Tag Archives: New York Times

LYING WITH A PURPOSE

Trial lawyers, while trying cases, often utilize a slick trick to sway a jury. An attorney for one side will ask the witness an improper question, knowing the opposing attorney will object and the objection will be sustained. Even though the witness was not allowed to answer the question, the jury heard the question and can’t possibly un-hear it.

Democrats, in a concerted effort to destroy the Donald Trump presidency constantly lie about the president, his administration, Republicans in general, and Trump supporters. They lie, they know they’re lying, and they don’t care that they’re lying.

Not all citizens are as politically astute as I am, and my readers are. They’re clueless when it comes to current events and politics, only getting what little knowledge they have from snippets of news they hear in passing. They may watch part of the evening network news before tuning in to their favorite sitcoms and dramas on TV after eating dinner. Then it’s off to bed. Rinse and repeat.

It’s these folks that liberals are targeting. The liberal media, including the networks, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, etc. run a story that everyone knows is a lie. So, what, if it’s a lie. They want the folks I described above to hear it or read it and think,” Gee, this president is an awful person to say the things he says.” Two or three days later the truth come out that the president didn’t actually say that, or what he said was taken out of context. A retraction may be run correcting the record, or not.

The Democrats have achieved their goal. People like I described above heard the original story, but there’s a good chance they didn’t hear the truth.

Like I’ve been saying for years, Democrats don’t care about the truth. They tell lies and they know they are telling lies. It’s okay, though. They have each other’s’ backs. They have their own little lying clique. No one inside the clique is going to call them out or say the false story should not have been run.

Yes, conservatives and conservative media are going to call them out. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Tucker Carlson, all the way down to Nancy Graham are going to investigate and obtain the truth. But how many of the people I described above follow Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Tucker Carlson, etc? Virtually none. And because Rush, Sean, Bill, Tucker, etc. are continuous targets for the left to direct their venomous hate, most of the above folks would rather be struck dead than spend even a few minutes listening the these talking heads. They have no interest in pursuing other angles, it’s time for “Dancing with the Stars.”

Facebooktwitter

LIBERAL HATE TAKES PRECEDENCE

On April 17, 2017, liberal New York Times columnist, Alan Rappeport, wrote an article entitled,Trump’s Unreleased Taxes Threaten Yet Another Campaign Promise. The following is a critique of portions of that article where I illustrate how liberals are so consumed with hatred for Donald Trump, his family, his administration, and his supporters that their hate takes precedence over everything else in their universe.

Mr. Rappeport writes that President Trump’s promise to enact a sweeping overhaul of the tax code is in serious jeopardy nearly 100 days into his tenure, and his refusal to release his tax returns is emerging as a central hurdle to another faltering campaign promise.

The president’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, has indicated that Mr. Trump has no intentions of releasing his tax returns to the public. While I am certainly aware that it has been custom and practice for presidents to make their tax returns available to the public, it is not a constitutional requirement that presidents or presidential candidates do so. This is something that liberals cannot seem to comprehend. Moreover, since they cannot seem to distinguish between an actual requirement and something that is done out of courtesy, I have my doubts that any liberal is capable of reviewing a tax return and understanding it.

Because the president is not releasing his tax returns, Democrats are uniting around a pledge not to cooperate on any rewriting of the tax code unless they know specifically how that revision would benefit the president and his family.
Senate Minority Leader, Chucky Schumer, has pointed out that the president has significant conflicts of interest on issues such as taxation of the real estate industry and the elimination of the estate tax. It’s in his own self-interest, says Schumer.

According to Rappeport, more than 100,000 of Trump’s critics took to the streets over the weekend before the deadline to file tax returns and pay taxes, demanding that the president’s tax returns be released. The protesters say that tax legislation could be a plot by Donald Trump to get even richer.

Ezra Levin, a member of the Tax March executive committee, whatever that is, has questioned…”When they talk about tax reform, are they talking about cutting Donald Trump’s taxes by millions of dollars a year?”

Mr. Rappeport, in his article, states that lawmakers to want to pass an overhaul of the tax code that unwittingly enriches the commander and chief and his progeny.

