Trump

CNN’s tale of contradictory titles

965C3C9D-C91B-407C-9155-05A8B928C1FE.jpeg

In the same article – CNN make the inference that this Colorado couple are “now fighting to keep her from being deported” yet after opening the article it is titled  “Colorado couple wins battle” What a disgracefully misleading piece which we’ll discover was all to do with obtaining sufficient documentation with respect to legal custody rather than racist immigration officials executing this administration’s draconian rule.

10BAF690-802A-4FCC-B303-3534FCE61233.jpeg

The inference was to take a potshot at the Trump administration for being insensitive jackbooted alt-right nutjobs when the reality is that the laws and processes that would have been required to get the child’s adoption approved would apply to everyone.

In any event she was “approved” hence making the dramatics of attacking the system a total falsehood. She had initially been rejected because according to CNN:

In its August 8 denial, the immigration agency said the couple “failed to demonstrate” that they had “legal custody” of Angela for two years before filing the petition for citizenship, Angela Becerra said.

Who would honestly censure a government agency that wanted to prevent any risk of child trafficking by demanding such proof? So typical of the garbage reporting we face today and why CNN is suffering in the ratings war. Stop insulting people’s intelligence if you want credibility, which amazingly leads to ratings!

Pathetically Priceless

23D0E64E-5772-44ED-A813-527CAC4F5613.jpeg

Double standards are a strong feature of the liberal elites and Hollywood. Instead of living up to the Chanber of Commerce’s view that it does not remove stars over public backlash by citing  historical landmark status., when it comes to Trump all bets are off. While Bill Cosby, a convicted rapist, keeps his Hollywood star, Trump’s disturbing treatment of women (locker room talk and allegations of paying porn stars) is deemed a more heinous crime. Liberal logic.

The response to Trump

The resolution on which the West Hollywood City Council voted urged the removal of Mr. Trump’s star “due to his disturbing treatment of women and other actions that do not meet the shared values of the City of West Hollywood, the region, state, and country.

The Washington Time reports, “Among other things, the council’s staff report cites Mr. Trump’s border-security policies [an Obama era policy], his stance on climate change [Paris is non binding and the biggest polluters are doing next to nothing], the Vladimir Putin summit [since when did the Hollywood City Council enforce foreign policy?], and policies on transgenderism.”  

In effect, the Council endorses vandalism and destruction of public property.  Why not burn down Trump Tower or run an excavator  over the pristine greens of Mar-a-lago?

D4BFF0E4-3780-4C16-B6FA-D836E3BE36AA.jpeg

The Response to defacing of Bill Cosby’s star

In response, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce released a statement politely asking fans not to deface anyone’s stars, no matter how many rapes they may be accused of: “When people are unhappy with one of our honorees, we would hope that they would project their anger in more positive ways. 

Probably stands to reason for an industry that turned a blind eye to decades of  #MeToo antics because it self-served their careers would vote for someone that has outed them for the blatant hypocrites they are. Bill Cosby’s star will likely be defended with the fervor of the NYT backing Sarah Jeong. Why not replace Trump’s star for Jeong? Strike will the pick axe is hot!

It is just a star but symbolic of the radical left’s standards that it’s the side that matters, not the principle. We should be happy that the left champion victories like this. Ever more sanctimonious preaching of the highest moral standards to the masses who already have such low opinions of them most are suffering from vertigo – remember this?

Trump Derangement Syndrome is a national health crisis. Perhaps POTUS should direct billions to help fund a cure. Otherwise poor old taxpayers will need to fork out for even more property damage.

Thankfully WaPo’s fact checkers cleared Huckabee Sander’s audacious claim

569B1C9B-203F-4F03-8F81-3F3CFDC06993.jpeg

When CNN’s Jim Acosta demanded White House Spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders apologize for the administration’s stance that the media is the “enemy of the people”, she claimed one reporter “wanted to choke her”. Thankfully WaPo fact checkers cleared up her misrepresentation quoting they only wanted to “wring her neck. ” Huckabee Sanders is just so irresponsible to make such audacious claims.

The NY Times lectures Americans about child rearing

7AABD4A6-F25B-4A70-BFFA-4619267685C4.jpeg

Ahh, The New York Times. No sooner had it justified the hiring of a white/male/cop hating (torn asunder if one should be all three) and newly discovered NYT loathing editor in Sarah Jeong, it went out to lecture Americans on the importance of enforcing morals when raising children.

Should we pay attention when the openly homophobic NYT, a paper whose masthead endorses everything it claims it isn’t, points fingers? So who in its view would it prefer as a role model to have American parents instill such virtues in their kids? As opinion writer/photographer Damon Winter wrote, “What is it like to see young people exposed to so much anger? Heartbreaking.

While the tear-jerking article is best read to a sorrowful violin, let’s see some of the positive role models and people of integrity the paper rarely calls into question. Those from the left which the NYT might champion as possessing the higher moral code somewhat missing in Trump voters. Here are 15 options they may consider…

1. Sarah Jeong – white, male, police, NYT hating racist ? As a NYT employee she’s been vetted.

2. Peter Fonda – who thought Barron Trump should be locked in a cage with pedophiles?

3. Samantha Bee – who is comfortable calling Ivanka a feckless c*nt who should sit in a short skirt on her daddy’s lap to change his policy?

