducted in and around Emancipation and McIntire Parks.

No weapons were located as a result of those searches.” 

The Virginia State Police also disputed McAuliffe’s claims that Virginia State Police were underequipped to deal with the heavily armed militia members at Saturday’s rally.

“The governor was referencing the weapons and tactical gear the members of various groups attending the rally had on their persons,” Geller says. I can assure you that the Virginia State Police personnel were equipped with more-than-adequate specialized tactical and protective gear for the purpose of fulfilling their duties to serve and protect those in attendance of the August 12 event in Charlottesville.” 

McAuliffe claimed in an interview with The New York Times that law enforcement arrived to find a line of militia members who “had better equipment than our State Police had.

In longer comments that were later edited out of the Times‘ story, McAuliffe said that up to 80 percent of the rally attendees were carrying semi-automatic weapons. “You saw the militia walking down the street, you would have thought they were an army,” he said. 

Virginia police have come under criticism for failing to quell violence at the rally, which left one counterprotester dead and more than 30 injured."


After decades of violent protesting and rioting, the militant left now has 100% moral authority to enact whatever violence and destruction it wants, is incapable of being immoral, can't be judged in any way-Rush Limbaugh, 8/16/17

George Soros in 2012 happily predicted violent US street riots: "As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable. Yes, yes, yes,” he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”"...(4th parag. from end)

Rush: "Even Mitt Romney has come out and sided with the leftist protesters....Mr. Republican, Mitt Romney, is actually claiming that the leftist protesters are not racist and they’re not bigoted, that they’re opposing racism and bigotry....Mitt, have you ever taken a gander at YouTube? Have you ever taken a look at what this Antifa group does? Have you ever seen some of the violence they have perpetrated at G20 conventions or World Trade Organization rallies in Seattle? I mean, they’re all over the place and they are violent. It’s not just that they’re violent; they are demanding....Moral superiority? So Mitt Romney is defending Antifa, defending the left, and a lot of people on the right are." .......................

Rush: "They were marching all over the Left Coast. They had just come off a number of years of blaming Ronald Reagan for AIDS because he had not said anything about it when he was president. It was the same then as it is today, the same outrage."...

8/16/17, "America’s Anchorman Analyzes the Insane Degree of Anger at Donald Trump," Rush Limbaugh

"RUSH: I’ve got all kinds of people asking me today, “Why is this insane degree of anger at Donald Trump? This seems unlike anything we’ve seen yet. Why so over the top?” I’ve been asking myself the same thing. It’s my job here, man, to come up with these answers. The best thing I can come up with is he said there were nice people on both sides. That seems to have just sent everybody over the edge. 

That seems to have been the equivalent of giving aid and comfort to racists and Nazis and white supremacists and bigots and sexists and homophobes, transgenderphobes, cisgenders, you name it. By claiming that there were nice people on both sides, that seems to have sent everybody over the edge. Not that alone. And, folks, there is no other news today....

I’ve never seen a day where there isn’t anything in the news except this. CBS last night, 100 percent of the CBS Evening News was this, basically Trump’s press conference yesterday, his third press conference on this whole thing in Charlottesville, Virginia.

And it has become clear, as I have observed all of this, that where we are in America culturally right now, is that the Alt-Left, which is alternatively known as Occupy Wall Street — same people that protested at Ferguson, Missouri, and in Baltimore, Maryland. The same people that protested in Oakland, California, at Berkeley. The same people that have been protesting leftist causes my entire life, it’s the same groups, it’s the same people. The bodies may change; I mean people grow older, new people join the movement. There’s nothing new about this leftist movement.

What is new is that apparently we’ve reached the point in American history where they have 100 percent moral authority. ...What I’m trying to say is that the media and even — heck, folks, it’s a bunch of people on the right now. As far as the popular culture is concerned, the Alt-Left, as just a title I’m giving them to distinguish them from the others, but the militant leftist protesters have been judged now to be...incapable of being immoral.

We are not permitted to say that they’re immoral. We’re not permitted to judge them in any way. They have moral authority. 

And that’s where we are. And so any criticism of people on the left is going to tie you automatically with the Alt-Right, the Nazis, the neo-Nazis, the white supremacists and whoever it is that makes up that group. That must be universally condemned, the same type of people that on the left are immune....They are now protected, is probably the best way to describe this.

It’s a challenge today to go through this, not for the reasons that you might think. I’ve never been one to join conventional wisdom. I’ve never been one to join the pack. And I’m not going to join conventional wisdom today just to join conventional wisdom. 