This article informs me that Democrats will be against any sort of tax reform/tax cutting that would benefit the president and his family. It does not matter how much the new tax reform policies might help everyday Americans such as you and me, including middle-class Democrats. It’s obvious that in the eye of liberals, hate takes precedence over anything that might be good for this country or for individual Americans.

The above illustrates overwhelming, beyond the pale hate by liberals/Democrats/progressives or whatever they want to call themselves toward Donald Trump, his family, his administration, and his supporters. Rappeport indicates that Republicans are arguing that Democrats are putting politics ahead of an opportunity to fix a broken tax system. I think that Republicans should shout from the highest mountains that Democrats are so full of hate for anyone who does not toe their line that they are willing to deep-six the needs of the American people because of their deranged, sick hatred.

I want meaningful tax reform, particularly in the area of capital gains taxes. I would also like to see the corporate tax rate cut so that the nation’s businesses can expand and create more jobs. Again, liberals say that they will fight any tax reform measure that would benefit Donald Trump. Their hate takes precedence over everything else.

Well, I don’t care if Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chucky Schumer, Bill and Hillary Clinton, the Kennedy’s, etc. benefit from tax reform, I just want to benefit from tax reform, and I want the American people, those who pay taxes, to benefit from tax reform.

Because of the seething hate that’s in their hearts for Donald Trump, his family, his administration, and his supporters, liberals will cut off their noses to spite their faces. Just when I think liberals cannot get any more dangerous, they do.

Facebooktwitter

CONFIRMATION OF EDUCATION SECRETARY, BETSY DEVOS

According to PJ Media, after an all-night marathon by Senate Democrats holding the floor to protest the nomination of school-choice advocate Betsy DeVos, Vice President, Mike Pence, was brought in to break a Senate tie and confirm President Trump’s cabinet pick for Secretary of Education.

Pence Breaks Senate Tie to Confirm Betsy DeVos

It was the first time the Senate historian could remember a vice president needing to break a tie on a cabinet confirmation. The 50-50 vote was the result of the promised “no” votes from Republican Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Both of these senators have been referred to in the past as RINOs, Republican in name only. Susan Collins, Senator from Main, stated that she was troubled and surprised by Mrs. DeVos’ lack of familiarity with the landmark 1975 law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Senator Collins also said that she was concerned with Mrs. Devos’ lack of experience with public schools. Senator Murkowski, from Alaska, indicated that she was concerned about Betsy DeVos’ support for public schools, saying Trump’s pick has been “so involved in one side of the equation – s immersed in the push for vouchers – that she may be unaware of what actually is succesfull in the public schools, and what is broken, or how to fix them.

Now that Betsy DeVos has been confirmed by the Senate, here are seven lies, according to PJ Media that the Democrats have spread about the nation’s new Secretary of Education. 7 Desperate Liberal Lies About Trump’s Education Pick Betsy DeVos

  1. She’s against public education. USA Today senior political reporter, Heidi Przybyla, on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, declared that Betsy DeVos is very much against public education. The Washington Post’s, Valerie Strauss wrote a story entitled, “To Trump’s education pick, the U.S. public school system is a ‘dead end.’” Strauss bot her ammunition from a speech given by DeVos at South by Southwest in Texas in 2015 where Devos stated, “We are beneficiaries of start-ups, ventures, and innovation in every other area of life, but we don’t have that in education because it’s a closed system, a closed industry, a closed market, a monopoly, a dead end.” However, according to PJ Media, DeVos wasn’t condemning the U.S. education system, she was supporting reforms to being in more choice. Per Ed Patru, spokesman for Friends of Betsy DeVos, Strauss knew full well that Betsy doesn’t believe public schools are a dead end, but she ran the headline anyway. Patru further indicated that Strauss took a quote, divorced it from context, and then labeled Betsy an opponent of public education. Patru continued to indicated in the PJ Media article that DeVos does not push for school choice in the thousands of school districts across the country where public schools are doing a great job.
  2. She’s got an unfair donor advantage. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer wrote an expose’ about Betsy DeVos, labeling her “Trump’s Big-Donor Education Secretary.” Mayer used DeVos’ record of contributing heavily to conservative causes to attack Trump, whose campaign attacked “the donor class” during the election. DeVos is, indeed, a big donor and has been attacked on that score for quite a while. “I have decided to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence,” she wrote in a 1997 article for Roll Call. “Now, I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect something in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment.
  3. She’s against all regulation. The New York Times’ Katie Zernike painted DeVos as an anti-regulation extremist. “A believer in a freer market than even some free market economists would endorse, Ms. DeVos pushed back on any regulation as too much regulation. Charter schools should be allowed to operate as they wish,” Zernike wrote. This was an organized labor talking point verbatim, Patru told PJ Media. Patru further indicated that Ms. Zernike’s story was well-reported but completely one-sided because it made no attempt to understand or explain shy Ms. DeVos opposed a labor supported plan to create a third bureaucracy overseeing charter schools in Detroit. What Ms. DeVos opposed, Patru explained, wasn’t oversight itself, but rather a double standard for public and charter schools: It wasn’t because Betsy was opposed to oversight, it was because Betsy was opposed to imposing additional oversight on charters while Detroit public schools have none. One hundred charter schools have closed in Michigan, but not a single traditional public school has closed.
  4. She’s an elitist. The New Yorker’s Rebecca Mead, after noting that DeVos has no ties to Putin and has not actively called for the dismantling of the department she was chose to lead, went on to suggest that her history made her unqualified to run the department. “Devos has never taught in a public school, never administered one, nor sent her children to one.” Patru replied, “Neither Obama, nor Hillary were ever said to be unqualified to lead on education issues, despite the fact that they both sent their kids to private school and never seriously considered enrolling their kids in DC public schools. In 2015, Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan pulled his children out of public school and put them in private school. Education Secretary, John B. King, the last in the Obama administration credited his public school teachers with his success, but even he is a proponent of charter schools and helped to found one. Does this make him an unqualified elitist?
  5. She’s a racist. Of course, no one on the left when trashing someone on the right leaves out the racist accusation whether or not it’s a valid accusation. Plus, liberals make up the definition or racism as they go along to whatever suits their needs of the moment. The New York Times’ Katie Zernike quoted Tonya Allen, president of the Detroit non-profit, Skillman Foundation as follows: “If she was showing herself present in places and learning from the practitioners, that’s a fine combination, but Betsy never showed up in Detroit. She was eager to impose experimentation on students that she has not spent time with and children that she does not have consequence for.” Patru indicated that this was an obvious insinuation that DeVos is racist, considering lack children unworthy of her care. Patru further indicated that while this racial line of attack has not been explicit, it could not be further from the truth, and pointed out the broad base of support she has earned among African Americans, urban Democrats, Latinos, and other minorities because of her work in promoting educational equality.
  6. She is a religious extremist. This is another standard attack by liberals regarding those they hate. Shortly after then President-elect Trump announced DeVos as his education pick, liberals launched a coordinated attack branding her as a religious extremist. The ACLU of Michigan said her support for school vouchers perverts the bedrock American value of separation of church and state, because vouchers allow parents to choose religious schools. The head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State argued that DeVos fought to divert resources away from public schools into private, mostly religious institutions, adding that she is the leader of the crusade to create school vouchers across the country. Other journalists joined in this attach. Katherine Stewart of The New York Times thought it necessary to roll out a 30-year quote from a pastor distantly related to Mrs. Devos. And she even described DeVos as a member of a fringe religious group aiming to enforce “biblical laws” and replace public schools with all-religious schools, an obvious ridiculous statement. Patru further indicated that Betsy has never and will never attempt to impose her personal beliefs on anyone. To the contrary, she has been an outspoken advocate for empowering parents to choose how their children are educated.
  7. She supports child labor. After DeVos was chosen by trump, Alana Horowitz Satlin, assignment editor at the Huffington Post, breathlessly informed Americans of a horrible secret: Group Funded by Trump’s Education Secretary Pick, “Bring back child labor.” It seems as though Satlin was terrified that DeVos would put kids back in the coal mines and the 19th century factories. There were lots of problems with this narrative. First, it was never even DeVos making the argument. While she was an Acton Institute board member for ten years, and her family’s foundation had donated money to the group, the article arguing for child labor was written by Joseph Sunde, a project coordinator at the Acton Institute. Furthermore, Sunde was arguing that teenagers should be more able and probably encouraged to work a few hours a week at at fast-food restaurant or grocery store.

