Left’s dual rules: Cake Bakers eat your hearts out

So, we get it: the cake bakers are disturbing hateful bigots for not making cakes, but cleanse the campus coffee houses of conservatives. No tolerance whatsoever.

Constitution.com

“Members of the Fordham University College Republicans club were recently asked to leave an on-campus coffee shop because they were wearing ‘Make America Great Again’ hats.”

The left calls offensive things triggering which deserve banning. But a cake baker must be forced to bake them a beautiful cake against his will.

Advertisements

What Discrimination?

How about another backwards thing? For years we’ve been lectured about discrimination by the left. I’m not sure why since it shouldn’t be a partisan thing. But they seem to think it is the right’s dream or agenda to discriminate. Well, a funny thing happens when you parse it all down to politics, which is what really drives the left.

The left is all worked up about Little Sisters of the Poor, birth control, the abortion agenda, Obamacare, and now baking wedding cakes for LGBTQXYZ’s. Tuesday is the day a case is going to the Supreme Court to decide. But you know the drill, you cannot refuse to bake them a wedding cake. Period! So there are activists going around trying to force bakers to make them a cake. If you refuse, they sue. It’s the new fad for the left.

Issue of the case: Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

But who cares about any of those Constitutional rights?

Details

The agency, however, dismissed that explanation as “a distinction without a difference,” and it ruled both that Phillips’ refusal to provide the custom cake violated Colorado anti-discrimination laws and that Phillips had “no free speech right” to turn down Craig and Mullins’ request. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld that ruling and told Phillips – among other things – that if he decided to create cakes for opposite-sex weddings, he would also have to create them for same-sex weddings.

The problem with their discrimination complaints is that discrimination is the business model of the left. It is their M/O. They want to force people to do whatever they want them to do and they won’t take no for an answer. Discrimination is the enforcer.

Take their boycotts, for example, which are based on discrimination. That’s how they do politics. They want anyone to refuse to do business with Trump supporters or anyone who supports the Republican tax plan. They’ll use any businesses they can in their agenda.

They look for advertisers of Fox or Fox shows and then rally their activists against them, by phone calls, twitter or Facebook campaigns. They target businesses into submission to their agenda. Then the business or corporation is to take action against a particular person, show, or program host. Have a bad decision in court they don’t like? Well, organize the people and boycott the offending parties. Beat them into submission.

They like to black list or boycott anyone or thing that does not conform to their political agenda. But that is their model. They get things done by coercion, intimidation or force, by any means necessary, bullying them to cooperate. Or else you will be barred, marginalized or retaliated against just as those who disagree with them are. That is the big stick they use against you, discrimination. The Black Caucus discriminates based on ideology.

It’s the same principle that caused Senator Schumer to single out a woman in a restaurant in NY and berated her for voting for Trump. He followed her outside to continue his verbal assault on her. When Barack Obama was in office during the government shutdown he sent word out to the departments that the public, people, needed to be made to feel its effects. Obama’s IRS targeted individuals and harassed them due to their political beliefs.

In Senate nomination hearings, Senator Feinstein told nominee Amy Barrett that “dogma lives loudly” in her. The statements caused NYT and media to then take up that mantra in media and columns. So they operate as a caliphate. But a senior Catholic scholar took issue with their discriminatory track against Barrett.

Ashley McGuire said: “An accomplished professor and legal scholar at the University of Notre Dame, the qualifications and credentials of Amy Barrett are unchallenged. That the left continues to treat her Roman Catholic faith as an impediment to office is a testament to just how beholden they are to their anti-religious bigotries.”

So true; it is a validation of Democrats own bigoted, discrimination agenda.

In another infamous hearing, Chuck Schumer was so worried about “deeply held beliefs” that would disqualify the nominee. He was determined to make that the deciding factor on nominee Bill Pryor in 2003. (just in case we think this is a new phenomena)

Charles Krauthammer, at the time, took him to task for his bigoted discrimination:

Pryor has more recently been attacked from a different quarter. Senate Democrats have blocked his nomination to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds of his personal beliefs. “His beliefs are so well-known, so deeply held,” charged his chief antagonist, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) , “that it’s very hard to believe–very hard to believe–that they’re not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, `I will follow the law.”‘

An amazing litmus test: deeply held beliefs are a disqualification for high judicial office. Only people of shallow beliefs (like Schumer?) need apply.

Of course, Schumer’s real concern is with the content of Pryor’s beliefs. Schumer says that he would object to “anybody who had very, very deeply held views.” Anybody? If someone had deeply held views in favor of abortion rights, you can be sure that Schumer would not be blocking his nomination. Pryor is being pilloried because he openly states (1) that Roe vs. Wade was a constitutional abomination, and (2) that abortion itself is a moral abomination. — Chicago Tribune column.

So that about covers it. You see, ‘it’s the discrimination, stupid.’ Only now it is out in the open. They use words like “so far out of the mainstream” all the time. Code talk. Who gets to define “mainstream?” Of course, they or Schumer and Feinstein do. Judging by the direction the Democrats have gone in the past few years, mainstream is now in the San Francisco Bay. Don’t agree with abortion? A litmus test is discrimination.

If you don’t follow them into the Bay, or at least to the shoreline, then you too will feel the wrath of their discrimination. It’s only a matter of when and how. Discrimination is alive.

Though the left will be the first to raise discrimination objections as a defense. Rep Conyers is rolling out a whole discrimination defense. The radical left made discrimination the basis of an anti-travel ban campaign. They discriminate against conservatives on campuses, or Trump voters in the heartland, while accusing them of discrimination.

Saul Alinsky was probably their top cleric of discrimination. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” That’s the way, uh huh-uh huh, we like it.

Right Ring | Bullright

The political marketplace: weaponizing business

Check out this foundation article included which seems a bit misleading – to be kind. It is about the Hannity advertising scheme going on. Let the dis-ingenuousness begin.

You know the routine: libs feign outrage over something in conservative media and turn it into a war on sponsors. Or war against them as the case may be. It is all too common. Even worse is the will of businesses to comply to demands. See full article:

(Marketwatch) – “E-Trade, TripAdvisor and Conagra are among the companies that say they will stop advertising on ‘Hannity’ in the wake of Roy Moore allegations.”

“Stop” being the operative word. Just keep that in mind and decide if that is misleading. Some companies make statements who were not currently advertising anyway. But it makes for good fodder for Media Matters extortionists. See what you notice in it.

Back to the M/O

But even the left’s outrage is disingenuous because the offense is not the real objective, the voice of the person is. Libs don’t want to watch the content regardless of the offense. They want the person or show canceled via their protest causing sponsors to abandon it, thereby hopefully getting it removed. The offending material is only an excuse to attack the show/host. The left has a pattern of these attack campaigns. And none other than Media Matters specializes in attacks on anyone or media that doesn’t cow-tow to their agenda.

