Archive for the ‘CNN’ category

The Anonymous Sources of Washington Post and CNN Fake News

May 18, 2017

The Anonymous Sources of Washington Post and CNN Fake News, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, May 18, 2017

Media fake news is everywhere.

No, the new health care bill does not treat rape as a pre-existing condition and Republicans did not celebrate its passage with beer. 

The latest media outrage is driven by a Washington Post story about intelligence disclosures based on claims by anonymous sources. The Post’s big hit pieces are mainly based on anonymous sources.

Its latest hit piece runs a quote from, “a former senior U.S. official who is close to current administration officials.” That’s an anonymous source quoting hearsay from other anonymous sources.

This isn’t journalism. It’s a joke.

Last week, the Washington Post unveiled a story based on “the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House.” The fake news story falsely claimed that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to resign.

Rod had a simple answer when asked about that piece of fake news. “No.”

So much for 30 anonymous sources and for the Washington Post’s credibility.  But the media keeps shoveling out pieces based on anonymous sources and confirmed by anonymous sources while ignoring the disavowals by those public officials who are willing to go on the record.

The Comey memo story is based on, according to the New York Times, “two people who read the memo.” And then “one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter.”

And his dog.

The supposed memo contradicts Comey’s own testimony to Congress under oath.

The Times hasn’t seen the memo. No one has seen the memo except the anonymous sources that may or may not exist. The media’s fake news infrastructure relies heavily on anonymous sources. And anonymous sources are the media’s way of saying, “Just trust us.”

The question is why would anyone trust the media?

Comey fake news is popular on the left because it is convinced that he is the key to reversing their election defeat. Recently CNN got its fake news fingers burned with a story claiming that the former FBI Director had asked for more resources for the Russia investigation before he was fired.

Where did CNN get its story from? Anonymous sources. Or, as the story put it, “two sources familiar with the discussion.”

Sources “familiar with the discussion” is up there with “a former senior U.S. official who is close to current administration officials.” And their neighbor’s dog who barks exclusively to CNN.

Rod Rosenstein and Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe both shot down CNN’s fake news.  CNN’s headline was, “New Acting FBI Director Contradicts White House on Comey.” Its fake news was referenced only as, “Amid reports that Comey had asked for more resources for the Russia investigation, McCabe testified that he believed the bureau had adequate resources to complete the job.”

CNN did not acknowledge that the fake reports had come from it. It phrased it in passive and vague language. And it left out a crucial part of McCabe’s response. “When we need resources, we make those requests here. So I’m not aware of that request and it’s not consistent with my understanding of how we request additional resources. That said, we don’t typically request resources for an individual case. And as I mentioned, I strongly believe that the Russian investigation is adequately resourced.”

CNN didn’t just push fake news. It covered up its crime. And it’s the cover-up that proves the crime.

Media outlets like CNN and the Washington Post often knows that they’re pushing lies. WaPo’s fact checkers shot down the claim that rape is a pre-existing condition. But the paper ran a piece titled, “I Was Raped. Thanks to Republicans, I Could Be Denied Insurance.” The editors know quite well which of these pieces will have more of an impact.

But the Post has a dozen stories mentioning the Comey resources fake news.

The Washington Post isn’t in the news business. After its takeover by Amazon boss Jeff Bezos, it’s in the business of manufacturing viral Trump hit pieces. It got a viral fake news hit with its lie that Press Secretary Sean Spicer was hiding in the bushes to avoid them. There was an equally snarky correction issued that was largely irrelevant. Having manufactured a piece of fake news fit for a Saturday Night Live skit, the Post then dutifully reported  on the Saturday Night Live skit featuring its fake news item.

In the past there would have been a world of difference between the Washington Post and Saturday Night Live. Today they are part of the same lefty echo chamber. The media, all the various parts of it, is now one big influence operation. The machine works by developing and taking fake news attacks viral. WaPo and SNL are in the same business. There isn’t even much of a stylistic difference.

The Washington Post’s “Trump fired Comey because he’s taller” could easily have come from Saturday Night Live, The Onion or the Daily Show.

The truly damning epitaph of American journalism is that there isn’t much of a difference. Saturday Night Live isn’t doing comedy and the Washington Post isn’t doing journalism. They’re both manufacturing viral Trump attacks.

Getting your news from the Washington Post is as worthless as getting it from Saturday Night Live.