The easy thing to do today, the easy thing for anybody to do would be to, without question and without curiosity, just dump all over, not just Trump, but the Republican Party. Because the way this is being played out, it’s the Republican Party that has questions to answer. It’s the Republican that has to have its come-to-Jesus moment over this stuff. Because it is, as it’s being played out here, it’s the Republican Party which has flirted with racism all of these decades. And it’s the Republican Party that’s flirted with bigotry. It’s the Republican Party that must explain itself today.

And I simply, as an almost instinctive thing, reject conventional wisdom. I always have. It’s a personality quirk of mine. And it’s not just in matters of politics.

RUSH: Here’s what I think is gonna happen here and after I take just a brief amount of time explaining this, we’re gonna then turn back and get into some of the specifics. Many, many teachable moments here. And a lot of eye opening realities that, if you don’t keep things in perspective, it’s gonna depress you tremendously, and that’s what we’re here today to try to prevent.

I think that this current round of whatever this is — and it’s just the latest. This has been going on with these leftist groups for as long as I have been doing this program. I remember back in — this had to be 1989 or maybe 1990. If you’ll please indulge me here for a moment. I want to give you my historical perspective of this, because it’s truly missing on all of this news reporting and coverage.
When the program was new, we started with 56 radio stations, and they were all very small, and we would not survive if we stayed on only those 56. There was nothing wrong with them; it’s just they were not large enough and in big enough cities to sustain what we were trying to do here. So it became imperative to get stations in the top 10, actually top 15 markets to carry the program off the bat. And one such market was Los Angeles.

I remembered whenever we got a new clearance, a new station, one of the things I did was always sit down for an interview with the local newspaper, because they, of course, were totally perplexed and confused. They didn’t know who I was, but they knew this radio show was taking off and that I was some kind of conservative. And even back in 1989 and ’90, being conservative was the same as being a Martian. Being a conservative was the same as being an unknown oddity.

And at the time that we were getting our Los Angeles station, the AIDS protests and riots were going crazy. They were throwing condoms at Cardinal O’Connor in St. Patrick’s Cathedral. They were marching all over the Left Coast. They had just come off a number of years of blaming Ronald Reagan for AIDS because he had not said anything about it when he was president. It was the same then as it is today, the same outrage. You get just as mad watching these people as you get mad watching them today.

And back then, I remember sitting and talking to an LA Times reporter about this. She was prepared to write a story of how I was this brute and I was insensitive, all because I’m a conservative, she didn’t know who I was. And I finally asked her, “You want to characterize me this way. What about all of these people that are destroying businesses and conducting protest marches that are damaging and destroying property?”

And her answer to me was, “Well, that’s the only way they can be heard.” As far as she was concerned, they were totally justified. 

They were leftist protesters. It didn’t matter that they were AIDS related protesters or if they were protesting at the time George H. W. Bush. They were leftist protesters, and, as such, they were thoroughly justified. You could not question them. You could not doubt them. And they were victims.

So they were entitled to do anything they had to do to get noticed. 

They were entitled, as far as the media’s concerned, to do anything they had to do in order to be heard, to have their grievances addressed. I came from the majority, and, as such, I was automatically the enemy. And I automatically was out of touch. And I automatically didn’t understand.

So I’m sitting here wondering why I’m being pasted, why I’m being ripped to shreds just because I’m a conservative and have a new radio show. And, meanwhile, people are literally damaging property and attacking other people are being given a pass. My point in telling you the story is nothing’s new. It hasn’t changed. If anything, it’s gotten worse. If anything, the left has now achieved moral authority.


If it’s Black Lives Matter, if it is Occupy Wall Street or whatever manifestation of the left that they exist in today, it’s the same thinking, it’s the same organizers, it’s the same people in many regards. I mean, the people that are showing up here in Charlottesville were probably in Ferguson, and they were in Baltimore, and they will be at the next place. They travel around. 

Many of them are bought and paid for. But as far as the media is concerned, they have achieved moral authority. They are incapable of violence, for example.

This is maddening. If you allow yourself to get caught up thoroughly in this, you’ll go crazy trying to untangle what appears to be no common sense, what appears to be just inexplicable. How in the world can this group be given an exemption? But they have been, because they’re victims, and because they are helping to advance the anti-conservative agenda that the media and the Democrat Party and all these people happen to support. And so anything that advances that is morally okay, morally superior.

But that’s only one half of it. The other half of it is when otherwise conservative people see this and join it because of a fear of being tainted by the criticism of people on the right — let me explain. We have people who are conservatives. They self-identify, claim they’re conservatives. Others who are Republicans may not be actual conservatives, but they’re pointed out as conservatives.

