Politifact fact-checked one of Pres. Trump's tweets Sunday and declared the "the numbers check out." The fact-checking site then rated the tweet "mostly false."
Trump had tweeted that the National Debt in his first month went down $12 billion vs a $200 billion up-tick in Barack Obama's first month, with PolitiFact reporting, "The numbers check out." But in the typical spin-style of Progressive NewsSpeak organizations, they wrote exactly the opposite of the truth based on a political opinion, declaring the tweet "mostly false."
So, in the world of fact checking, PolitiFact being one of the more noted vetting mechanisms, the truth doesn't matter as much as an opinion on the truth.
Interestingly, PolitiFact used to back-up Pres. Obama's claims that the economy was rockin', that unemployment was down - even though the Labor Participation Rate was dismal and the jobs created were mediocre-paying part-time jobs at best, and that al Qaeda had been decimated.
So, with just this brief juxtaposition, we can see that PolitiFact bases it's ratings on the ideological theories and opinions held by their vetters.
PolitiFact: Worthless as teats on a bull.
Leaked audio from an anti-Trump protest group prep meeting reveals activists with the Progressive group Indivisible plotting how best to manufacture a hostile environment at a town hall with Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy in Louisiana Friday. The audio reveals a coordinated effort to create the public impression that Cassidy’s support for Trump is unpopular with his constituents.
The activists, who describe themselves as liberals in the audio, split up into an “inside team” (tasked with occupying “as many seats as we can”) and an “outside team” (whose job was to “give [the media] the coverage they want”). Activists were even instructed to dress like conservatives and leave at home “any signifier that you’re a liberal” in order to blend in with constituents.
This isn't an act of free speech as Progressive operatives and talking heads keep contending on the prime time usual suspect shows. It is a usurpation of democracy; a deliberate obstruction of a legitimate political process. In fact, when you consider that the actions of these "activists" disenfranchise legitimate constituents from engaging in the political process, it could be argued that they are violating the real constituents' constitutional rights to redress government.
These are the Alinsky tactics of the Progressive movement. They are antithetical to freedom and liberty; to the democratic process and representative constitutional government. Until We the People can expunge this subversive ideology from our national lexicon, we will suffer the chaos they wreck.
An investigation into newly elected DNC Chairman, Tom Perez, reveals he holds radically racist and extreme views according to A Review of the Operations of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division conducted by the Office of the Inspector General Oversight and Review Division in March of 2013. Perez told investigators that white people were not entitled to protection under the Voting Rights Act.
The DoJ document cited evidences: "CRT AAG Perez stated that interpreting Section 5’s retrogressive-effects standard to not cover White citizens was consistent with the Division’s longstanding practice, as well as case law interpreting the provision and the intent behind its enactment..."
Wow, if the sanitized version of what I would like to say about this racist piece of trash. The only question now is this. When will the tolerant people of the Left remove him as chairman of the Democrat National Committee? They fanatically state that Donald Trump is not fit to hold office - some, like Rep. Maxine Waters (P-CA), saying he should be impeached - so how can they allow someone who is racist against the majority demographic in our country to lead their political party?
Racism is racism and the definition of racism, per Merriam-Webster: "a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination...hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."
How is saying one group - group defined by the color of someone's skin - be protected under the law while another is not? That is the very definition of discrimination and unequal justice under the law, ergo, Perez is an admitted and unabashed racist.
So, can we safely conclude that the Democrats, by virtue of their election of this racist, are the party of racists?
A new preschool is opening in the Columbia City neighborhood of Seattle. It's goal: to indoctrinate children younger than seven in social justice and inter-sectional theory. The school, dubbed the “anti-racism preschool, was the "brainchild" of Benjamin Gore and Jason Frelot, who are opening the preschool at the back of the Columbia City Church of Hope, where they will educate young children on the “experiences of people of color.” It is set to open its doors in the fall.
This is madness. It is one thing to teach children that we shouldn't judge people because of their skin color. It is completely another to install "shame" on children for a perceived never-ending injustice per the Social Justice mantra.