It has had some success I won’t bother to list.

So it is all routine to the radical left but claiming it is about this or that issue is very deceptive. It is about silencing opposition, simple as that. We all know it but it is important. If they can only shut up their opposition they can railroad their agenda. Only one thing stands in their way, the 1st amendment — free speech and freedom of press. Actions of leftists don’t support either. Sure, they talk a good game when convenient.

Again, we know that. However, nothing stops them from pushing the envelope of their agenda further and further. As is the case when they go down their extensive ‘targets’ list to silence; or down their list of advertisers to the program.

First of all, when someone advertises, it does not mean they are endorsing all the opinions or content of the program. It is not a political endorsement either. It is, in fact, an advertisement to reach eyeballs or certain people. Their objective is sales or exposure to viewers. Again, it is not an endorsement of content or politics. Consumers know this.

You cannot hold the advertisers responsible for what the show does, and you cannot hold the network responsible for what the advertiser says. The network is not the customer service center for the company. And consumers shouldn’t be calling the company because they don’t like the programming. Each are independent with their own interests.

However, advertisers turn into political fodder when they are manipulated by activists like Media Matters and used in a silencing campaign against their targets. Companies are objects of extortion or intimidation in an effort to politicize, and then weaponize them.

Yes, they can go along willingly, but they can be threatened to go along as well. When they comply, they allow their brand and its recognition to be used for specious political motives. So political activists hijack and freely use brands toward their own political objectives.

Normally the problem or damage comes when companies do not give in to the threats. Then they are smeared just as the original target is. Some businesses take what they think is the “easy route” by complying to the demands. It is like the old mob protection racket, where they promise not to break your windows if you just pay the protection. In this case the payment of protection is dropping your ads from a certain target. So, in effect, they are asking the store owner to go break one of his own windows, with the promise they’ll help with the damage. The store owner then, consciously or not, enters into a cozy alliance with the villain racketeers. As long as you support their agenda with your own business practices, they will not cause you further injury.

Does enslavement enter your mind? What about the concept of private property? Something radicals do not have personally invested in it.

Just think about turning over your brand, or proprietary info, to activists for safekeeping? All the years of building your company and brand mean nothing to these extortionists. They only care about what you do with it, or more like how they can use your brand for their political objectives. The definition of Terrorism is threatening or harming people for political motives. Would you turn your car or house over to someone to use to further their own political agenda? I don’t think so.

Now we conservatives don’t sit around and say I don’t like this media or this person and take note of their sponsors to harass them into pulling their ads. It’s not something we do. We don’t hate watch them to track sponsors. And we know that those sponsors are not endorsing the content or opinions, only advertising to eyeballs or ears.

Fast forward to this latest attempt to weaponize Hannity’s sponsors over an interview he did with Roy Moore. The content was not the issue. The statements of Hannity was not the issue. Shutting Hannity down is the only issue. Another priority is the election in Alabama. (or elections is now a priority to Media Matters) And this plays to both ends, the election and silencing Hannity. In the left’s sponsor shakedown they solicit statements from advertisers to not advertise on the show. Keurig was one such company — whether sucked in naively or not.

Only this time the viewers, conservatives and free speech advocates intervened. They promptly told Keurig it had earned a boycott for their trouble. It wasn’t for Hannity but the principle. Over a few days, Keurig realized they tripped over people’s wrath by complying with the fascist left, Media Matters. A boycott was off to a bang but was criticized by MM as dumb for Sean to do.(it wasn’t him) The CEO then apologized to its employees — not the public — that it did not intend to take sides. Ha, too late. They were now involved and had their company held hostage to the left’s demands. Apologizing to the employees does not help that.

Videos popped up of former customers ejecting their coffee makers. This time was different. They may have been threatened with a boycott by Media Matters’ goons, but now they got an actual protest….anyway. See what you get playing games, trying to appease the left? Then came the oops to employees. A funny thing happened on the way to appeasing the fascists: they realized they will get a protest even if they appease the left, and very possibly a boycott too.

Then Libs didn’t realize we we were 6 weeks from Christmas and this puts their season at some risk. Well, that is the cost of getting into bed with the left. Do they care about your business? Do they care about your bottom line? Do they care about your employees? No, and they don’t care about your name or brand either since they are putting that at risk with their political campaigns. Does that mean anything to them? Not a cent, they are only using, abusing, politicizing, and weaponizing these companies.

By Wednesday, NYT had this piece saying advertisers were walking back tweets.

But by Tuesday, those companies were clarifying — or even deleting — statements they had made on the platform that indicated they had pulled ads from Mr. Hannity’s show because of comments he made about Roy S. Moore, the embattled Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama. Those moves followed a backlash against Keurig that included fans of Mr. Hannity posting videos of themselves destroying the company’s coffee makers.

“It’s pretty unusual to see companies like this handling an issue so poorly,” said Kara Alaimo, an assistant professor of public relations at Hofstra University. She said it was especially surprising to see companies like Realtor.com and Volvo delete widely circulated tweets.

The problem is that in the case of Hannity, he has a following including free speech advocates. In Media Matters’ corner, you have radical political hacks and their trolls attacking anything it disagrees with. An actual product or show has a consumer base, where MM does not — it operates on opposition. So fans and advocates or speech spoke up. I guess MM did not anticipate that. Then advertisers realized they could incur as much wrath from taking a stand against Hannity. (which shouldn’t be a compan’s role) They may have figured it is better to appeal to someone’s loyal base, rather than just oppose it. See the dynamics? Interesting that the left has always operated with free reign, where the default position was usually to side with it. But all you need is that big crack in the wall.

From the company point of view, who would want to be brow beaten into doing something or told by others how to spend their ad dollars? Then who wants their company dragged through the mud of politics? Their business model is the bottom line not politics. To add even more damage, MM hacks have also taken the liberty to start speaking for companies, if they are with them or if they are against them. And they usurp a certain power (liberty) over companies in the process. Then they have the nerve to act or even say they represent the best interests of the businesses. No they don’t. Remember the protection racket?

That stand and attitude should bother anyone in business. The idea that a company you built or run is suddenly turned over to whims of a political agenda should be concerning. That a brand you have a proprietary value in is being toyed with by political activists, is equivalent to squatting on your corporate name. It should be seen as an infringement. I think it is time someone send a cease and desist letter to the Media Matters protestors to stop using their name as part of political campaigns. That might send some chills into the corporate extortionists.

Until that happens, when companies and their ad money stand up on their own, independent of political hijackers and extortionists, they can be sucked into a whole lot of bad karma for appeasement policies. It can be a bigger liability than dealing with the protection racketeers.

