I understand what it means to have differences of opinions. However, when the facts, on which you base those opinions, are emphatically and empirically false, then your opinions are either worthless or questionable or both.
Biden has not been right about much of anything important since birth and Kamala is a known liar who twists, if not tortures, the truth. Biden is a flip flopper supreme and Kamala is the most liberal Democrat candidate since McGovern.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This from a dear friend and fellow memo reader: "I will take Trump over Pence any day. Agressive wins every time. He’s too nice and she’s a bitch. A---"
My response: "When Pence could not even say Biden was in charge of a Mother Hubbard Administration and we had to rebuild every facet of medical supplies and equipment and the states , like New York, had depleted their own supplies our response was immediate, effective and awesome under the total circumstances.
Once again, you unpatriotic Democrats are calling the kettle black which you are good at. Blame the other guy for what you are doing or have done."
Pence's inability to hit back factually and hard and the fact that we are leaving for Atlanta early caused me to say night, night.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From a long time friend, a fine security analyst-portfolio manager, former client and fellow memo reader: "Oh, ho! Wait a second. A 3% federal property tax would exceed the mortgage interest costs most people can now pay their residences at current rates. I just refinanced my mortgage at a 3% APR. And my loan to value ratio is well below 100%. So I would have to pay the Federal Government more for the privilege of living in my house than I pay to the bank in the form of interest on my mortgage loan? The bank (or mortgage backed bond buyer) is the one taking a risk on my house. Everyone knows that higher property taxes reduce real estate values.
A full-fledged, left-leaning media company, it should have evaporated after
Chris Wallace's brazen attacks on Donald Trump last week at the presidential
debate. Wallace dropped any pretense of impartiality and made it clear to
all that he's nothing more than a sniveling Democratic hack. Watching him
team up with comatose Joe to make blatantly false claims about Trump and
prevent the president from engaging Biden head-on was appalling.
Having alienated millions of its own viewers, you would have thought Fox
would swiftly apologize for Wallace's obnoxious, hate-filled performance,
but that would have been wishful thinking. Instead, Fox executives
immediately came out with an internal memo congratulating Wallace for his
handling of the debate and praising his "professionalism, skill, and
fortitude." What a crock.
Whatever else you may think about Wallace, the one thing that is undeniable
is that he was totally biased and unprofessional in his role as moderator of
last week's debate. After stating at the outset that his job was to be
invisible (the only true statement he made all night), he then proceeded not
only to be highly visible, but to become an active participant on behalf of
Sleepy Joe.
That he would be willing to expose himself as a complete fraud by injecting
the repeatedly debunked Charlottesville lie into the debate had to be a
surprise even to Trump's harshest critics. You've seen the full video of
Trump's now infamous "fine people on both sides" comment. I've seen the
full video. And tens of millions of others have seen the full video. So,
does Fox News expect us to believe that Chris Wallace, a supposed
professional journalist who lives and breathes this stuff day in and day
out, has never seen the full video? C'mon, man.
At one point in the video, to make certain he would not be misunderstood,
President Trump unequivocally states, "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis
and white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally." Clearly,
Chris Wallace knew before he confronted Trump yet again with the "renounce"
question that the entire thing was a lie and that by once again bringing it
up he would be aiding and abetting Joe Biden's repeated false claims about
what Trump actually said.
But perhaps the most annoying thing Wallace did was repeatedly cut off Trump
from responding to Biden's nonstop lies. For crying out loud, the whole
purpose of a debate is for the combatants to mix it up with their opponent.
Watching them in action is the only way viewers can judge the merits of the
candidates. Wallace, of course, knew that Biden had no chance against
Trump, that his only weapons were his childish sneering and name-calling, so
he focused on making certain that Trump was not able to challenge him with
the facts.
Since his shameful, partisan performance as moderator of the first debate,
Wallace, secure in the knowledge that Fox execs would protect him, has been
all over Fox News defending himself. And things were going along quite
smoothly for him until he made the mistake of having Trump campaign advisor
Steve Cortes as a guest on "Fox News Sunday."
"Chris, the way you're starting to harangue me now actually reminds me of
what you did to the president during that debate on Tuesday night," Cortes
said. Embarrassed, Wallace shot back, in a sarcastic tone, "Oh, yeah, I
harangued him."
Cortes then accused Wallace of being an "effective opposition to the
president," adding that Trump "had to debate not just Joe Biden, but you as
well. You were not a neutral moderator." Trying hard to keep his
composure, it looked for all the world like Wallace was peeing his pants on
live TV.
By contrast, Newsmax's Chris Salcedo unmercifully tore into Wallace and his
disingenuousness. He rightly wanted to know why Wallace had no interest in
asking Joe Biden about the plethora of racist comments he has made over the
years, his sponsorship of the 1994 Crime Bill that led to the mass
incarceration of minorities, his close relationship with former Klansman
Robert Byrd, or his statement about not wanting his kids to grow up in a
"racial jungle" (in regards to desegregation).
Which brings me to uber-nasty, uber-liberal John Roberts, Fox News chief
White House correspondent who exhibits pretty much the same liberal values
as his namesake on the Supreme Court. The vitriol coming from this
hyperbolic Trump hater is breathtaking. Last week, frustrated by his
party's failure to take down the president, he tore off his mask and openly
unleashed his hatred for the president.