The fact that all liberals, including the teachers’ unions hate Betsy DeVos is a good thing in her favor. Furthermore, I agree with her statement that there have been major innovations in most occupations and institutions except public education, due, in part, to the teachers’ unions who don’t want any changes in innovation, technology, etc in the classroom. I believe if most had their way, they would still be working out of the old teacher grade books, averaging grades using a hand-held calculator, and filling out report cards by hand. Of course, they would still “bitch” about all the work they had to do and somehow blame those of us who work just has hard, if not harder in the private sector, for not wanting to pay extra taxes for their raises.

Most of us, in our chosen fields, have had to undergo changes. Sometimes we resisted, only to determine later that the changes were good things. Sometimes we resisted and the change was not a good thing. But bottom line, we had to accept those changes whether we want to or not.

Teachers are always holding themselves out to be morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us, and to be unsympathetic to the plight of teachers is tantamount to pulling Santa Claus’ beard. However, the foul language and hate that they have shown toward conservatives who support Betsy DeVos is almost unmatched to the vitriol that I see every day on social media from the left. Public school teachers, especially those who espouse teachers’ unions are neither morally or intellectually superior to the rest of us. In fact, just the opposite is true.

A special thanks to PJ Media for much of the information contained in this article.

Facebooktwitter

LAME DUCK – PART TWO

On August 24, liberal publication, Mother Jones, ran an article outlining things that the current president has done after January 2015 when he officially became a lame duck president. Of course, liberals think these things are great. The following is a discussion of five more of these items.

The current president successfully argued in favor of same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court: He did not. How can Mother Jones tell such a whopper? Of course he was against same-sex marriage when he was campaigning, but has now flip-flopped on the issue. The same-sex marriage ruling by the Supreme Court has put many Americans in direct conflict with their faith. We all know the story about the baker who would not bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Instead of simply finding another baker, the couple, with the support of liberals, took steps to destroy the baker’s business. I have also seen some liberals calling for the firing of folks working at court houses who refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Americans shouldn’t have to choose between their livelihood and their faith. This ruling is a scourge.

The current president has put in place economic sanctions on Russia that have Vladimir Putin reeling: In December 2014, the current president said, through a spokesman, that he would sign newly passed legislation expanding measure intended to cordon off large Russian state firms from Western financing and technology while also providing $350 million in arms and military equipment to Ukraine as it battles a pro-Russian insurgency in its eastern regions. According to the New York Times, the president was not in favor of this legislation, but Congress passed the measure without opposition, making a veto politically untenable.

The current president pressured the FCC to approve net neutrality rules: According to thehill.com, a House appropriations bill released Wednesday would block the Federal Communication Commission from implementing its net neutrality rules until the courts weigh in on the issue. The rules, adopted earlier this year and supported by the current president reclassify Internet providers as utilities, and would prohibit broadband and mobile carriers from selectively blocking or slowing Web traffic. The rules also reclassify broadband as a regulated common-carrier service, instead of treating it as a lightly regulated information service, as the FCC has done for the past decade.

This government overreach measure is going to be tied up in the courts for a while. I wouldn’t exactly call this an accomplishment by the current administration.

Issued new EPA coal regulations: On Monday, June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court blocked one of the Obama administration’s most ambitious environmental initiatives, an EPA regulation meant to limit emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants.

Industry groups and about 20 states had challenged the EPA’s decision to regulate emissions, saying the agency had failed to take into account the punishing costs its rule would impose. This is from the New York Times.

This was certainly not good for the middle class/working class. Thank goodness the highest court in the land has blocked it. However, on August 3, 2015, the current president and the EPA announced the Clean Power Plan – a historic and important step in reducing carbon pollution from power plants that takes real action on climate change. Here we go again…war on the middle class/working class.

Issued an executive order on immigration: In June Judges Jennifer Walker Elrod and Jerry Smith dealt a significant blow to the current president’s executive actions on immigration. The judges will also play key roles in deciding whether the controversial programs are legally sound. This is a lawless executive order that is being held up in the courts.

The above is more of this president’s attempt to destroy the middle class and make it difficult on small businesses.

Facebooktwitter