My opinion is that when companies participate in these campaigns they become tools, weaponized by organizers, little more. I know some may think they are taking a stand but any short-term gains might not be worth the long-term damage and pain it can cause. Not to mention sort of losing control of your business. The issue is bigger than this though. This is a market model.(I don’t believe in it but it is) When companies are activated like this it has an effect on the economy. It turns them into cheap political interests like every other political organ. But actually they become more; they are radicalized and expended as mere political tools. Why would corporations allow themselves to be reduced to that?

I know some companies still take a stand on their special political issues, but they don’t have to morph into special interests or lobbyists. Using a company that way is careless.

Right Ring | Bullright

Rights in question by definition

This is about a wide range of events, not just on the Las Vegas shootings.

I pray for all the victims, families, and all the heroes too. My heart goes out to them.

All these many issues and events are connected with a common theme. It’s pretty simple. Principles and philosophy are keys to the common denominator in all.

 

The phrase has repeatedly been proven so many times that “Democrats don’t trust people with their own money.” That always keeps coming up, and we keep saying it. Of course it doesn’t change though, it’s always the same way in the end. They don’t.

But not only don’t progressives, liberals or whatever, not trust us with our money; they don’t trust us with the 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, 5th or the 9th amendments. The same theme throughout is that you cannot be trusted with those “rights” or the freedoms, even those which are not enumerated and retained by the people.

1st: they don’t trust you with your freedom of religion, speech, or assembly. It doesn’t matter that you are secure in those rights. Either the government or others know better and so you are not capable of using your rights to your best interest. That they should have veto powers over those “rights”. Limited by any means.

2nd: You cannot be trusted with the rights to own arms, that someone needs to oversee and regulate or limit your rights. (first they tried to say your rights don’t even apply but Heller decided that. Now they are up to the less right you have, the better for society)

5th: You cannot be trusted with your own freedom of private property. Kelo decision tried to answer that. Your right stops at government’s need and greed. The Supremes freely and liberally reinterpreted what “public use” means — whatever they want it to, including economic value to the community. Secondly, likewise “just compensation” means what they say it means — for what public use they deem fit — for your property.

Hitler once corrected a reporter on how he was not opposed to ownership of private property, just that property owners should consider themselves agents of the state.

9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” They believe in limiting your enumerated rights and so naturally they are suspicious on your ability to handle any of your rights not enumerated, which they can disparage, regulate or deny. Basically, they reserve their right over your rights. I cannot find their superior, sovereign power.

So is there a running theme here? I think so. But now we see that they just don’t trust us, or people in general, in their freedom. Notice they are very suspicous of our motives or use of our rights. And I’m suspicious of progressives’ sincerity about the Bill of Rights.

And of course by denying or restricting those first ten of the Bill of rights, they also infringe on the 14th amendment of due process and equal protections of the laws.

It becomes clear with any serious thought that the left, who spouts platitudes about rights, just does not trust you — or anyone opposed to their interpretation, thinking, or ideology. Thus, your rights must be subservient to their ideology, agenda and political convenience.

Liberals don’t trust you with your money, rights, freedom, or property, or believe in your ability to protect it. That government’s duty is to control our freedom, not secure it.

Right Ring | Bullright

Means of dissent

Whether consciously among most leftists or not, the idea is that many people all have disagreements and that those individual disagreements can then be harnessed, united and directed, symbolically, at the flag and Anthem. America itself can be the object of individual disagreements under a big tent. (in reverse of unification theory) That big tent often becomes the Democrat party. So people can loosely unify against the flag.

This is evidenced in the NFL protest and all those being sympathetic in some way to it, even including the owners. They parlayed it into a vehicle for generic hatred of Trump, or protest of him. And racism or oppression. The individual issues or disagreements don’t seem to matter, as long as collectively focused or that they march together.

Disagreement to disdain

Why can they unite on a platform of dissent so easily but not uni formally under the flag? Disagreements. They say that they don’t feel united under the flag, or feel left out, or don’t like our policies etc. Even if much of the discontent is a product of what they are doing.

Everyone may have their different disagreements, powerful as they are, with issues or policies or traditions, yet all can sort of agree in protest as a loose-knit group of discontents. That dissent can then be channeled or directed at America. Dissent breeds disdain. And those who are not predisposed to have much affinity for that American flag, America, have no problem transferring their animosity onto the flag. In the end, the source of animosity is often not as important as what it is directed at. The gestalt of the protest reigns supreme.

You see, it amounts to using the freedom of speech to protest the very guarantor of it. This is a radical perversion directed at America’s foundation. Freedom of press, or the first amendment, can be used to solidify dissent against America. That is something Marx and Engels understood well. It does not take a majority to succeed in undermining America.

Protesters and discontents can stand on their freedom to do it, but what of its use?
Does what you do with something not matter at all — but only your right to do it?

It should sound familiar: the ends justify the means. Just like the slogan of the Trump Resistance movement is resist “by any means necessary.” Outcome is all that matters.

On the plus upside: at least one ESPN host is “tired of it,” Stephen A. Smith. Score.
And Ravens’ Anthem singer resigned, a vet, saying to ‘go where you’re welcomed.’

Cost of NFL’s anti-America protest — fans and NFL sponsors.
Cost of American freedom — eternal vigilance.

Right Ring | Bullright

Triggering Statues

It seems like those triggering statues are everywhere, to the left. They are so offensive they need to be removed from the offended eye, barred from public, or destroyed.(who said art needed to be perfect?)

So I think I have a solution. It’s very simple. People should think of statues like tweets. Offensive ones may be out there but you can either ignore them or just accept them.

People retweet for different reasons. Sometimes maybe they want others to see it. You don’t agree with everything.You can retweet an offensive comment because you think it deserves to be seen by others.

People can’t ban every offensive tweet. Sometimes you want others to see some offending thing or they make their comment on the retweet.

Not every tweet or twitter person is 100% pure. You wouldn’t want people on twitter to only be able to say certain agreeable things. Only certain authors should be able to tweet. But if you don’t like or appreciate it, you don’t put a like on it or don’t retweet it.

Now the opposite is quickly becoming the case. Some people want to do to twitter and tweets what they are doing to statues: remove or ban the offending ones, as if it is actively offending you because it is there. Therefore, it does not deserve to be on the media or internet and must be banned, possibly along with the author.

Is that what they want to do to the internet? That’s what they are doing to public spaces. What type of statues then can we have? What shall be allowed? Who will decide it, who will enforce it?

Outrage move on over.