Like Wallace, Roberts had a Trump Derangement Syndrome meltdown and started
badgering White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany yet again about why
President Trump still refuses to clearly condemn so-called white-supremacist
groups, even though he has done so more than 20 times. Seemingly on the
verge of tears, Roberts shouted, "Stop deflecting. Stop blaming the
media. I'm tired of it,"
It's been very sad watching the once-great Fox News sink into the media
swamp. It is now as corrupt as the deep state, going so far as to protect
anti-American, pro-antifa/Black Lives Matter billionaire George Soros. The
good news is that it is creating an incredible opportunity for Newsmax TV to
become the most important voice in conservative news. With anchors Chris
Salcedo and Greg Kelly leading the way, Newsmax is a real threat to Fox
News' dominance if it does not fall into the "fair and balanced" trap and
sticks with a proven formula: all conservative, all the time.
It's also an opportunity for Fox's big three - Tucker, Hannity, and Laura -
to step into starring roles at Newsmax in the not-too-distant future. I
believe all three of them are on the way out at Fox, and I have a hunch
they've known it for quite some time. I'm sure they would have loved to
rake Chris Wallace over the coals, but, with the exception of a modest tweet
from Laura Ingraham ("Trump is debating the moderator and Biden"), they
realize that criticizing him would only hastened their departure.
That said, it's time to hold our noses and watch the undercard event tonight
between one of the most dignified, accomplished, eloquent statesmen of our
time, Mike Pence, and a repulsive hyena who is devoid of principle, slept
her way up the political ladder, and will say or do absolutely anything to
get ahead. In a fair fight, Pence would annihilate Harris far more than
even Tulsi Gabbard did, but who knows what will happen with an ex-Biden
intern, Steve Scully, posing as the moderator. No stacked deck here, right?
As the great Chris Plante has so often mused, "Ah, it's good to be a
Democrat, isn't it?"++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Freeman of the WSJ challenges a competitor. The NYT's is no longer a worthy newspaper when it comes to their editorializing. They have become a "shrill shill" for the radical element that has taken over the Democrat Party and believe if they print it, it must be so. Their credibility is around their ankles and their 1619 project is the thinking of the dastardly unpatriotic, American haters amongst us.
American History and the New York Times - WSJ
call on the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind the 2020 Prize for Commentary awarded to Nikole Hannah-Jones for her lead essay in “The 1619 Project.” That essay was entitled, “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written.” But it turns out the article itself was false when written, making a large claim that protecting the institution of slavery was a primary motive for the American Revolution, a claim for which there is simply no evidence.
When the Board announced the prize on May 4, 2020, it praised Hannah-Jones for “a sweeping, deeply reported and personal essay for the ground-breaking 1619 Project, which seeks to place the enslavement of Africans at the center of America’s story, prompting public conversation about the nation’s founding and evolution.” Note well the last five words. Clearly the award was meant not merely to honor this one isolated essay, but the Project as a whole, with its framing contention that the year 1619, the date when some twenty Africans arrived at Jamestown, ought to be regarded as the nation’s “true founding,” supplanting the long-honored date of July 4, 1776, which marked the emergence of the United States as an independent nation.
The project and its contentions have repeatedly been questioned by academics in the relevant fields. The Journal’s Elliot Kaufman noted in December 2019:
‘So wrong in so many ways” is how Gordon Wood, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian of the American Revolution, characterized the New York Times’s “1619 Project.” James McPherson, dean of Civil War historians and another Pulitzer winner, said the Times presented an “unbalanced, one-sided account” that “left most of the history out.”
Messrs. McPherson and Wood were among the scholars who wrote to the Times last winter to note the “closed process” surrounding the project, as well as its factual errors. The scholars added:
These errors, which concern major events, cannot be described as interpretation or “framing.” They are matters of verifiable fact, which are the foundation of both honest scholarship and honest journalism. They suggest a displacement of historical understanding by ideology...
On the American Revolution, pivotal to any account of our history, the project asserts that the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain “in order to ensure slavery would continue.” This is not true. If supportable, the allegation would be astounding — yet every statement offered by the project to validate it is false.
In a separate letter to the Times, historians at Yale, Princeton and other institutions wrote “to express our deep concern about the New York Times’ promotion of The 1619 Project” and noted “the problematic treatment of major issues and personalities of the Founding and Civil War eras.” The scholars added:
We are also troubled that these materials are now to become the basis of school curriculums, with the imprimatur of the New York Times. The remedy for past historical oversights is not their replacement by modern oversights. We therefore respectfully ask the New York Times to withhold any steps to publish and distribute The 1619 Project until these concerns can be addressed in a thorough and open fashion.
In March, the Times did make one significant correction, though it simply labeled it an “Editors’ Note.” But the historians signing this week’s letter say the passage is still flawed:
Where Hannah-Jones had originally written, “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery,” the new text says “some of the colonists.” Even this softened assertion has little or no documentary basis, according to the most distinguished specialists in the period.
Historian Phillip Magness, among the signers of this week’s letter, noted recently that the Times has quietly edited its material again to remove the claim that 1776 is not the true American founding—and amazingly the Times’ prize-winner is now saying that she never made the claim. In this week’s letter, the historians write:
The duplicity of attempting to alter the historical record in a manner intended to deceive the public is as serious an infraction against professional ethics as a journalist can commit. A “sweeping, deeply reported and personal essay,” as the Pulitzer Prize Board called it, does not have the license to sweep its own errors into obscurity or the remit to publish “deeply reported” falsehoods.
***
Mr. Freeman is the co-author of “The Cost: Trump, China and American Revival.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment