Posts Tagged ‘fact-checked’

Did Donald Trump Sacrifice? Let’s TALK About ‘Sacrifice’

July 30, 2016

So a Muslim father continues the proud line of politically correct slogans saying rhetorically to Donald Trump, “You have sacrificed nothing.”

You know, as if Hillary Clinton was actually Mrs. Lydia Bixby, who is famous in American history for having lost five sons in the Civil War as Republicans fought to free the slaves from the tyranny of the Democratic Party.

To my knowledge, the last time an American president lost a son to war was Theodore Roosevelt, Republican, whose son Quentin was killed in the fighting of World War I.

So, on the one hand, what Khizr Khan delivered was nothing more than a cheap shot.  How many sons did Barack Obama lose in his war which is now the longest in the history of America???  Just when the hell did it become fair game to vilify a candidate for president because none of his kids died in war as you endorse a candidate who didn’t lose any kids in war???

Furthermore, just to point out something that seriously needs to be pointed out: Donald Trump didn’t kill Khizr Khan’s son the way Hillary Clinton killed Patricia Smith’s son Sean in Benghazi with her careless stupidity and incompetence.  Patricia Smith says, “I blame Hillary Clinton PERSONALLY for the death of my son.”

In the same way, I doubt very much that Donald Trump looked Khizr Khan in the eye and LIED to him the way Hillary Clinton looked Charles Woods in the eye and lied to him about his son Tyrone whom her brutal indifference murdered.  Charles Woods has invited Hillary to take a lie detector test to see which of them is telling the truth.

I would like to see the notes that Khizr Khan wrote that indict Donald Trump when his son came back the way Charles Woods has notes indicting Hillary Clinton for covering her ass with lies when his son Tyrone came home in a flag-draped casket.

Hey, don’t go away, Democrat.  I’ve got more.  What about Kate Quigley, the sister of Benghazi murder victim Glen Doherty, who says that Hillary lied to her as well???

How many young men has Donald Trump commanded to their deaths, versus Obama with his horrifyingly awful rules of engagement???  Under Bush, we lost 1,049 Americans KIA in Afghanistan; under Obama that number is 2,469, which is close to three-quarters the total killed.  To the best of my knowledge, Trump isn’t responsible.  But hey, let’s blame Trump for those men Obama ordered into battle.  And let’s endorse the candidate who is going to follow those same policies.  After all, we’re all rabidly unfair ideologues here, right?

By the time Obama leaves office, terrorism will have skyrocketed 1,900 percent over what it had been when George Bush left office.  Do we really want that terrifying trend to continue to escalate???

The NATO commander says that ISIS is spreading like a CANCER among refugees.  What already has happened in Europe will assuredly happen here as ISIS terrorists will come to the USA by way of Europe.  Why on earth would we want that???

Capeesh???

I got a LOT more to say about this Khzir Khan crap.  Khan waved a Constitution around and suggested that Donald Trump had never read it.  Let’s lay aside the fact that Obama is supposedly an “expert” in constitutional law and yet has defiantly and intentionally done things that he himself said were unconstitutional and has had the Supreme Court give him more unanimous smackdowns for violating the Constitution than any other president in history.  And the Hillary Clinton whom Khan endorses has pledged to follow that same blatantly unconstitutional example and in fact she has said she would DOUBLE-DOWN on policies that she excoriates the Supreme Court for pointing out are blatantly unconstitutional.  Which then amounts to Khan saying that he’s ALL FOR violating the Constitution; he just wants it violated in a manner favorable to his ideology.  But let’s get back to Khan’s charge against Trump, if it even still matters: How does he know that Trump has never read the Constitution?  It’s nothing but a cheap rhetorical slander; unless I suppose, he’s been reading Hillary Clinton’s thirty thousand missing emails and one of those illegally purged emails somewhere mentions that Trump never read the Constitution.  But here’s the real deal on this: is Khizr Khan one of the MAJORITY of Muslim Americans who would RATHER be governed BY SHARIA LAW THAN BY THE U.S. CONSTITION???

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”

This isn’t just about Khan; this is also about the more than HALF of Muslims coming to America that hate everything we stand for and want to replace it with sharia law.  And why didn’t somebody stick a microphone in Khan’s face and ask him why we should bring in tens or even hundreds of thousands of Muslims who despise everything we stand for???

Or how about this one: why does Humayun Khan’s death matter but Sean Smith’s death and Tyron Woods’ death and Glen Doherty’s death DON’T matter???  PC-point-of-order turning around your own vile line of reasoning on you liberals: IS IT BECAUSE WHITE LIVES DON’T MATTER that the lives of sons personally planted in the grave by Hillary Clinton don’t matter???