I was brought up in the 1960s and 1970s and can attest to the fact that we were actually taught not to judge people by the color of their skin. Rather, we were taught to weigh the content of their character. Installing a faux and unwarranted "shame" on new generations simply propagates the issue and obstructs society from moving on from racial disparities of the past.
It is well past time that we, as a society, start excoriating the race-baiters among us. It is time to teach our children that those who make a living or seek to attract notoriety on the back of the issue of racism are the ones actually keeping racism alive, and for their own selfish gain.
We cannot move on to a better society if we allow this race merchants to force racism onto future generations.
White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, recently scoured his aides' cell phones to make sure they weren't leaking information to reporters. Spicer called staff into his office last week to reiterate his frustration with recent leaks, and informed them that the use of encrypted texting apps was a violation of the Federal Records Act.
Spicer went to far as to ask his staff to show him their cell phones so he could ensure they weren't corresponding privately with reporters.
Frankly, this is well within his purview. Leaks may have become acceptable in administrations past, with many Americans believing it is just part of the political world, but the leaking of classified information - and privileged conversation - is most often not only illegal, but damaging to the country.
Since the mainstreaming of the issue of government leaking as portrayed in All the President's Men, the act of betraying a trust has been romanticized and, therefore, accepted. But the betrayal of trust is just that: a betrayal of trust. It is an offense that should cost the leaker his/her job. And let's remember that employees of any presidential administration serve at the pleasure of the President.
Imagine if information would have been so freely leaked during World War II. Roosevelt would have had the leakers brought up on treason charges and executed. Today, the media runs interference for them.
As Pres. Trump continues his "war" with the mainstream media, the many talking heads of the alphabet networks are digging in their heals; forcefully protesting each and every assertion made by the President. And while the Fourth Estate is protected by Free Speech rights so that they can provide a type of oversight to government, it is their conduct that has brought them to this point.
Yes, the political press has been contentious since before the founding of our nation. In Washington, Adams and Jefferson's day, the newspapers were vicious. But they balanced that viciousness.
With the genesis of the Progressive movement in the United States, Progressives set their sights on controlling, first and foremost, the education and information systems of our nation. They succeeded in capturing both.
Today, radical Liberals and Progressives dominate our universities and colleges, indoctrinating students into "what to think" instead of "how to think." Nowhere is this more so than in the schools of journalism. Students are taught to infuse emotion (read: opinion) into their reporting. As they are flooded with Progressive ideology in higher education, the system churns out Progressive propagandists instead of journalists.
So, when Pres. Trump lays into the mainstream media for failing to check their facts, advancing untruths, anchoring an overwhelming number of stories in "unnamed sources," and pretty much acting as the media arm of the Leftist movement, we should all find it astonishing that they protest as hard as they do, all with self-righteous indignation.
The smart news organization head realizes that although their is a sacred trust to be the "truth to power" in politics, the genre, nevertheless, is a ratings game. Sensationalized journalism is getting incredibly stale, as are the formulated talking head shows. The people are tired of the "i think" talking point merchants trotted out each night to exacerbate topics most of us find inane. It is time for someone to get back to the "who, what, when, where, why and how, of it all and dispense with the opinion and emotion.
That news organization - should it appear - will slay all others in the ratings. That's how tired we are of the bullsh*t.
In a move that drips with hypocrisy, the Democrat National Committee tabled a resolution Saturday calling on the party to reinstate a ban on corporate donations and on federal corporate lobbyists from serving as at-large members of the DNC. This stands in direct opposition to the over-the-top rhetoric spewed during the 2016 General Election about Democrats opposition to the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling.
Ironically, Christine Pelosi, daughter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi - who benefits handsomely from big corporate donations, put forward the proposal to revive a ban that former Pres. Obama put into place in 2008.
So, throughout the years-long, mind-numbing presidential campaign of 2016 we heard - ad nauseum - from Democrats decrying the evils of corporate big money donations in politics. They painted these donations as the centerpiece of the RNC funding apparatus.