4. Johnny Depp  – who said it’s been a while since an actor assassinated a president?

5. Madonna – who threatened to blow up the White House?

6. Michelle Wolf – who thinks its funny to celebrate abortion or characterise Sarah Huckabee Sanders (SHS) as a fat softball playing lesbian Uncle Tom for white women? Say what happened to being PC?

7. Kathy Griffin – who held a bloodied decapitated head of Trump and then complained it was unfair that Trump ruined her career? Apologised, retracted it and complained again that she wanted pay equality despite her self inflicted stupidity causing her career to be in the dumps.

8. Maxine Waters – who suggested Americans should openly attack Trump admin officials in public after SHS was kicked out of the Red Hen restaurant?

9. Snoop Dogg – who shot POTUS in a music video?

10. Robert DeNiro – who wants to punch Trump in the face? Or the standing ovation he received for saying “F*ck Trump

11. Joy Behar – who is comfortable suggesting devout Christians are mentally ill?

12. Whoopi Goldberg – for supposedly calling Jeannine Pirro a “sand n*gger”?

13. Jim Acosta – CNN reporter who can’t take a fraction of what he dishes out and expects SHS to apologize for someone else’s beliefs? Or for asking inappropriate and irrelevant questions during the Kim summit?

14. Joe Biden – former VP who threatened to punch Trump behind the school shed?

15. Or perhaps put forward all the Hollywood celebrities who threatened if Trump became president to leave America but never did?

There is no question there are some highly unsavory characters on both sides of partisan politics. Yet to sandbag all 63mn who voted for The Donald as racist, bigoted and uneducated deplorables with questionable child raising children abilities re-inforces why liberals will have such a hard time convincing people they actually stand for something. If the Dems lose the mid-terms then it must be Russian meddling again, not their unhinged lunacy.

Until the left acknowledge they have a major problem with their image (especially as they go ever more socialist) they’ll struggle to convert many to their side. Last week even Maduro in Venezuela said socialism has been a massive failure.

There is a certain hollowness to Trump celebrating  his 50% approval rating (higher than Obama’s at the same stage). Reality is that Macron, May, Merkel, Trudeau and Turnbull dwindle in the mid 20-30s.

Despite such constant overwhelmingly negative media bias dished out to POTUS, just how badly can the mainstream media be misreading the mood of the people? The more negatives they hurl, the higher his support. The more effusive praise breathed on other world leaders, the more damage is done to their popularity. What gives?

It isn’t that Damon Winter doesn’t make a valid point about the importance of teaching all children good manners and ethics, it is a bit rich coming from a paper that has virtually no moral compass whatsoever. When The NY Times walks the talk it maybe worth paying attention.

No reason why it shouldn’t convert from a broadsheet to a tabloid to keep up with its new found image of ignoring every aspect of ethics it so willingly pushes on the rest of us.

High Time The NY Times believed or changed its own self-prescribed S&E code

5D09A335-3C02-4A34-96B5-D4AC6C587448.jpeg

Integrity is a must in journalism. Rarely do we see it. It seems that the white hating “fab new editor” Sarah Jeong also hates men and cops. If we forgive her hatred because others baited such that she was just giving it back, is there any evidence police mistreated her? Could it be a question of pulling her over for a traffic violation that they were doing their job, not deserved of “f*ck the police.” ?

44740AE6-D60D-4E2A-9384-A2F544A4D921.png

Although not on Jeong’s watch, isn’t the hypocrisy telling? Several weeks before the Putin-Trump summit in Helsinki the NYT was championing LGBT Pride Week. Post the summit, the paper proudly displayed a homophobic cartoon to disparage the two presidents. How is it that the champions of identity politics can’t even get their own self determined playing field equal?

In terms of integrity, fairness and truth the paper fails on all counts. Let’s see for ourselves. A quick referral to The NY Times own Standards & Ethics page we find:

Integrity

For more than a century, men and women of The Times have jealously guarded the paper’s integrity. Whatever else we contribute, our first duty is to make sure the integrity of The Times is not blemished during our stewardship.  At a time of growing and even justified public suspicion about the impartiality, accuracy and integrity of some journalists and some journalism, it is imperative that The Times and its staff maintain the highest possible standards to insure that we do nothing that might erode readers’ faith and confidence in our news columns. This means that the journalism we practice daily must be beyond reproach.

Under Fairness it prescribes:

The goal of The New York Times is to cover the news as impartially as possible — “without fear or favor,” in the words of Adolph Ochs, our patriarch — and to treat readers, news sources, advertisers and others fairly and openly, and to be seen to be doing so. The reputation of The Times rests upon such perceptions, and so do the professional reputations of its staff members. Thus The Times and members of its news department and editorial page staff share an interest in avoiding conflicts of interest or an appearance of a conflict.