Colin Kaepernick can take a knee or sit out the national anthem but a coach is fired and told by a judge that he cannot take a knee to pray on the 50 yard line. So he deserved to be fired. Now, Kaepernick is having a hard time getting employed as people demand he be given a spot, no matter how good a player he is. He needs affirmative action to be hired. His protest deserves a spot. A coach taking a knee deserves to be banished from coaching. But the left doesn’t see this as crazy.

You can be radical enough to stand down on the national anthem and get celebrated for it. Yet you should be rejected for taking a knee on the 50. Where is the rule book for conduct? Where’s the tolerance?

But if you are going to ban statues then you must ban Twitter. It’s too triggering for the public. On the other hand, if you can accept Twitter, then think of statues like Tweets.

Right Ring | Bullright

Liberals’ Narrative of Rage

I could use a 1,000 words on the state of liberaldom and liberal media but it almost defies description in many ways. Yet there is no doubt about what they are doing. That liberaldom, and its apologists, are an institutional danger.

When media has mainstreamed propaganda to this level by well-known people, with so-called journalists, we have entered a new state. That it is yet celebrated is another symptom.

Ana Navarro of CNN said Trump “is unfit to be human.” Talk about dehumanizing. The vice-mayor of Charlottesville only calls him 45 because Trump hasn’t earned the respect or title of president. David Gergen, former presidential adviser, said Trump cannot “deal with racism in the country until he deals with the racism in his own heart.”

Just a few more for amusement. A consensus at CNN was Trump is now the ‘Supremacist In Chief.’ Michael Moore declares any white person who voted for him is a racist.

Welcome to ‘No-Reality TV’ – media.

Media: Agents of Ulterior Agenda

I thought it would be useful for scientific purposes to look at who it is the MSM thinks they’re talking to? Who are their preferred viewers or readers? Who is their focus?

First of all, it would be someone who is able to be influenced. Zoom in on those like a laser. So that means that people can be influenced. If they didn’t think so, then they would be wasting their time. Maybe not all, though those are the ones they are concerned with.

And evidently, media thinks this segment of people are pretty dumb. At least uninformed to the point media’s new, enlightened information can possibly change what they think or believe about something, like Donald Trump. Too dumb and you are of no use to them politically, which is of course all that matters.(politics)

That also aligns with what Obama believed, when he always lectured us about not understanding or comprehending what he was doing and saying. You know, it was the ignorant people who were just too dumb to know what was good for them. But he, the smart guy he was, always knew what was good for us. We heard it for 8 years.

The idea is if people were only as smart as they are, we all would agree with libs. It’s their no-brainer, self-evident truth. If persons still don’t believe in Liberal’s agenda, then they are either dumb or some ignorant form of sub-human beings. And discarded as such.

There are basically only two choices: smart like them or ignorant if you disagree. Media and Obama read from the same script. If you are the dumb unconvinced type, you should be rolled by masses who believe otherwise, with no compassion for your views. Having any compassion for your views would humanize you — they must avoid that at all cost.

The people media are concerned with are those that can be pushed, shoved or corralled into supporting libs’ views, in some way. So media wants to be talking right to them as much as possible. It isn’t worried about the ones who do agree, only those who don’t. (they are a threat) That is why Obama, Pelosi or now media have to demonize them.

 

This made me contemplate what I would be if I was their ideal target? I would be someone who is not locked into any belief. (unless to their liberal views) I would be someone who just is not very familiar with any “real” facts. (*real as liberals term them)

I would be impressionable and could believe something based on my sensitivities — natural or coerced — to other people. I would be someone who could give in to peer pressure or brow-beating. Or, alternatively, I could be someone who gives in easily if faced with some unified front of opposition – or defeated by coercive force.

I might also be someone who believes in the nobility of man’s motives or desires, as generally good. I would be someone who is basically gullible, or enough so that I accept what they tell me as basically correct and have a tendency to agree with simple profound points projected at me.

I would believe in, or accept, a zero sum ‘one way or another’ ideology that tells me I either agree with liberals or stand condemned. I would believe that liberals probably are correct about most of the major issues, the more I learn and study about them.

I might also accept the fact, or learn it, that critical thinking only needs to be applied toward non-liberals. I would also soon learn that there is only one way to look at things, in the end. Other views are invalid or need to be abolished. I might also accept that liberals bestow freedom on us and that, in the end, they should control it as its most intelligent caretakers. Throw in someone with an anti-American bias as a bonus prerequisite.

Incidentally, when I consider this profile, I think how it overlays with someone Russians or Marxists look for. So their ideal targets of opportunity seem to overlap the same types.

More could no doubt be added. But Obama, liberals, and media target the same profiles and people. They just believe it is all a matter of informing us enough with their material — be it news or propaganda — to convert us into a usable, controllable political commodity.

It’s worth noting, too, that this group of liberal orthodoxy and their mindset are the ones orchestrating this self-declared Resistance movement. What is wrong with that picture?

RightRing | Bullright

Nothing new to CNN and blackmail

Back on the day before Trump’s inauguration, CNN’s Jeff Zucker said, basically threatening Trump and his administration, that:

“One of the things I think this administration hasn’t figured out yet is that there’s only one television network that is seen in Beijing, Moscow, Seol, Tokyo, Pyongyang, Baghdad, Tehran, and Damascus – and that’s CNN.

The perception of Donald Trump in capitals around the world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN. Continuing to have an adversarial relationship with [us] that network is a mistake.

Do the translation of that. We hold your perception in our hands, act accordingly.
Our media monopoly = your ‘perception’ demise, should we decide so. From the network with 93% negative coverage of Trump. (that is not adversarial, it’s vendetta journalism)

Forward to today and one objectionable meme to CNN. They hunt down and solicit an apology and he removes content, and then CNN says:

“CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.”

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

Andrew the self-anointed speech cop for CNN claims no threat.
Now we are “misinterpreting” their statement. Nah, don’t think so.

Two “Becauses”, one “in addition” and one “reserves right should ANY of that change.” = no threat? (IOW: a veto right to our nondisclosure of your identity and whatever we like.)

Where is his “right” (speech) “reserved”? No, it is now conditional upon CNN’s approval.

Misinterpreted? Lots of “intent” there. Who made them speech judge, juror, executioner?

(But if it were a CNN anonymous source, ignore and reverse all the above.)

175 & Counting Lawsuit and Blackmail

Who are the 175? Well, it’s the beginning, and growing, number of plaintiffs who are part of a class action lawsuit against CNN for its discriminatory practices.

Wonder why you don’t hear about this and it never comes up on their own news network when they talk about discrimination? Funny how that is.

Here’s Something You Don’t Hear Much About: The 175 People Suing CNN For Racial Discrimination

By: Joseph Curl | Daily Wire

There has been much ado — and rightly so — over the goings on at Fox News Channel – sexual harassment, hush money allegedly paid to victims, a string of high-profile resignations (some of which were really firings)…./

There has been much ado — and rightly so — over the goings on at Fox News Channel – sexual harassment, hush money allegedly paid to victims, a string of high-profile resignations (some of which were really firings).