Wouldn’t it be awesome if the media were actually honest enough to push fifty microphones in Hillary Clinton’s face and remind her of the white men her policies and incompetence murdered in Benghazi and force her to answer the question, “Do the white lives you terminated in Benghazi matter?”

Why is it, liberals, that NONE of these lives matter?  Why don’t THESE parents and family members who “sacrificed” get to have THEIR sacrifice matter to you???

Hey, Khizr Khan: WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE SACRIFICE OF TYRONE WOODS AND GLEN DOHERTY AND SEAN SMITH???

Maybe you should have taken a cue from your wife and done a little less talking and a lot more shutting the hell up.

Political correctness can actually be a boomerang.  All it takes is the desire to throw it back at the liberal swine who keep throwing it at you.

As an example of that one, consider the rabid frenzy and fury directed at Trump for in any way, shape or form questioning “a Gold Star family member” who lost his son; but where is the righteous hate cast at the Democrat Party for chanting “Black Lives Matter!” during that moment of silence for the police officers murdered by assassins adhering to that very ideology???  What the HELL is wrong with you to mock the grief of the family members of those slain police while pretending you give a damn about soldiers???  That in addition to those Benghazi family members and the cricket-chirping you hear from the media rather than their stories of how Hillary Clinton killed their sons and then lied about how they died to their faces.  The media WILL NOT be fair or honest.

The media propaganda didn’t like that.  They don’t like any of it.  So they just ignore it or mock it.  You see, facts are rather horrible things for liberals.  So they spent years searching until they found a grieving parent they could finally side with.

Do you know what they did?  They FACT-CHECKED Patricia Smith, and by that I mean the two self-anointed liberal fact-checking machines Politifact and the Washington Post.  Do you think they dared to turn their evil glare on Khizr Khan???  No way in HELL.  Because they’re “fact checking” amounts to their finding just what they want to find.  And they DON’T want to fact-check Khan’s claims for the simple reason that they were nothing but unhinged ASSERTIONS rather than “facts” to begin with.

You get to what the mainstream media is really like in terms of blatant HYPOCRISY in the words of mainstream media mainstay Christ Matthews who had the balls to say THIS about a Gold Star family member:

“I don’t understand why the Republicans would choose to put this on prime-time television when they have such wonderful stories of American heroism to speak to the American people,” Mr. Matthews said, Mediaite reported. “I think it was wrong.

“I don’t care what that woman up there, the mother, has felt. Her emotions are her own. But for the country in choosing a leader, it’s wrong to have someone get up there and tell a lie about Hillary Clinton. It’s not true. It’s logically not true,” he added. “I think it’s wrong that they ruined their evening with this.”

There is absolutely NO factual question that the media is so completely in the tank for socialist communist fascist leftists that it is beyond unreal.  It is HATEFUL to criticize a Gold Star family member – unless that Gold Star family member is a Republican who got looked in the eye and lied to by Hillary Clinton.  It’s a terrible thing to put Gold Star family members on a Convention stage and have them tell their stories – unless they tell a story damning Donald Trump.  Then it’s okay.  Then it’s all well and good.

To put it in Chris Matthews’ words: “wrong” becomes “right.”

It sounds to me like Humayun Khan was a genuine stand-up guy who died for his men and I honor him and I mourn him every bit as much as every single other one of our warriors who sacrificed their lives fighting for the United States and for every nation allied against Islamic radical terrorism.  My point is as simple as it is true: if you’re going to carry the story of “sacrifice” over dead family members, dishonest propaganda mill masquerading as “journalism,” YOU PICK IT UP.  Don’t you cherry pick the victims you want to suit your leftist ideology and ignore all the others who sacrificed every scintilla as dearly.

But let’s consider Donald Trump’s answer to Khizr Khan’s cheap shot: Donald Trump said he HAD sacrificed, by working ungodly hours and creating thousands of jobs.

That’s another cheap shot line I love that Hillary and her corrupt V.P. pick Caine are giving in their circus: that Trump likes to fire people.

In order to fire somebody, you first have to HIRE THEM.  Which means you give that worker a chance.  If you hire workers, you are ultimately going to have to fire some who refuse to work or are unable to do the job you hire them to do in a competent manner.  So let’s answer that question:

So how many jobs has Trump created as a businessman?

A CNNMoney analysis calculates at least 34,000 jobs attributable to the Donald.