And Truth

As journalists we treat our readers, viewers, listeners and online users as fairly and openly as possible. Whatever the medium, we tell our audiences the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. We correct our errors explicitly as soon as we become aware of them. We do not wait for someone to request a correction. We publish corrections in a prominent and consistent location or broadcast time slot. Staff members who plagiarize or who knowingly or recklessly provide false information for publication betray our fundamental pact with our readers. We do not tolerate such behavior.

As CM mentioned yesterday, there is no call for a boycott of the NYT or a movement to fire Sarah Jeong. CM wants these people at the NYT to walk the talk. If there is a code that the paper lives and dies by, stand by it or change it to reflect the unhinged nature the once reputable paper has become. Once again free markets will ultimately decide the paper’s fate. If it’s subscriber ranks swell then all power to it reading the mood of the public. Not even the return of the remains of gallant Korean War veterans who fought for their freedom remains worthy front page news. No just more anti-Trump noise.

The irony is that all the Jeong saga has exposed is that standards only apply conditionally. Just like those Hollywood actors who threatened to leave the US if Trump was elected. Pretty much all of them are still here.

The NY Times no longer hides the fact that it breaches all of it’s own self-imposed governance. That racism can be defended (even if it is not condoned) and because the paper is  so proud of its new hire it publicly announced an apology on Jeong’s behalf. Oh the sincerity! Surely if she is sorry for her racist outbursts, she could openly apologize herself? Perhaps the S&E code is still in transit to her home in Portland!

Imagine if the police decided to deprioritise a distress call from Jeong? It is highly likely they wouldn’t. There is a difference in those who put their lives on the line and a Harvard trust-fund baby that tweets from the safety of the very security those she accuses provide her.

NYT hires fab new editor who hates “dumbass f*cking white people”

123DD437-73A8-4D02-9052-E57A1CAD00A8.jpeg

Zerohedge reports that The NY Times has hired a fab new addition in Sarah Jeong to the ranks of the board of editors. It has been unearthed that 48 months ago Jeong said some pretty incendiary things about white people. From a personal standpoint as a white person, CM is not in the least bit impacted or offended by her statements. Alas it is just words and free speech. On the contrary the tweets say more about Jeong than any dumbass f*cking white people.

Was Jeong not aware that 8 of the 12 board of editors are currently white? Not that the board’s racial identity should have any bearing on disgraceful bigotry displayed by her.

The only point at stake here is whether The NY Times will defend and maintain consistent standards it would certainly hold if a white editor raged on about people of other colour. This isn’t a rally or #boycott (please no more boycotts) to get Jeong sacked. On the contrary. In free market thinking the question is whether The NY Times exercises rational judgement and sees that from a commercial perspective defending the indefensible might not be good for growing the business or encouraging a shrinking pool of paying advertisers to rent more space?

After the election of Trump, the newspaper changed its slogan to “The truth is more important now than ever.” For someone to espouse such bitter hatred so candidly in social media forums which have a half life of infinity, her truths are for all to see. The truth in The NY Times’ slogan is also on display.

How could The NY Times possibly hope to uphold the highest levels of ethics and moral high ground by defending her? In her press blurb the paper is effusive with praise citing, “Sarah has guided readers through the digital world with verve and erudition, staying ahead of every turn on the vast beat that is the internet.“ It is also quite telling that Twitter didn’t think she broke the very standards that would see conservative voices banned for far less offensive tweets.

CM wonders what the Harvard Law School has to say about its deeply talented alumni who served as Editor of the Journal of Law and Gender? Perhaps she just missed the ethics classes because she was too busy battling to make sure the correct pronouns were used in the articles on identity politics.

Lucky for The NY Times, Jeong will remain in Portland meaning should they choose to uphold the highest levels of integrity the paper won’t be required to fork out her relocation costs. CM had higher hopes for the paper. When it hired a conservative columnist in Bret Stevens there was hope that there was an attempt to seek some balance. He spoke of the vile hatred of the left in his first column. Read it here. The outcome of Jeong will speak more about The NY Times defending the side rather than the principle.

Juncker deserves a stiff drink after that

BD1DE83D-DCCC-4B88-849E-4603B5B16B07.jpeg

President Trump strode into the Rose Garden with EC President Jean-Claude Juncker where, together, they announced the elimination of tariffs on industrialized goods.

No stranger to slapping people in the head, Juncker understood that when the leader of the strongest nation in the world slaps you back it is often worth paying attention to. There is much left to be desired about the unorthodox methods used to achieve such outcomes but if such deals are achieved that should be hailed as a success.

On top of that, Trump received commitments from Juncker to increase purchases of soybeans from American farms and to purchase large amounts of LNG, something likely to upset the puppet-meister.

So NATO members have promised to get their act together on honouting commitments to spending to display their new bonafides and the EU has seen that they are no longer dealing with a pushover.

Undoubtedly the mainstream media will overlook this and devote coverage to a tape recording instead of acknowledging that sometimes bluster works when the counterparts are truly pushovers in the end. Theresa May, are you listening?