“The lawsuit against CNN, meanwhile, claims the company’s Atlanta headquarters is rife with racism,” The New York Post wrote on April 27.

“The lawsuit against CNN, meanwhile, claims the company’s Atlanta headquarters is rife with racism,” The New York Post wrote on April 27.

Minority employees had to endure bigoted remarks such as “It’s hard to manage black people” and “Who would be worth more: black slaves from times past, or new slaves?,” according to a complaint by former workers Celeslie Henley and Ernest Colbert Jr. filed in Atlanta federal court.

Colbert Jr. also claims he was paid thousands less than white colleagues as a manager at the affiliated Turner Broadcasting System.

Henley, a former CNN executive assistant, says she was fired in 2014 for complaining that black employees were being paid less than white counterparts.

See more: http://www.dailywire.com/news/16140/heres-something-you-dont-hear-much-about-175-joseph-curl

 

Another Offensive Move from CNN media

Compounding their injury, CNN has now engaged in a blackmail campaign against the meme-maker of the CNN – WWE smackdown video, featuring Trump. These people apparently have no sense of humor whatsoever. And they cannot take any mockery at all, even while they ridicule and mock the American people and White House daily.

They threatened this social media person, a 15 yr-old kid man, with exposing his real identity and other posts they found objectionable. How they got the information, supposedly from ISP via TWC, adds to it. They basically made him agree to shut up.

But what difference does it make who made the clever little video joke that went viral? Only CNN cares because they claim it “incites violence.” They also want Twitter to shut down Trump’s Twitter account for posting it. Now they claim they’ll continue asking Twitter why they haven’t taken action? Whew-wee, have they taken it too far or what?

That is the same network chronically complaining about ‘off-camera’ White House press briefings. That curtails their grandstanding and filibuster capabilities. Even though there is no such requirement in our US Constitution to them.

The same network who daily uses more anonymous sources than freckles. They demand protection and guarantee it to “sources,” no matter how controversial their leaks are. No problem, the leakers need Constitutional protections.

However, a private citizen who made a clever, funny meme on the internet is sought, bullied, threatened and blackmailed by CNN into silence. (Read, threaten to turn left-wing goons on him) They don’t really have a clue on the first amendment or the Constitution.

So the lesson, class, is no free speech in the first amendment for the people. Only plenty of far-reaching protections for the MSM elite media, “press” though.

Conclusion: CNN has become 1st Amendment Assassins — my first amendment view.

(*Correction: so it was not a 15 yr old kid, but again that only matters to CNN)

A Democrat message in a bottle to anyone listening

Welcome to the Left — I mean the new reality. (oops even ‘reality’ is a pun now.)

I heard interesting conversations from libs in the last few days, after the Alexandria shooting. It was “one nut,” “one crazy guy.” So you point out that it is more than one guy out there with the DNC. They scoff. Then you point to tweets and Libs’ blame of Trump for even shooting Reublicans. Nice. They deny it has anything to do with partisan politics.

They tell you how they condemn all forms of violence by anyone. “It is not a left vs right thing,” they claim, “we support peaceful action.” Why can’t we all get along, why the bitterness? We point out the Left’s problem and propensity for violence, so they claim they haven’t seen or known anyone like that. You can only play dumb for so long. (below)

Actually it looks and feels a lot like arguments about Islam and terrorists. The same tactics and strategy in both. If it is one thing I concluded over the years, it is that violence is the Left’s plan-B when it can’t get its way.

To the rescue: Pat Buchanan has ‘Exhibit-A’ chronicling the long, bitter history of the Left with hatred and the violence accompanying it. Hey, they don’t call it Hard Left for nothing.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

James T. Hodgkinson of Belleville, Illinois, who aspired to end his life as a mass murderer of Republican Congressmen, was a Donald Trump hater and a Bernie Sanders backer.

Like many before him, Hodgkinson was a malevolent man of the hating and hard left.

His planned atrocity failed because two Capitol Hill cops were at that Alexandria baseball field, providing security for House Whip Steve Scalise. Had those cops not been there, a massacre would have ensued with many more dead than the gunman.

More at: http://buchanan.org/blog/long-history-leftist-hatred-127223

But we have an evolving view playing out in front of us. Here is an exchange.

Excuse number one:(from a Dem strategist)

Sigh or high-five, who can be sure?

Of course it is only a sampling, there are too many to mention. It is cool to talk up their hatred insisting that somehow the Left’s violence could be justified because of Republicans’ agenda or what we did. Blame the victims as if Repubs should have expected this.

And then there is the class war argument. How long have libs been running on class warfare? Yet the idiots have that figured out too. Dems class warfare is our fault too — even though it is about all they have to run on. Their strategy is blamed on Repubs.

Have you ever witnessed a bunch of people more averse to taking any responsibility than the liberal left? Republicans and conservatives aren’t even in the same race.

Time for a Truth Bomb for Pelosi

This is inconvenient, for a lady who claims to be a stalwart Catholic, familiar with Catholic doctrine, who also often finds herself out of step with traditional teachings on life or other cultural issues.

But in this episode, in San Fran Nan’s zeal to attack the Republicans’ alternative plan to Obamacare that passed the house, and her rush to defend Obamacare — Affordable Healthcare Act — she really muddies the water on religion and politics.

Pelosi made her remarks at her press conference shortly after the passing of the latest Obamacare alternative in the House. But it was a repeated lie she had already used against the former Republican bill, which was pulled and did not get passed.

She rattles off a list of organizations opposed to the Republican plan (many of which originally supported Obamacare) She then lists churches or faith-based institutions along with the United Methodist Church.

First let’s start with the previous bill, on 3/09/17, at her press conference, Pelosi said:

So again, on three fronts, of course, the Affordable Care Act and all that it means to families is very important. The United Methodist Church, in their statement, said people will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care. AARP, the American Medical Association, the hospital association, nurses and physicians, patients, insurers, and consumer groups all oppose the GOP bill.

Again, last week on 5/4/17 Pelosi says: (at an open press conference)

“Sister Simone Campbell said, ‘this is not the faithful way forward and must be rejected.’ The Catholic Health Association wrote, ‘we strongly encourage the full house to reject this replacement bill.’ And the United Methodist Church said, ‘opposing Trumpcare, this is what they said, people will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.

Lutheran services of America said, ‘Trumpcare will jeopardize the health care and long-term service and support of millions of Americans.’ The Episcopal Church said, ‘Trumpcare falls woefully short of our spiritual calling to care for the least of these, as well as the noble values upon which our great nation was founded.’ End of quote. And all that was said before the Republicans decided to destroy the protections of Americans with pre-existing conditions. — [Pelosi- press conference on 5/4/17]

Below is apparently the UMC statement from the article Pelosi was referring to:
Note the author says she is the General Secretary [excerpt]

Health Care is a Basic Human Right

The General Secretary’s statement on Congressional Efforts to rollback health care

by Rev. Dr. Susan Henry-Crowe on March 07, 2017

“We must not allow our leaders to take away affordable and accessible health care from the communities who need it to live and live abundantly.

This bill has been promoted as a “fix” to the health care system in the United States but will do nothing to improve access and affordability. Instead, it will harm many in the congregations and communities in which we live and serve. People will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.”

That is basically marked as the General Secretary’s personal statement. How could it be conferred as the statement from the national conference board of the UMC? It s one member’s personal position, though it is posted on the GBCS.org website.

It was one member of the UMC church, as influential as she may be. It does not speak for the entire church itself, as Pelosi suggested. No, she insisted on two separate occasions that it was a statement on behalf of the United Methodist Church.

Dr. Henry-Crowe stated in conclusion: (note the pronoun I)

“I will be calling my members of Congress to urge them to vote no on the bill, and I encourage United Methodists in the United States to join me in advocating for a health care system that leaves no person behind.”

She encourages other members to take that action……on behalf of herself, as the Secretary. But she does not speak for the entire church. Again, she has it posted on the GBCS website. Henry-Crowe, not a medical doctor, also offers no proof for the claim that “people will die”.

Another UM news outlet disected Pelosi’s dilemma: [excerpt]
Good News – Walter Fenton- [*GBCS is General Board & Church Society]

“We were confident no such [“people wiill die”] statement existed. The UM Church, thankfully, does not make a habit of pontificating on every bill that comes before Congress. Only the General Conference, which meets every four years, can pronounce authoritatively for the UM Church. What we suspected was that Rep. Pelosi had read something a UM bishop or the General Secretary of GBCS had said about the bill. And sure enough, Henry-Crowe had recently opined, “People will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.” Pelosi gladly took Henry-Crowe’s personal prognostication that “people will die,” as the UM Church’s official word on the bill. It is not.

Henry-Crowe, who holds two degrees in theological studies, and for 22 years served as the dean of the chapel and religious life at Emory University before her role at GBCS, offered no evidence to support her hyperbolic claim. Her remark is particularly interesting in light of a recent column by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. To be sure, like Henry-Crowe, Douthat is not a health care expert. But unlike her, he actually references reputable studies that find claims about how many lives this or that insurance plan will save to be overblown. As Douthat notes, since the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA, Americans have not become healthier or experienced lower mortality rates (they’re actually higher in some of the states and counties where Medicaid was expanded).

It is hard to understand why, in a church with rank-and-file members from across the political spectrum, GBCS has felt compelled to march almost uniformly to the left on most issues. And it often seems incapable of even acknowledging people of good faith and good will might find alternative prescriptions to be reasonable, responsible, and compassionate. GBCS has a propensity to close off options and stifle conversation before it gets started. So if you don’t stand with Henry-Crowe and GBCS on the recent bill before Congress, you’re evidently comfortable with a plan that will allow “people [to] die. (read full article here) ”

Listen to two more excerpts in the same article which make the point:

“GBCS [General Board] seems to have no dialogue partners in a church that desperately needs them.”

“This is odd and even unhelpful coming from an organization appointed to serve and represent the whole church, not just its left wing.”

“Progressives often style themselves as community organizers for social justice, but you seldom get the impression that GBCS folks are actually out organizing among the grassroots. Instead, they are more often found provoking laity and pastors with progressive pronouncements issued from their Capitol Hill offices in Washington D.C.”

“In the future, we hope Henry-Crowe can find the good in other proposals and refrain from conversation stoppers like, “people will die.”

So, in the end, Pelosi was duped or lied. Though she should have at least looked at the statement — it is not a UMC dicta. Maybe other Methodists were even hoodwinked by Pelosi’s careless public assertion about a specious commentary, coming from one member who happens to be a Secretary.

Though if Pelosi is going to go out and make a proclamation representing an entire organization, or church, she should have confirmed it first.

It’s also interesting in light of President Trump’s executive order over the Johnson Amendment. For years, there have been threats to churches about taking part in politics, yet, as the author above states, some members freely associate the church with left-wing politics on current issues. That political activism is celebrated, just as this was by Pelosi, as a formal church position on progressive, liberal political issues. That is no problem at all.

Funny how whenever it is abortion or other cultural, traditional issues then people claim it is over the line, off bounds for the church. There are plenty of examples.

When churches or clergy sign a petition to Congress to investigate aid to Israel, no problem with that lobbying. But there is never any dialogue, criticism of left wing positions the UMC adopts…. even taking advocacy positions on sanctuary cities or sanctuary status for UM churches — I’ll call them Sanctuary Sanctuaries. No harm or foul in that.

Ref: http://goodnewsmag.org/2017/04/people-will-die-2/
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/3917/
http://umc-gbcs.org/faith-in-action/health-care-is-a-basic-human-right
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/5417-6/

Maddow on the warpath

Check this out for statements from space. Rachael Maddow on her fear about Trump:

“So it’s a weird tension. It’s a dangerous time for the first amendment and the free press in this country. At the same time, we’re oddly influential with the guy who wants to kill us.” – Rachael Maddow roadshow via Mediaite

Notice Maddow’s flippant use of the words “kill us.” The first literal way to take it is so absurd it is hard to conceive what she meant. For the sake of it, just take it that she means effectually killing the first amendment. That’s bad enough. Killing off the news media?

This is a running screed in media and the left that Trump is killing their first amendment, or certainly that is his goal. I don’t know where they come up with that.

Now if anyone had a problem with the entire 1st amendment, it was Obama. Media sycophants weren’t the least concerned over that: speech, religious freedom, assembly, (bad) press etc. He was at war with most of it, and anyone using it against him.

Know who your friends, enemies are

One of the campaign issues Trump sounded a bullhorn on, at least to evangelicals, pastors and churches, was getting rid of the Johnson Amendment.

That is the one burdening pastors and pulpits under political restrictions to the first amendment, by using 501 status as a lever against them. Holding them hostage you might say. Also placing restrictions on churches. Well, seemed popular didn’t it?

But over the years, so many have become programmed and indoctrinated to this policy. Like a lot of liberal theology, it becomes normalized. No excuses, plenty of complacency.

That’s where it is comes time to know who are your friends and who are your enemies, And so often the latter are closer than you think.