Now, the first chance they get to walk the walk, in establishing the DNC platform going forward from the 2016 General Election, they not only ignore what they preached to everyone else about the evils of corporate influence in politics, they green-light it for themselves.
To wit, anyone still believing anything these political reprobates have to say is either terminally stupid or just as disingenuous as their elected counterparts.
Former Pres. Obama and other top Democrats are focusing efforts on state-level races and ending the reconfiguring of voting districts through the politically-laden process known as redistricting.
Obama indicated before leaving the White House that his short-term, post-presidency focus will be on General Assembly races and redistricting after the 2020 Census. The "super group," otherwise known as the National Democrat Redistricting Committee is pushing for "non-partisan redistricting commissions," that would lord over the always changing congressional districts per the most recent census results.
Of course, there are two things that are huge encroachments onto the process that Democrats - and Obama - simply ignore.
First, the realignment of congressional districts is not - or at least it is not supposed to be - the purview of the Federal Government. It is the State legislatures that have power over any redistricting that must take place. A nationally mandated "non-partisan commission" would be chartered in an effort that violated the 10th Amendment.
Second is the question on who would have the authority to seat the members of these so-called "non-partisan" commissions. Because elections have consequences, the people naming the members of the commission would undoubtedly have partisan attitudes; example the FCC and NLRB for starters.
And you thought Obama was going to go quietly into the abyss of obscurity...
We live in a nation made up of 50 sovereign States with 50 different constitutions. The Federal Government has been trying to diminish that fact for over 200 years and it is time for that to stop.
The tolerant State of California is happily imposing travel restrictions on its own citizens citing political correctness. A new California State statute prohibits state agencies (including state universities) from funding travel to a number of states - including Tennessee and looking to include Kansas, Mississippi, and North Carolina - that have laws that "discriminate" against the LGBTQ community.
How far the State of California has devolved from their tolerant roots. It used to be that people moved to California for the freedom it afforded as one of the last bastions of "hands-off" government. Today, California has some of the most outrageous taxes and societal mandates in the United States.
This travel ban, while not as draconian, stinks of the "where are your papers" days of the Third Reich. But how far are they really from that point? Certainly, this denies some students the same taxpayer-funded privileges of other students who do not travel to the targeted states for educational purposes. Isn't this a true form of discrimination?
The ideologues who control California's government have made it the laughingstock of the 50 States. In fact, many who live outside the PC State of California are quietly cheering their efforts at a CalExit. If they succeed, then we will witness how "ideological" they remain in the face of not US federal dollars to support their ridiculous initiatives.
Chris Cuomo: Dads Who Don't Want their Daughters to See Exposed Male Genitals 'Overprotective' & 'Intolerant'
CNN’s Chris Cuomo, the son of Late New York Governor Mario Cuomo and brother to current New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, was asked in a tweet what you tell a 12-year old girl who doesn’t want to see a penis in the locker room. He responded by stating that any dad who would seek to protect his daughter from seeing a male penis, etc. or otherwise objected, was being "overprotective" and "intolerant."
This is insane. It is also afoul of indecent exposure laws that are on the books in every one of the 50 States.
What kind of degenerate believes that it is not objectionable for a grown man to show his genitalia to a 12-year old, prepubescent girl? For that matter, isn't the very definition of "degenerate" someone who would do such a thing?
This is the warped moral relativism of the Progressive Left. There are no boundaries and anyone who doesn't agree with them are instantly labeled "intolerant," and, in this case, "over-protective." Imagine that, a father labeled "intolerant" for not letting some cretin expose himself to his daughter.
Imagine, if you will, the shrieking outrage that would have taken place if someone on the Right would have suggested such a thing. Charges of misogyny and sexism would have come down on his head like Niagara Falls.
Cuomo should lose his job, if for nothing else, being stupid enough to say such a thing. It lends to the idea that he is not smart and, therefore, a liability to CNN. Really, he should lose his job because remarking as he did proved him to be a scumbag.