While more respectable papers like the Post and the Times occupy the top rung of the fake news ladder, CNN has become the National Enquirer of Trump bashing. No story is too petty or fake to get airtime or site space. Recent examples that have gone viral include, “Is the President Afraid of Stairs” and “President Gets 2 Scoops of Ice Cream, Everyone Else 1.”

CNN’s fake news is constantly being shot down by the facts. But it just doubles down on its lies.

“We will not insult your intelligence by pretending it’s legitimate. Nor will we aid and abet the people trying to misinform you,” CNN’s Don Lemon had blustered when trying to suppress the Rice spying story.

CNN insults the intelligence of its viewers every minute that they watch it. It offers up a stream of misinformation while trying to suppress legitimate news. Much of this misinformation takes the form of spreading lefty fake news memes whether it’s rape as a preexisting condition or Republican beer.

And even when corrections appear, they exist only for the purpose of plausible deniability. The original fake news gets rolled into multiple news stories, blog posts and editorials that never get updated or corrected.

And even if they were to be, the damage would be done. That’s the way fake news works.

CNN and the Washington Post are throwing mud and assuming that some of it will stick. And even when it’s officially corrected, it still sticks around. Months later, the Post site still carries an uncorrected reference to the AP fake news story which claimed that Trump had threatened to invade Mexico even after it had been denied by both governments and had been pulled for being unverifiable.

It’s a safe bet that rape as a preexisting condition and Comey’s Russian resources will also stick around.

“Applying the fake news label is an attack on the truth. It’s reckless and corrosive to democracy, and elected officials attempt to deliberately and systematically erode the credibility of news organizations because they object to factually accurate reporting,” the CEO of the Washington Post insisted last month.

But it’s the media that is reckless and corrosive to democracy. It has eroded its credibility with fake news. Factually accurate reporting has become too difficult and unrewarding. The idea of waiting months or years for an investigation to pay off is alien to the nanosecond news cycle. That’s why every fake Trump scandal is the new Watergate. And fake news is constantly being manufactured.

News organizations are throwing away their credibility to reverse the results of a democratic election. And it’s not only their own credibility that they are throwing away. The marketplace of ideas was based on reason and objectivity. Without them, there was no longer a public square we could all live in.

Media bias began to corrupt the marketplace. But bias meant the selective reporting of facts. Falsehoods could creep in. But generally the media would not just casually run stories that were completely false. It would happen from time to time. But it wouldn’t be a constant practice.

And then a tipping point was reached.

Historians of journalism will argue over when the dam broke. Was it the age of Obama or of Trump? But the day arrived. The sun rose over the CNN Center in Atlanta, the K Street digs of the Washington Post and the offices of other media organizations. And it was no longer a question of selective reporting. We were no longer arguing about the injection of opinion into news stories or journalistic double standards.

The age of fake news had arrived. We no longer have a free press. All we have is a fake press.

CNN: Trump’s North Korea Policy Might Just Be Working

April 19, 2017

CNN: Trump’s North Korea Policy Might Just Be Working, BreitbartJoel B. Pollak, April 19, 2017

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Former British ambassador to North Korea John Everard writes at CNN.com on Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s assertive strategy towards the rogue nuclear power may have actually worked, despite domestic criticism.

Everard writes:

In my opinion, the most plausible explanation for this is that North Korea blinked. Although it is possible the extensive preparations around its nuclear test site were intended only to wind up the international community, it seems more likely that the North Koreans did indeed plan a nuclear test Saturday but desisted, probably because they assessed the risks of serious retaliation were too great.

The US carrier group it thought was near Korea and China’s threat on April 12 to support UN sanctions, including cutting off North Korea’s oil supply — which would have quickly brought its fragile economy to a halt — probably weighed heavily on Pyongyang as well.

Though domestic critics attacked Trump for stating that the USS Carl Vinson and an “armada” were sailing toward the Korean peninsula, when in fact the ships were far away, Everard says that Trump’s statement was a successful bluff.

The North Korean dictator thought the carrier group really was off the Korean coast, Everard writes. “Very few people outside the US administration knew the carrier group was in fact some 3,500 miles away from the Korean Peninsula.”

He concludes:

Perhaps the North Koreans calculated (rightly, it seems) that either a nuclear test or a test of an intercontinental ballistic missile — a long-range missile of the kind they would need to carry a nuclear warhead to the continental United States — was too dangerous. Instead, launching a medium-range missile would allow them to deny they were buckling under foreign pressure while not triggering a vigorous international reaction. The fact it failed doubtless also softened responses.

If this analysis is right, then the United States has, for now at least, succeeded in its long-term goal of halting the development of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missiles.

One observer who predicted Trump’s success in the confrontation was Dilbert illustrator and author Scott Adams, who had been stating for weeks that Trump’s unpredictable military moves might scare China into reining in its client state.

CNN is rarely positive in its coverage of the 45th president, making Everard’s article particularly noteworthy.

Obama’s White House, 2009: ‘Don’t Pretend’ Fox News Is a ‘Legitimate News Organization’

January 12, 2017

Obama’s White House, 2009: ‘Don’t Pretend’ Fox News Is a ‘Legitimate News Organization’, PJ MediaDavid Steinberg, January 11, 2017

trumpnewsconfPresident-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference, Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2017, in New York. The news conference was his first as President-elect. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Now, here’s a more insightful take: since Obama’s done it since it his first year in office; since Obama went two entire terms without taking more than a handful of questions from any center-right outlet, never mind singling out just one; and since not being one of the lucky dozen or so people out of 300 million Americans who gets to ask the president-elect a question does not infer that your rights have been violated . . . .

****************************

Donald Trump refused to take a question from CNN reporter Jim Acosta today, labeling Acosta’s employer as “fake news.” Since then, mainstream media and celebrities are hyperventilating over Trump as if he bears the same viciously totalitarian impulses as, say, Fidel Castro — and that Trump is SCARY and GOING TO GET THEM.

As comforting as tweeting one’s victimhood status to millions appears to be to today’s left — and as ironic as exercising one’s free speech to millions via Twitter to claim the death of the First Amendment is to everyone else — this reactionary response sure doesn’t look good for the left in terms of ideological consistency.

Or sanity. For example, here’s one-percenter Patton Oswalt, who I’ll assume is tweeting from an in-home hyperbaric chamber:

Did the New York Times fear freedom of the press had been eradicated? No, the headline was simply that “Fox’s Volley With Obama” was … “Intensifying.”

Ironically, current CNN host and Trump critic Brian Stelter wrote the article. It begins:

Attacking the news media is a time-honored White House tactic but to an unusual degree, the Obama administration has narrowed its sights to one specific organization, the Fox News Channel, calling it, in essence, part of the political opposition.

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

In 2009, the White House’s position on Fox News was that it was “an opponent,” at “war(!)” with the White House. And that they were not, in fact, a legitimate news organization.

They were to be treated as fake news. It was White House policy.

Here’s Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post:

John Harwood of NBC:

Mother Jones:

Media Matters:

Here’s George Takei:

Now, here’s a more insightful take: since Obama’s done it since it his first year in office; since Obama went two entire terms without taking more than a handful of questions from any center-right outlet, never mind singling out just one; and since not being one of the lucky dozen or so people out of 300 million Americans who gets to ask the president-elect a question does not infer that your rights have been violated, this tweeter brings some sanity whether you’re a Trump supporter or not:

Much better.

Plagiarist Fareed Zakaria’s Love Letter to Barack Obama Cut Down to 90 Seconds

January 4, 2017

Plagiarist Fareed Zakaria’s Love Letter to Barack Obama Cut Down to 90 Seconds, Washington Free Beacon, , January 3, 2017

Fareed Zakaria is liberal, a plagiarist, and a journalist who proudly endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008.

Naturally, CNN gave him two hours of primetime television last month to showcase his fawning documentary on the outgoing president called “The Legacy of Barack Obama.”

We condensed it down to 90 seconds to save you the two hours of propaganda.

Complete with interviews with no Republicans but plenty of former and current White House staffers–including Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones, Denis McDonough, Rahm Emanuel, and David Axelrod–Zakaria takes viewers on a sweeping and rosy tour of the Obama presidency.

Fond of a gambling analogy about Obama making big “bets,” Zakaria shockingly concluded that a man he nearly worked for four years ago was “largely scandal-free,” brought “elegance” and “intelligence” to the White House, was on the “right side of history,” and was “intensely charismatic.”

Zakaria gushed about the passing of Obamacare, while giving a total of five seconds to Obama’s “like your plan, keep your plan” lie that sent his approval ratings into a tailspin. In addition, the Iran nuclear deal got almost no in-depth discussion, with Zakaria focusing instead on how amazing it was that Obama opened up talks with the rogue country in the first place.

Throughout the documentary, Zakaria’s tone was reverent regarding Obama’s transformative powers. His tone (and the music) became grim when the subject of the “central crisis” of Republican opposition and the incoming Donald Trump administration came up.

CNN Uses Germany Attack To Bash The Right

December 20, 2016

CNN Uses Germany Attack To Bash The Right, Daily Caller, Blake Neff, December 19, 2016

CNN’s online coverage of Monday’s deadly terror attack on a German Christmas market focused on the attack’s potential to stoke far-right anger, rather than the threats of Islamic radicalism.

The attack in Berlin killed at least 12 people and injured dozens more, but on CNN’s website, the network’s top story warned about “the fallout of fear” and said that “attacks fuel [the] far right’s assault on democracy.”


fearCNN’s frontpage after the Berlin attack. [Screen shot]

The headline leads to an article by columnist David Andelman, in which he warns not to let repeated Islamic terror attacks undermine the West’s commitment to mass immigration.

“Across Europe, right-wing candidates are positioning themselves against immigration and Islam, defending an ever-tougher stance with every new terrorist assault.” Andelman says, presenting this as a threat to “traditional democratic values” even though all the candidates he names are participants in electoral democracies.

In fact, the only proof Andelman offers that electing right-wing parties will destroy democracy is that many of those parties want to withdraw from the European Union, even though such a withdrawal, by itself, does nothing to make a country less of a democracy.

“This is the ultimate danger of terror attacks. Reasonable men and women must recognize them for what they are — an effort to drain what is left of democracy from our nations,” Andelman warns.

CNN’s front page also invited doubt over whether the attack was terrorism by using a “Was it terrorism?” headline, even though German news has already reported the attacker was a refugee, making terrorism the overwhelmingly likely cause of the attack.

 

CNN documentary: Republicans are racists for opposing Obama

December 8, 2016

CNN documentary: Republicans are racists for opposing Obama, Washington TimesBradford Richardson, December 8, 2016

(Why certainly! Just like Hillary lost because everyone who voted for Trump — a racist, misogynist antisemite who hates women and Hispanics  — is anti-feminist and anti-everything else good. Despite the vileness of Trump’s election, no Democrat would even consider demanding recounts or otherwise challenging the legitimacy of Trump’s terrible un-democratic election or erecting obstacles to his absurd agenda. — DM)

obama-jpeg-3ad0d_c0-229-5472-3419_s885x516President Barack Obama during a U.S. counterterrorism strategy speech at MacDill Air Force Base Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016, in Tampa, Fla. (AP Photo/Chris O’Meara)

A new CNN documentary about President Obama speculates that Republican opposition to the first black president’s big-government program was rooted in racial animus.

True to Mr. Obama’s legacy, “The Legacy of Barack Obama” finds plenty of time to bash Republicans.

“Did race play a role in the brick wall of Republican resistance to Barack Obama?” former Obama adviser and CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria asks at the outset of the documentary, which aired on Wednesday.

The two-hour primetime exposé, first reported by NewsBusters, features a who’s who of liberal pundits – many of them former Obama White House officials – who wholeheartedly agree that racism was a driving force behind Republican resistance to the president’s efforts to grow the size of government and centralize power in Washington, D.C.

After delving into Mr. Obama’s upbringing, the documentary cuts to a joyous scene at the president’s 2008 acceptance speech.

“It seemed like a fairy tale beginning but at precisely the moment the first couple began swaying on the dance floor, the central crisis of the Obama presidency was already taking shape,” Mr. Zakaria narrates.

“Within half a mile of where Obama and Michelle are dancing and celebrating their great victory, his Republican opponents are wining and dining and plotting his downfall,” says The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza, adding that “15 of the most powerful Republicans in Washington made a pact that night” to undermine Mr. Obama at every turn.

“It’s indisputable that there was a ferocity to the opposition and a lack of respect to him that was a function of race,” says David Axelrod, a CNN political commentator and former chief strategist to the president.

And CNN political commentator Van Jones, a former top environmental official in the Obama administration, says he can’t think of a single thing congressional Republicans and Mr. Obama agreed on over eight years. But he can think of one thing – and only one thing – that explains the discord.

“You have to have an extraordinary explanation for this level of obstruction,” Mr. Jones says, evidently not referring to philosophical disagreement between liberalism and conservatism about the size and scope of government.

Although the documentary hints at racism around every corner of the bicameral legislature, it does not actually accuse any lawmakers of being racists.

“David Axelrod says, at least one powerful Republican was personally disrespectful to Obama,” Mr. Zakaria feebly alleges at one point.

Bringing the evening to a race-baiting crescendo, Mr. Zakaria recalls an incident in which Mr. Obama said a police officer “acted stupidly” by arresting a black Harvard professor who tried to force his way into his home after finding the door jammed.

The CNN anchor notes that the timing of the controversy coincided with fierce Republican opposition to Obamacare, which passed without a single GOP vote.

Suddenly, Mr. Zakaria remarks, “Rage over ObamaCare was turning to race.”

CNN’s Alisyn Camerota: Americans should wear headscarves in solidarity with Muslims

November 29, 2016

CNN’s Alisyn Camerota: Americans should wear headscarves in solidarity with Muslims, Jihad Watch

Where is Alisyn Camerota’s concern for Aqsa Parvez, whose Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it? Or Aqsa and Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab? Or the 40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab; or Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain; or Amira Osman Hamid, who faced whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab; or the Egyptian girl, also named Amira, who committed suicide after being brutalized for her family for refusing to wear the hijab; or the Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia who were told that they had to wear the hijab or be fired; or the women in Chechnya whom police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab; or the women also in Chechnya who were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab; or the elementary school teachers in Tunisia who were threatened with death for not wearing hijab; or the Syrian schoolgirls who were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab; or the women in Gaza whom Hamas has forcedto wear hijab; or the women in Iran who protested against the regime by daring to take off their legally-required hijab; or the women in London whom Muslim thugs threatened to murder if they didn’t wear hijab; or the anonymous young Muslim woman who doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents, or all the other women and girls who have been killed or threatened, or who live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab?

Who is standing in solidarity with them? Those who taunt or brutalize hijab-wearing women are louts and creeps, and should be prosecuted if they commit any acts of violence. At the same time, the women who don’t wear hijab in Muslim countries are far more likely to be victims of violence than hijabis in the West. Who speaks for them?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIBqJILOMf8

The Fake News of CNN | SUPERcuts! #390

November 28, 2016

The Fake News of CNN | SUPERcuts! #390, Washington Free Beacon via YouTube, November 28, 2016

The ‘Hate-Crime’ Victims Of Trump Who Weren’t

November 21, 2016

The ‘Hate-Crime’ Victims Of Trump Who Weren’t, Jihad Watch

trump-islamophobia

To gain power, totalitarian movements always portray themselves as victims. And while they are in the process of abusing, they cry in front of the world posing as the abused. They stage “hate-crime” attacks against themselves because hate crimes are their political and cultural capital. When those hate-crimes  don’t exist, they must be invented.

We are witnessing precisely this phenomenon at this very moment in regards to the myriad hoax “hate-crimes” that anti-Trump forces are manufacturing out of thin air and blaming on Trump supporters. The media are bolstering the entire hallucination process, with CNN leading the way.

Central to the whole narrative is the supposed “Islamophobic” anti-Muslim crime-wave sweeping the nation. The rumors spread and the media regurgitates the lies without any evidence to back them up. And then, after the hoaxes are debunked one by one, the media is, by that time, bored and no longer interested.

The latest “Islamophobia” counterfeit involves a Muslim student at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette (ULL). The Muslima alleged that her hijab and wallet were stolen by two white Trump supporters who were shouting racial slurs. The woman’s accusation incensed leftists and Muslims across the nation and the world, prompting the ACLU of Louisiana to issue a statement denouncing both the incident and, of course, Donald Trump. The investigation into the incident involved several law enforcement agencies, including the FBI. The Washington Post, New York Times and CNN, meanwhile, ate the story up.

But what happened to this Muslima’s story under tough police questioning? Well, the ULL student eventually broke down and admitted to police that she had fabricated the entire thing. By that time, of course, the media wasn’t too interested in such an innocuous little detail.

Recently, The Huffington Post reported on an incident of “Islamophobia” under the headline “Islamophobia Just Drove This Boy And His Family Out Of America.” It was all so heartbreaking and unjust. The one little problem with the story, however, was that it never happened.

Trump supporters, meanwhile, are supposedly involved in a lot of other evil than just attacking Muslim women on campuses and driving little Muslim boys out of America:

A gay Canadian filmmaker, Chris Ball, was alleged to have been beaten up by Trump supporters on election night in Santa Monica. It was upsetting, but it turned out the incident never really happened at all.

An image also recently went viral online that purported to show KKK members in North Carolina celebrating Donald Trump’s victory. It was really awful. And it was also confirmed to be a hoax. The proof of the hoax, however, didn’t go viral.

Many other hoaxes of Trump-induced terror are being debunked as we speak.

All of these “hate-crime” fabrications made up by the anti-Trump forces are nothing new. They are a completely natural ingredient of how totalitarians operate and, hence, how the Unholy Alliance of the Left and Islam operates. Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield explains this phenomenon in the context of the Left:

“The left is a victimhood cult. It feeds off pain and fetishizes suffering as a moral commodity to be sold and resold in exchange for political power.”

Greenfield calls this leftist charade “victimocracy” and labels its foot soldier the “cry-bully” who is, in reality, the “abuser-victim.” This monster, Greenfield writes, is

“the abuser who pretends to be a victim. His arguments are his feelings. He comes armored in identity politics entitlement and is always yelling about social justice or crying social justice tears. If you don’t fight back, the cry-bully bullies you. If you fight back, the cry-bully cries and demands a safe space because you made him feel unsafe.”

Thus, because now the Unholy Alliance maniacs feel “unsafe” because they didn’t get their way in the election, it becomes very clear why it’s crucial for them to play the victim – and, most importantly, to fabricate “hate-crimes” being perpetrated against themselves. Greenfield explains:

“If cry-bullies can’t safe-bait you, they will manufacture threats by faking hate crimes against themselves or phoning in bomb threats to validate their need for a safe space in which no one is allowed to disagree with them. Surviving their own fake crimes turns cry-bullies into social justice heroes.”

Islamic supremacists play a key part in this story. And since the Left controls our culture and boundaries of discourse, it makes complete sense that the media, instead of focusing on how the Muslim community should make Americans feel safe by repudiating Islamic texts that inspire and sanction violence against unbelievers, instead amplify the narrative that it is Muslims who are afraid and that it is non-Muslim Americans who need to make Muslims feel safe. Leading scholar of Islam Robert Spencer explains this charade, unveiling why Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the CAIR need there to be hate crimes against Muslims so badly:

“The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) wants and needs hate crimes against Muslims, because they’re the currency they use to buy power and influence in our victimhood-oriented society, and to deflect attention away from jihad terror and onto Muslims as putative victims.”

This is why the Muslima at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette fabricated the “hate-crime” against herself. And it is also why her lie is only the latest example in a long list of so many other Muslim counterfeit stories.

Just to list a few of the typical and notorious incidents:

In February 2016, a Michigan Muslima, Said Chatti, was arraigned in Dearborn’s 18th District Court for making a false police report about an “Islamophobic” plot to bomb Dearborn FordsonHigh School, a majority-Muslim high school. She contacted the Dearborn Police Department and claimed that an “anonymous” friend of hers overheard a group of individuals plotting to blow up the school to retaliate against the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris. When the police presented her with the evidence of the holes in her story, she admitted it was a false report.

In December 2015, a 37-year-old Muslim man, Gary Nathaniel Moore of Houston, was charged with first-degree arson for setting a Houston mosque on fire on Christmas day – a mosque where he himself was a regular, having attended it for five years, coming five times per day to pray seven days per week. Using surveillance video from multiple businesses nearby, investigators were able to identify Moore and a search warrant of his home recovered a backpack and clothing similar to that which was seen in surveillance footage, as well as half of a two-pack of charcoal lighter-fluid bottles that seemed to match another lighter fluid bottle found inside the mosque.

In March 2012, we beheld the murder of Muslima Shaima Alawadi. At first reported as a “hate-crime,” it then turned out to be an honor murder. The media and Unholy Alliance were extremely vocal and indignant while the murder was a hate-crime, even staging a campaign, “One Million Hijabs for Shaima Alawadi.” But once the murder turned out to be an Islamic crime, Shaima turned out not to matter to even one of the activists who had, at one point, made so much noise and howled so many cries of indignation.

The list goes on and on: a Muslim woman in England was proven to have lied to police about claiming to have been punched in the face for wearing a hijab; a Muslim woman in Dearborn dropped a lawsuit against police after video proved she was lying when claiming they forced her to remove her hijab; a supposed “hit-and-run” on a Muslim woman in Brussels blamed on “far right” anti-Islam demonstrators turned out to be perpetrated by a Muslim named “Mohamed.”

Many more of these Muslim victimization fantasies and lies have been documented by Robert Spencer in his special report, “The Top Anti-Muslim Hate Crime Hoaxes of 2014,” and in his recent video, Yet Another “Islamophobic Hate Crime” Hoax.

And so, we come to see that faking hate-crimes is a long and standard tradition of the cry-bully, and the Unholy Alliance is the premier cry-bully of our modern age. With Trump’s victory now a reality, the Left/Islam forces are foaming at the mouth and gnashing their teeth.

And while they set fires and break windows, brutally beat young girls for liking Trump, break the faces of those they think look like Trump and injure police officers, they cry and whine because they are the real victims of real hate-crimes. But, as the evidence reveals, these are the hate-crimes perpetrated by the Trump supporters who might have been — and inflicted on the victims who weren’t.

Reprinted from Daily Caller.

Brazile Under Fire As More Emails Purport to Show Secret Leaks of Questions To Clinton

November 1, 2016

Brazile Under Fire As More Emails Purport to Show Secret Leaks of Questions To Clinton, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, November 1, 2016

donnab

 

cnn1

 

It would seem of more than passing interest for the media to determine if the head of the DNC, let alone a former CNN contributor, is lying. Yet, there appears to be a minimal level of coverage of the story.

******************

We discussed earlier how Donna Brazile, the interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, denied the legitimacy of emails that showed her leaking a question to Hillary Clinton that would be asked verbatim at the CNN downhill event. The media has largely declined to investigate the claim, including confirming the receipt of the earlier email from the Clinton staffer. Now additional emails allegedly show Brazile secretly feeding information to the Clinton campaign. Again, there has been relatively little media attention to the story and CNN issued a remarkably weak response that it was “uncomfortable” with the new disclosures on Brazile’s actions while a CNN commentator. “Uncomfortable”? How about words like “unethical”?

There are now three troubling levels to this story. First, CNN maintained throughout the primary that Brazile (who was well known as a supporter of Hillary Clinton) was a “neutral” commentator. It was a facially ridiculous claim for anyone familiar with Washington. Second, Brazile then alleged passed along questions to Clinton in what would be a deeply unethical act. Third, Brazile then said that the emails were not real and that she could prove it.

The easiest way to confirm the earlier story is to ask the recipient campaign adviser Jennifer Palmieri who is readily available to the media. However, reporters have not pressed Palmieri. In the meantime, Brazile gave a rambling denial of the story that would normally trigger a feeding frenzy. In addition, some techies have posted a research that they say strongly support claims of authenticity, but the response of the media has been crickets.

Now, the latest email show that Brazile revealed to the Clinton campaign the name of the person who provided her with a question that was asked of Clinton at a March 13 town hall co-hosted by CNN and TV One. Brazile also shared a question from a debate hosted by CNN a week earlier. She allegedly named Roland Martin, a TV One host who co-moderated a March 13 town hall with CNN’s Jake Tapper, as her source. The March 5th email shows Brazile sharing a question with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and communications director Jennifer Palmieri that was to be asked in a March 6 debate hosted by CNN in Flint, Mich.

In a March 12 exchange, Brazile again refers to Martin and offers to provide more than just the one town hall question: “I’ll send a few more. Though some questions Roland submitted,” Brazile wrote to Palmieri in the March 12 email thread, which is entitled “From time to time I get the questions in advance.”

Now the emails contradict the denials of other CNN figures about sharing questions with Brazile.

In a March 5 email, Brazile reportedly leaked a question that was to be asked the next day at a debate that was hosted by CNN’s Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper: “One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash . . . Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint.”

Then in the debate a woman named Lee-Anne Walters did ask the question of both Clinton and Sanders:

“After my family, the city of Flint and the children in D.C. were poisoned by lead, will you make a personal promise to me right now that, as president, in your first 100 days in office, you will make it a requirement that all public water systems must remove all lead service lines throughout the entire United States, and notification made to the – the citizens that have said service lines,”

In response, CNN again denied sharing questions and said “We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor.” CNN has cut all ties with Brazile, but of course she remains the DNC head after replacing Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who ironically was viewed as working to rig the primary for Clinton).

It would seem of more than passing interest for the media to determine if the head of the DNC, let alone a former CNN contributor, is lying. Yet, there appears to be a minimal level of coverage of the story.