Hundreds of religious groups call on Congress to keep Johnson Amendment

Harry Farley Journalist 05 April 2017 | Christian Today

Nearly 100 religious groups are urging Congress to keep the ‘Johnson Amendment’ which limits churches’ political activities.

President Donald Trump has vowed to repeal the law which blocks ministers from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit or religious organizations from donating to either party. Many Republicans back him and argue the amendment infringes on religious groups’ free speech.

But 99 different groups have written to oppose the move.

‘The charitable sector, particularly houses of worship, should not become another cog in a political machine or another loophole in campaign finance laws,’ they write.

The strongly worded backlash comes from across the religious spectrum from The Episcopal Church and Baptist groups to Catholic, Jewish, Islamic and Hindu movements.

‘Current law serves as a valuable safeguard for the integrity of our charitable sector and campaign finance system,’ [they] say in a letter to top members of Congress.

……./

Continue reading at Christian Today

Here they come, in the name of ‘protection.’

Or basically all your liberalized arms of churches. We know how to interpret that. Many are the proud who call for boycott, divest, and gov’t sanction actions toward Israel.

Funny, they never seem restrained at all in pushing the progressive political line in churches. That, of course, was never really restricted. We see no applied restrictions on black or leftist churches. They don’t have to worry.

Though even speaking about abortion, and protecting life, has been deemed political and too taboo for prime-time pulpits. Except if you want to protect baby killing, that’s okay.

So now they reveal who they are. Take note. They will stand and defy the action we want. Just as the sanctuary cities stand in defiance to the law and will of the people. Or should I say much like the activist, Sanctuary Churches? Get the idea? Or let them preach Climatology from pulpits. No, that is celebrated. Does that not illustrate the blatant hypocrisy of what they are lecturing us about?

Proverbs 27:6
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”

RightRing | Bullright

Blocked and Rolled Media – Press

You know it’s a bad day for media when they have to report that they’ve been blocked by WH press dept.  You know,  this may be the kind of prohibition that I could get behind.

[NYT] WASHINGTON — Journalists from The New York Times and two other news organizations were prohibited from attending a briefing by President Trump’s press secretary on Friday, a highly unusual breach of relations between the White House and its press corps.

Reporters from The Times, CNN and Politico were not allowed to enter the West Wing office of the press secretary, Sean M. Spicer, for the scheduled briefing. Aides to Mr. Spicer allowed in reporters from only a handpicked group of news organizations that, the White House said, had been previously confirmed to attend.

Organizations allowed in included Breitbart News, the One America News Network and The Washington Times, all with conservative leanings. Journalists from ABC, CBS, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and Fox News also attended.

More: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/us/politics/white-house-sean-spicer-briefing.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Crying and whining media is offended. They ought to check their press privilege.

Enemy within: Media War on the People

Two statements made news over the weekend. And they were set off by a Trump tweet which you’d think spoke for itself. Maybe these people are not even smart enough to read a tweet and comprehend it.

McCain adds his two cents. You’d never catch him putting it in a tweet.That’s beneath him. He’d much rather run to the Mainstream media wolves to vent.

“A fundamental part of that new world order was a free press. I hate the press. I hate you especially. But the fact is we need you.”

“I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That’s how dictators get started.”

“When you look at history,” McCain said, “the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press. And I’m not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I’m just saying we need to learn the lessons of history.”

He tried to clarify that he was not saying Trump is a dictator. Just referencing it.

Senator Graham cracker has upped the flame by declaring in Germany that 2017 will be “the year Congress kicks Russia in the ass.” (…will they go Obamacare on Russia?)

MSM had its view, from CNN to Chris Wallace on Fox, that they don’t like that talk. Oh, too bad! Get a grip on yourselves. Why is it when the people say something, it’s either disturbing or outrageous? Then when Trump says it, it is downright “dangerous.”

Just look at media, or the press. Adversarial press is the word they like to use. But they’ve gone from biased to adversarial, to opposition, to cheerleaders for obstruction. They are in protest of Trump every day.

Then there is the “I am a Muslim too” protest. Followed by the “Not My President’s day” — impeach him protest. In Britain, elected officials are in protest against Trump receiving a state visit in UK. No state visit for you, Donald! Stay away from our Queen. People in the UK are actually betting how long Trump will last as president?

So President’s Day for Trump means national protest day. Well, every day is protest day for Trump. We have sports’ and Patriots-players’ protests. Pope Francis had more criticism for our domestic and immigration policy. Francis, tear down your wall!

Now getting down to the crux of that media’s war on the people. That is basically what it comes down to. Media doesn’t like that being said or that language? Oh well. Stop acting like the enemy of the people then. Even before Trump won, the media and liberals began attacking Trump’s supporters. It’s a typical leftist tactic to blame and ostracize the supporters — as a basket of deplorables and irredeemables.

Why is media the enemy of the people? Well, this their seventh year of really proving it. Where was this adversarial press for the past eight years? Where was Media mafia on Benghazi.We still don’t know what Obama or officials were doing?

Did they ask probing questions about the Iran deal? No.Did Media care the IRS was targeting Obama’s political opponents. Did they cover Fast and Furious? Did they cry outrage when Obama’s campaign talked to Iran before getting in office? Or call for an independent consel-investigation? Did media pursue Obama’s Russia flexibility?

Did media sympathize with or cover Tea Parties? No, they attacked them relentlessly.

Media despised anyone who was not onboard with Obama; they mocked and probed them and kept reminding everyone that Obama is the president.

Adversarial press? Hardly, they were his biggest cheerleaders. Now press is just more the loyal opposition and the middle man between boycotting, dissenting politicians and the Resistance — which are all really the same thing. Rrah-rah!

They went from Obama’s sycophant press to just the unabashed enemy of the people.

RightRing | Bullright

Open Borders and Closing Freedom

The new paradigm of the Left is much like the old one. The only thing that changes are the means. They call themselves progressives using many cute slogans like “lean forward”. Their speeches are laden with phrases like “we want to keep moving forward” or “we aren’t going backwards.” But the direction they go is to their same old ideas of the past.

The left is now into its regressive movement. That is to close the door on freedom while opening the borders to anarchy. Or open our borders to hate while cracking down on opposing speech by calling it hate speech. Dems don’t have problems with hate.

Just recently South Carolina Senator Tim Scott read a list of the comments he regularly receives from the left. They are filled with names like Uncle Tom, sellout to your race, traitor. All names and labels are fair to them. By design they are meant to hurt and inflict pain. Force and intimidation are two of their favorite weapons.

But what we don’t hear is anyone asking the Democrats to condemn the remarks. They obviously haven’t done so on their own. But these people are the Democrats’ base, and the very people who put them into office. Yet they cannot denounce their words. and no one actually expects them to.

