by Casey | Dec 2, 2019 | Blog, Fake News, Idiocracy, Media Bias
Each time President Donald Trump has gone to visit troops overseas for a holiday, the media has either criticized it or said it wasn’t going to happen altogether.
We’ve compiled the most biggest flubs from the media when it comes to his relationship with the troops.
“Golfing, tweeting, and more” on Thanksgiving: Newsweek — 2019
While Trump’s official schedule featured a call with the troops and placed him at Mar-a-Lago for the day, he ultimately made an unannounced trip to Afghanistan to visit the troops in person.
Newsweek later changed the headline, but Twitter users — including the president — ruthlessly criticized the outlet.
MAGA Hats Are Illegal: Various Outlets — 2018
“Trump has blurred the line between the office of the presidency and the campaign to such a degree that it is making it much more difficult for troops to make that distinction on their own,” CNN military analyst John Kirby argued at the time. “It’s bad enough that Trump doesn’t see a problem with signing campaign paraphernalia at a military base, maybe even more so that some of our troops are OK with it.”
Days later, the White House denied distributing the hats, saying the soldiers had acquired them on their own and brought them to the event. Then-Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the hats shows support for Trump personally, but were not an explicit political endorsement on the part of the military.
Read the rest at the link below.
Click here to view original web page at dailycaller.com
The Media Pushes Fake Hate While Ignoring Real Hate Towards Trump Supporters
Police Abuse Happens To Everyone, Not Just Blacks
by Casey | Nov 13, 2019 | Blog, Fake News, Media Bias, Science
The Environmental Protection Agency suggested Tuesday that a New York Times’ report fleshing out the agency’s move to make the regulatory process more transparent contained gross inaccuracies.
The EPA took exception to several sections of a NYT report Monday that highlights the agency’s proposal to help make data collecting more transparent for scientists who are trying to replicate research. The report contained “glaring inaccuracies,” the agency noted in a statement.
EPA’s statement starts with an explanation of how the so-called Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule will impact the agency’s ability to craft regulations. The proposal seeks to make the data and scientific studies that are pivotal to regulatory action available for review.
On Nov. 8, the EPA delivered to the Office of Management and Budget a draft supplemental federal register notice (FRN) to clarify vague elements of the original 2018 proposal, according to the agency’s statement. The agency intends on filing a final rule in 2020.
NYT’s report Monday “incorrectly” noted that the proposal “could apply retroactively to public health regulations already in place.” Neither the proposal nor the supplemental apply to regulations already in place, the EPA noted before lambasting other elements of the report.
The report suggests that the EPA’s proposal might render existing regulations inadmissible when they come up for renewal. TheNYT suggested a 1993 Harvard University project linking polluted air to premature deaths could be nixed under the proposal. Scientists in the project collected data from people who signed confidentiality agreements ahead of the project.
This characterization is false, according to the EPA. (RELATED: Andrew Wheeler Says He Will Implement Rule To Keep ‘Secret Science’ Out Of EPA)
Click here to view original web page at dailycaller.com
by Casey | Oct 11, 2019 | Blog, Conspiracy, Media Bias
Quoting from the New York Post.
Lynch had made major career advances in the 1990s under President Bill Clinton — and her boss, President Barack Obama, plainly supported Hillary’s candidacy. Plus, Obama was also implicated in the scandal, since he’d exchanged multiple emails with Clinton at her non-government address — a fact they were all keeping from the public.
Stewart reports that Comey’s “highly placed informant” indicated that Lynch wouldn’t let the FBI investigation add to Clinton’s woes. An email reportedly from the head of the Democratic National Committee assured a civilian that “Lynch wouldn’t let the Clinton investigation get very far, suggesting that Lynch would protect Clinton,” Stewart writes.
Can we load every single person who vouched for the incorruptibility of James Comey and the senior FBI into a trebuchet and catapult them into the sea? Why are these people still permitted to comment? To even exist in public life?
And let’s not dwell too long on the fact that the person overseeing this sham investigation — and that was, in fact, Loretta Lynch; she never actually recused herself — dictated from the outset that the investigation would not be allowed to find any incriminating evidence about Hillary.
Source: New York Times Reporter Reveals That James Comey Had a Spy In Loretta Lynch’s Office, and Knew That She Had Declared She Would Not Permit the Clinton Email Scandal to Go Very Far
by Casey | Oct 11, 2019 | Blog, Conspiracy, Media Bias
UPDATE:
The leaker is tied to Joe Biden.
More impropriety.
The lawyers representing the “whistleblower” at the center of the impeachment inquiry conceded Wednesday they “had come into contact with presidential candidates from both parties.”
Attorneys Mark Zaid and Andrew Bakaj, however, insisted in a statement that the whistleblower’s relationship with the politicians was limited to their role as “elected officials,” not as candidates.
Sure they were. Just like Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch discussed ‘grandkids’ on the tarmac.
Zaid and Bakaj asserted that the whistleblower “has never worked for or advised a political candidate, campaign, or party.” The lawyers, however, left open the possibility that the leaker did advise a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate before his or her run for office.
Source: ‘Whistleblower’ Lawyer: Client Had ‘Contact with Presidential Candidates’
by Casey | Oct 6, 2019 | Blog, Conspiracy, Media Bias
Yeah, this is another major problem with this story.
Via Red State:
Earlier today, I wrote on the news that the Trump-Ukraine “whistle-blower” was a registered Democrat. On its own, that’s somewhat telling news, but perhaps not overwhelmingly meaningful without more information. In my article, I opined why I thought CNN chose to report the story in the first place given their editorial leans.
Now, you might ask yourself why CNN would report this. The answer is simple. It’s called getting ahead of a story to help frame it. We’ve seen this over and over when damaging information that could possibly help Donald Trump is on the verge of being exposed. Instead of letting it drop, legacy news agencies run and get anonymous quotes to try to get the information out there while presenting it in the best possible light…
…The goal here is to get the political affiliation of the whistle-blower out there early so that when more evidence of bias drops, Democrats can claim it’s old news and not relevant to the complaint.
Games are being played here. Don’t be fooled.
Like clockwork, we’ve now got more information on the bias of the whistle-blower and I was exactly right. Not only was a he registered Democrat, the guy worked on the campaign of a current 2020 candidate.
Source: News Breaks That the Whistle-Blower Worked for a Current 2020 Democrat Presidential Candidate
No wonder they are parading a new ‘whistleblower’ to make legitimate concerns about this one go away.
by Casey | Oct 1, 2019 | Blog, Conspiracy, Fake News, Media Bias
Everybody who pays attention to the media and politics knows that the calls to “impeach Trump” have been frequent and the reasons have been many (and when those charges don’t come to fruition they move on to something else). Here’s a video from Newsbusters that helps show just how early and often the impeachment calls have been made on television. It’s pretty amazing:
Click here to view original web page at twitchy.com