And then over here you’ve got these Looney Tunes. You’ve got the Klan, which is Democrats, has always been Democrats, but now they somehow get tied to the right wing. You have the Nazis, which are socialists, which is much closer to the Democrat Party than anything you and I believe. You have white supremacists, you have all of those people, and because the media has characterized those people as creatures of the right, there is an element of conservatism scared to death of being identified with them.

And so as to avoid being identified, let’s say you’re a conservative that works at a popular conservative magazine, you’re an editor, you’re a writer, you’re a blogger, and you see this that’s happening in Charlottesville or you see what happened in Ferguson. It’s the same thing. It’s the same thing as what happened in Baltimore....And you see what happened, and you size up what’s happening. And in this case in Charlottesville, we have white supremacists, we have Nazis, we have the Klan.

So you’re a conservative at one of these magazines, and you are not going to run the risk of being identified with these wackos on the right, so what do you do? You cross the line and you side with the people who are condemning them so that you will not be tagged and associated. And in a strict human sense, it’s totally understandable.

But in the process, what happens? There is no renouncement of what’s going on on the left. People who would normally renounce, denounce, criticize correctly what’s going on on the left don’t because they feel the need to join the chorus on the left in condemning that which is said to be extreme right wing.

And so the left continues to get away with no criticism. You look at the media, the media will not tolerate any suggestion that there’s even violence in the Alt-Left....That was all on the right, if you ask the media. There wasn’t any violence on the left. The violence on the left happened after the Alt-Right went out after ’em.

It’s not true. The left-wing protesters are in fact the ones who do violence. They destroy things. They start fires. They destroy automobiles. In Ferguson they were destroying private property of people who lived in the neighborhood. They most certainly do violence. They most certainly threaten violence. They lead with it. But today, they’re exempt. You can’t say they are violent. If you do, they will come after you.

By “they” I mean the media, the establishment, whatever you want to call it. They’ll come after you and tar you and feather you and destroy you and lump you in with the extreme so-called wackos on the right. Well, nobody wants that to happen, so they don’t denounce the left. They join the left in open criticism so as to avoid being tainted themselves. So that’s where we are right now.
There’s one person who’s not doing that. Who is that? There’s only one person not doing it. That’d be Donald Trump. You see what’s happening to him. Donald Trump is trying to tell the truth. This is plain as day what happened to him on this. On Saturday, Trump goes out, says what he says about it. Unsatisfactory. 

Violated conventional wisdom. Trump did not specifically identify the Klan, the white supremacists and the Nazis. And therefore, Trump must be sympathetic to them. A firestorm was created, and the media then demanded that Trump do it again, and this time, call ’em out by name. So Trump did.

Now, somebody in the White House probably was very persuasive in suggesting President Trump do it. I’m sure they watch the media in there, and I’m sure there’s a lot of people there that think that you can accommodate the media. You can’t. We can’t. Those of us on the right cannot accommodate them. We cannot turn them. We cannot make them understand. We cannot ever be seen favorably by them. Trump has learned this.

So he goes out after whatever pressure there was on him in the White House to change his statement, and identify by name Nazis and the white supremacists and the bigots and the Klan and whatever. He goes out and does it, and what’s the media do? 

“You didn’t mean it,” they say. “You didn’t mean it. You’re only doing this because we pressured you and that means it wasn’t in your heart. So you don’t get any credit from us. You’re just a phony. You don’t mean it!” Trump’s sitting there fuming, ’cause he knew instinctively this is what’s gonna happen.

He’s probably mad at somebody in the White House for steering him this way. So he does the press conference — it happened yesterday — and yesterday’s press conference was Trump erupting over, I think, any number of things, people that made him do things he didn’t want to do in the two previous press conferences. When he says, “Look, I went out there before we knew all the facts; then I went out there and I mentioned the names, and you people say I get no credit for that.”

So yesterday’s press conference was probably Trump as Trump criticizing both sides, but he stepped in it when he said, “There are fine people on both sides.” That’s all it took. I dare say that this hysteria that’s taking place in the media, both on the left and on the right, is rooted in Trump saying, “There are fine people on both sides,” because there aren’t fine people in the Nazis, and there aren’t fine people in the white supremacists, and there aren’t fine people in the Klan.

Well, by the same token, there aren’t a lot of fine people in these various movements that exist on the left. But you can’t say that. Trump was probably trying to be accommodating, and he was trying to identify both sides as being somewhat guilty and somewhat responsible. But because he said, “There are fine people on both sides,” that is what blew this all up and provided the ammo for the hysteria that is now perceived to be legitimate. Now, how long is this gonna go? How long is this episode gonna last? Some people think this is it. This isn’t gonna blow over. This is the worst it’s been." image above from

Rush Limbaugh "Related Links"



Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.