If a Republican supporter said these they would demand condemnation immediately. Look what they did with any racist or KKK statements. Not so with the left, they are free to offend anyone, even rewarded for it. Elizabeth Warren rakes in big dollars for name calling and attacking. She organizes their hate-fest. And the hateathon’s dollars roll in. But our condemnation of that speech is out of line and must be stopped, however possible.

The modern regressive movement is about stomping down the threat of freedom everywhere, even in the womb when they can. Doing the latter under the guise of freedom of choice, or reproductive rights. Nipping freedom in its nurturing womb is an ultimate goal, ripping out its roots before it grows. Nip that seed of freedom in the bud.

But open borders? Now that is something that needs to be unrestricted. Judges decide if we have the grounds, or authority, to restrict non-citizens’ freedom to invade. Though our freedom is wilting on the vine, if left to liberals. The left has set the default position to ‘unrestricted’ and say we basically cannot do anything about it; even if it is a matter of national security against those who declared war on us. Speak nothing about that.

So, open the borders wide and slam the door shut on freedom.

RightRing | Bullright

Free speech is rioting and damaging property

Free speech was once again on full display in Berkeley, CA on Wednesday night. Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak at the campus in Berkeley but was prevented from that by the free speech police (brownshirts) and a coalition of tolerance.

So we see this is not your parents’ free speech. Now there are designated free speech zones, which doesn’t protect from the tolerance brigade attacking any undesirable speech.

Free speech now means the right to destroy property with impunity, and rioting to prevent other speech they don’t like. Media claims this seems ironic considering the Berkley campus was the birthplace of free speech in the sixties. Really? But we always had free speech in that thing called a Constitution. Those rights did not come from Berkeley.

Actually, Berkeley wants abortion of free speech — in the womb — out of their own selfish convenience. So now free speech is really approved speech. All other “speech” is cause for rioting, violence, protests, or all the above. That equals freedom in their 1st Amendment.

LA Times called this a “free speech clash.” Why is it so hard to say riot? Other media reported it was peaceful until anarchists started rioting. It usually is peaceful before rioting. Forced cancellation of a scheduled speaking event is a real clash of free speech.

Update: Robert Reich floats idea on CNN that the rioters may have been right-wing paramilitary types trying to deceive people that it was the leftists. Possibly even in concert with Milo.

RightRing | Bullright

Bannon Bombs Media

Steve Bannon made a statement in an interview and all mainstream media go ballistic. What was his capiital offense., it? He basically told them to shut up_for a while, and just listen. I guess those are fighting words.

As is usually the ]problem, there is the statement(suggestion) and then what media says ABOUT it. And they can say a ;ot. So their talkathon continues and now they even throw in their “we won’t…we won’t.” But the public at large knows what the media or press have been doing. There is not even a question about it. This just gave them an additional thing to talk about.

According to the NYT :

“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while,” Mr. Bannon said in an interview on Wednesday.

“I want you to quote this,” Mr. Bannon added. “The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”

It is the opposition party — as opposed to what they were doing for eight years of Obama.

The hyper-hypocrisy flared when CNN had whining-fest over this comment. Christiane Amanpour went into overdrive saying this constant criticism from Trump everyday is an attempt to delegitimize them, CNN, and is so very disconcerting. It is not fair, ha ha.

But when Sean Spicer complained at the podium about the constant drumbeat against Trump, they laughed and said he was whining, that this is their job and they’ll proudly continue. Now they are complaining. Criticism got under their skin.

Nothing stops their non-stop attackathon on Trump. So is it war? You decide. I just think its a welcome change to finally see them back on their heels.

I mean in one week they already questioned the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency, called him a liar, and CNN called his advisers propaganda ministers.Basically anything they wouldn’t do or say to Obama. I don’t believe a lot from them, but when they are this disturbed, I gotta know that is for real. So they want their conduct to go unchallenged.

That old journalism rule is to never become the story. They blew that one right out of the water. Now media itself has become the story. They had already lost their credibility way back. But now they became the central story because it is so bad. Even after they were exposed trying to help Hillary and colluding with the DNC. They are now advocacy, activist journalism. They warned us that we’re in for a bumpy ride for the next four years

But they do it non-stop over every detail Trump does. He goes around or over them on Twitter. They keep carping away. No you know one thing for sure, that never would have happened under Obama, and they wouldn’t allow it under Clinton. Just for one full day, I’d like to see what it would have been like with Hillary and just one press conference.

The way I see it, media has picked a hell of a hill to die on. The left will tell media to keep attacking and run right into the fire. Everything the people wanted and stood up for, they stand against. It’s going to be one long, amusing battle. … CNN still sucks.

RightRing | Bullright

Game on: media goes scorched lie

It did not take media long, to uniformly do what they refused for eight years to do. I’m talking about calling the president a liar.

Nicholas Kristof actually asked CNN’s Don Lemon “what are you calling it here?” They both agreed that the proper official term should be “lie” to describe what Trump said on the crowd size. With that it has become normalized to call the president a liar.

That’s right, we know they refused every way to use, or even allow, the term lie to be used about Obama. It not only was wrong, but unjustified then.

Remember all the lies if you like your plan you can keep it; if you like your doctor you can keep it. If you have insurance this will not affect me. Illegals will not be getting Obamacare. Remember the not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS? What about the big lie on Benghazi that a video was the cause of “protests” which caused 4 Americans to be slaughtered while our government and officials went AWOL?

Or what about the recent lie that Obama’s administration was scandal-free for eight years. But it is now normalized, and highly encouraged, to call President Trump a liar. Not just voices on the margins but mainstream news organizations.

Kristof even points to NYT having a meeting to decide to use the term. And it only took them 4 days to whip out the Lie-card. CNN pulled it out the day after inauguration. The most trusted name in news lulled it right out. Now all the media can agree.

Truth is media have been calling Trump a liar all along. Just that now as president they can call him a liar, sort of gives them a real thrill. It probably also thrills them to freely use the term now when they were so adamant against using it on Obama.

In September 2016, NYT said:

As the Times gets more comfortable with the “L” word, it will be interesting to see whether other news outlets do the same.

But then, to the media, this is war. Any means to defeat Trump are acceptable, including twisting every statement and lying about him. Of course they will excuse this saying that is how Obama was treated, but it wasn’t .And they wouldn’t stand for that treatment of Obama. Since it is Trump, they can savor every opportunity to use the “lie” word.

And, well, he was already called “illigitimate” by a sitting, senior congressman a week before he was sworn in. Lie or liar just has that extra zing to it.

Remember the good old says when liberals analyzed every use of the the term lie down to some politically correct sludge?

These were the same people propelling the “hands up, don’t shoot” lie about Brown and Ferguson. Remember they had those on location reports saying “mostly peaceful protests”.

RightRing | Bullright