So it’s a pretty sad and pathetic line for Hillary to attack Donald Trump for firing people.  BECAUSE AT LEAST HE HIRED SOMEBODY.

From now on I think I’ll walk around telling complete strangers, “You’re FIRED!”  Because the look on their face will be like, “Dude, you never HIRED me.”

And I’ll say, “Just like HILLARY CLINTON never hired you, I mean, right???”

But let me move on to Donald Trump’s response which itself is now the subject of attack in the media (because how dare you defend yourself when a liberal attacks you with PC gibberesh?”).

Interestingly, Khizr Khan and his silent wife were the only two people who were allowed to talk about war where the Democrats in the auditorium didn’t start booing and chanting, “No more war!”  I guess that means they like war just fine as long as they think they can politically benefit from the death.

So what did Trump say in response?

“I’ve made a lot of sacrifices.  I’ve worked very, very hard.  I’ve created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures,” he said, in an interview with ABC’s “This Week.”
[George Stephanopolous here asks, “Those were sacrifices?”]
He added, “Sure those were sacrifices.”

And what would George Stephanopoulos know about “sacrifice”???  He got his job as a reward for sticking his nose up the Clinton’s butt for four years.

Frankly, it pisses me off to no end that liberals question whether work is sacrifice.  Maybe that’s because most of them don’t bother to actually work.

WORK IS SACRIFICE.  You work and you sacrifice and by that sacrifice you keep building more and more for the future.  And then one day you can retire and relax because you have sacrificed all your life.

And it’s just too damn bad that there isn’t a single liberal in America who comprehends that any more.

So let me just as you, politically-correct turd, a few questions: do the illegal immigrants working in the fields picking crops sacrifice?  Did the American women who entered the factories to replace the men who had gone to the front so they could build the arsenal we needed to win World War II sacrifice?

Yeah, they sacrificed.

And Donald Trump sacrificed the same damn way.

When you’re working, you can’t be sitting in your couch watching MSNBC all day and wearing your “I’m With Her” T-shirt.

So Donald Trump worked his butt off all his life.  He spent a lot of hours not playing golf like Obama does more than any president in history.  And as a result of all his hard work, all his sacrifice, he’s paid MILLIONS of dollars in taxes so you Democrats losers can live off the government handout dole.

Unfortunately, thanks to Obama and the worst labor participation rate in the history of modernity, and some 100 million working-age Americans AREN’T working.

It’s up to independent voters to get past the stupid cheap shots like “You’re fired!” and like “Donald Trump never sacrificed anything!”  Because we can safely know that Democrats are just way, WAY too stupid to be able to entertain rational thought.  So they’ll never understand that Donald Trump created a whole HELL of a lot more jobs than Hillary Clinton ever did, and that you’ve got to HIRE somebody and give that worker a chance in order to fire that worker, and that what the hell does Khizr Khan say that Hillary Clinton “sacrificed”???

 

 

 

Advertisements

White House Ignores War In Afghanistan To Pursue New War On Fox News

October 12, 2009

Up until the exaltation of The One – may socialist Scandinavians place golden medallions around his neck forever – the Democrats’ spiel on Afghanistan was that it was the right war, the top priority war, the just war, the necessary war, but that the devil Bush ignored Afghanistan while he focused on Iraq.

Iraq, of course, was the unwinnable war (even after Bush won it), and the surge strategy was bound to be a costly failure (even after it worked).

Well, now that Obama – in the words of a leftist “journalist” – “stands above the country” and “above the world” as “sort of God,” well, the “change” the left kept blathering about resulted in a change of focus:

Afghanistan is no longer the “war of necessity,” or the “top priority,” or the “cause that could not be more just.”  Nope.  That war morphed into the war that the White House has declared on Fox News.

White House communications director, Anita Dunn:

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director.

And:

“The reality of it is that Fox often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party,” White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s “Reliable Sources.”

And:

“As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Mind you, every major totalitarian dictator in the world is more “legitimate” than Fox News, as far as the White House is concerned:

White House communications director Anita Dunn also said this:

“What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it’s the way we view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party,” said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. “They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”

Yes, that’s right.  Dunn is referring to CNN — the same CNN that demonstrated that it is so completely in the tank for the Obama agenda that it actually “FACT-CHECKED” a Saturday Night Live skit.

That’s the criteria for “a news network”: complete ideological loyalty.

Obama pretty much pointed that out himself when he addressed White House correspondents:

“Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me.  Apologies to the Fox table.”

Unlike all the other media, Fox correspondents didn’t vote for Obama.  And that’s enough to declare war.  For all must love The OneNo dissension can be tolerated.

Mind you, while the White House asserts that Fox News is evil because it – alone by itself – is not in the tank with Obama, it’s interesting to see that Obama himself is in the tank for SEIU and the hard-core union agenda as he vows to “paint the nation purple.”

We’ve seen this reaction to media criticism by a president before – from the darkest and most evil days of Richard Nixon.  It wasn’t pretty, and it didn’t end well.

Is Fox the media arm of the Republican Party?  Viewers who are flocking to Fox News in droves don’t seem to think so:

Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009’s first quarter was FNC’s 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network’s history — just behind Q4 ’08 and Q3 ’05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

The hardly right-wing UCLA seems to find plenty of bias from all of those journalists that Obama boasted voted for him, rather than Fox:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume” and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

To the extent that Fox News is biased to the right, every single other news outlet is biased toward the left.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs’ study concluded that Fox News was in fact the most fair and balanced network, concluding:

Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly — 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates — 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

Sacred Heart University’s media study discovered that Fox News was the most trusted in the nation:

Researchers were asked which national television news organization they trusted most for accurate reporting. Fox News was named by 30.0% of all respondents – up from 19.5% in 2003 and 27.0% in 2007.

Those named most frequently as the television news organization most trusted for accurate reporting in 2009 included: Fox News (30.0%), CNN (19.5%), NBC News (7.5%) and ABC News (7.5%). Fox News was also the television news organization trusted least. Just over one-quarter, 26.2%, named Fox News, followed by NBC News (9.9%), MSNBC (9.4%), CNN (8.5%), CBS News (5.3%) and ABC News (3.7%).

In fact, it didn’t come all that far from being TWICE as trusted as the runner-up, CNN (the network that fact-checks SNL sketches that are negative to Obama).

So this war – that again seems to be replacing the “just war of necessity” that Afghanistan was SUPPOSED to be is just ridiculous.

It merely shows just how dramatically ideological this administration truly is.

It also explains why former longtime ABC correspondent Chris Wallace said of the Obama administration:

“They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.”

Let’s just take a second to consider what Obama seems to think about the media, as evidenced by his selection of Mark Lloyd to be his FCC Diversity Czar.  Remember that cartoon of dictators that Obama has met with?  Obama’s FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd admiringly said this of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez:

“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.  To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela….The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.”

Just as Obama is now taking Fox News seriously in this country.

But how did Hugo Chavez “take very seriously the media”?

Newsbusters answers that by simply pointing to the facts in Venezuela:

NGOs Warn of Restrictions in Pending Venezuela Law

Associated Press – May 7, 2009

Prominent Venezuelan nongovernmental organizations warned Thursday that a bill being drafted by lawmakers loyal to President Hugo Chavez could be used to financially strangle groups that criticize the government.

Chavez clamps down on broadcast media

Irish Examiner – Friday, July 10, 2009

President Hugo Chavez’s government is imposing tough new regulations on Venezuela’s cable television while revoking the licenses of more than 200 radio stations.

Report: Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez aggressively seizing control of media

Miami Herald – August 14, 2009

An unclassified report lists examples of Venezuelan government efforts to crack down on or seize control of media outlets to stifle criticism.

How’s that for a chronology of authoritarian censorship?

And Obama’s choice for FCC Diversity Czar also had this to say:

[From a 2005 Conference on Media Reform: Racial Justice]: “Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions.  And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem.

We’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.”

It’s nice of Mark Lloyd to acknowledge that there are “good white people” around – just before he announces the need to have a purge of white people from the media.  But Mark Lloyd is a racist who has also said:

“There are few things I think more frightening in the American mind than dark skinned black men. Here I am.”

And Barack Obama also showed what he thought about free speech rights when his selection for FCC Diversity Czar said:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

So we pretty much know where the Obama White House is coming from: the media should be the exclusive tool of leftist propaganda to advance the Obama agenda.  Only Obama voters need apply to be considered as “journalists.”  Free speech is a terribly overrated thing, which needs to be “reinterpreted” to exclude ANYONE who has ANYTHING but a far-leftist revolutionary agenda.  And Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has provided the American left with the model as to how to proceed in that direction.

Obama is dithering around in Afghanistan while our soldiers languish and die for lack of support.  But he seems all to willing to pursue his war on Fox News with a gusto.

In both the war in Afghanistan and the war on Fox News, the threat is to freedom itself.