Tag Archives: The New York Times

The new york times Cuts Ivanka Trump


Ivanka Trump

The High Priest of the Dishonest Media, the new york times, conjured up a piece to tell the world what it and its like-minded friends think of Ivanka Trump. Can you guess?

The oily article appeared today as one of the curated items on MSN’s news feed. It was mislabeled “Will Ivanka Trump Be The Most Powerful First Daughter In History?”. 

It should have been headlined, “Will Ivanka Trump Be What We Want Her To Be… Or Will We Have To Keep Cutting Her, Figuratively, Of Course, Until She Heels – Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!?”

I read the article until my mild chili bean lunch began to wend its way up my esophagus. I learned nothing about what it would take to become the most powerful first daughter in history. I did learn the opinions of the new york times and its like-minded elitists about Ms. Trump’s political views and business demeanor. In a sense, that was their idea of what it would take.

Suffice to say their opinions did not flatter the lovely Ms. Trump; they berated her. So passé! The election’s over, defeated Hillary and political correctness acolytes, so down the hatch with a shot of prolixin and chase it with a couple shots of whiskey. They can only help, although they will do nothing for your objectivity.

Sorry. That fossil’s dead and buried long ago under the basement of the new york times building. Who knows. It might have been alive yet when you all poured the cement over it.


Last Ditch Manipulation by the Shills!


The panicked, last ditch efforts to thwart democracy and manipulate American citizens to vote for Hillary Clinton have broken out of the gate.

Examine a few of these latest laughers (though they have serious implications)!

1. President Obama tells men to cast aside their reluctance to vote for a woman, just as he acknowledges that Michelle, his wife, is superior to him; then how come he ran for president instead of Michelle?

The significance: men are hateful dirtbags unless they vote for the female presidential candidate this year. Sounds an awful lot like, uh, prejudice.

2. Clinton operatives are huffing and puffing to push the Trump University civil case into the front and center of viewers, but viewers’ vision is obscured by 650,000 wayward emails.

The significance: Hillary is so blemished and rotten, she has to go hunting again for anything to try to make Trump look worse. This one’s been tried already. And Hillary isn’t going to win with her policy positions, like supporting Obamacare, which will punish citizens with draconian rate hikes and benefit cuts next year and on.

3. Microsoft and USA Today have rolled out a story with a seductive headline about former President Bush and his former governor brother, Jeb, possibly voting for Clinton. In the end the source, Jeb’s son, George P., says he does not know how his father and uncle voted. George P. himself says he supports Trump.

The significance: We already knew the Bushes were picking up their marbles and running to Hillary when Trump took Jeb out to the woodshed during the primaries. At least, that’s what they said they were going to do. If they retained any loyalty to the Republican Party, they voted Trump. If not, they voted for the Clinton Crime Family.

4. Another article on the MSN website touts a looming credit cut to Great Britain once it severs ties with the European Union. Moody’s made the threat. It had already downgraded the sovereign nation’s credit to “negative” when British subjects voted to depart the loose confederation. Others grimly warned of a testing of Britain’s “constitutional and legal frameworks” now and beyond; others, what a byzantine mess Britain’s departure will make.

The significance: voters who assert their constitutional prerogatives and national sovereignty will be punished for getting in the way of the elite establishment and its globalism. It’s their way or they will make your lives miserable. So much for the invisible, guiding hand of the free market! It’s more like the Invisible Fist!

You know what to do, right? Vote and be counted, then join the NRA!

5. New York Times columnist Tom Friedman begged Trump voters to listen to him, the voice of political reason crying out in the wilderness of the… the… the… whatever. Here was his key thought to change your minds: “Yes, Hillary Clinton is a flawed leader… . But she is not indecent… .”

The significance: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Clinton’s desperate dog-and-pony shills have run out of smoke and mirrors to alter the appearance of her reckless, criminal activity and her elitist, globalist policies that will rifle through your pocketbooks to meet higher costs and export your jobs to other countries.

To vote for Trump is to vote for American individualism and excellence, it’s to vote for the hard-fought liberty and laws our forefathers won, it’s to vote for a culture of faith and freedom, it’s to vote for creating jobs and prosperity, it’s to vote for getting things done on time and under budget, it’s to vote to take care of our own citizens and veterans instead of another country’s citizens, especially those who hate our faith and freedom.

Won’t it be great to have that kind of country? Make America great again!

Megyn Kelly Preys on Trump, Fights Newt



Newt Gingrich called out Megyn Kelly for inflammatory and untruthful reporting during a Fox News interview on her show Tuesday, Oct. 25.

A video of the heated exchange can be found at the link below:


Kelly, unable to get past Trump’s put-downs of her during the primaries, zeroed in – again – on the statements the business mogul made during a secret taping prior to an Access Hollywood episode 11 years ago.

She incorrectly stated – as she and others have in the past – that Trump said on the recording that he liked to grope women in their private areas “and kiss them against their will.”

That is false. Megyn Kelly lied. She spoke untruthfully. Trump absolutely never says that on the recording. Yet Kelly relayed as fact something that was and has always been fiction to continue to claw at Trump and to avoid losing a war of words to Newt Gingrich, which she did lose.

What does the recording say? What does The New York Times transcript of the recording say?

And when you’re a star, they LET you do it. You can do anything.”

Does everyone see the word “let”? Does everyone know what the word “let” means?

In other words, the women to whom Trump refers allowed, permitted, gave consent to him to do that – much in the same way groupies consent to have sex with the groups they follow – if, in fact, he actually ever tried to grope and kiss anyone and was not simply sticking his male chest out and thumping on it.

What’s more, what actually happens in the recording? What actually happens when the Access Hollywood bus arrives and Trump and Billy Bush are greeted by the beautiful Arianne Zucker? After just boasting about his actions with women, does Trump try it with beautiful Arianne in front of his friend to whom he boasted?

No. He doesn’t.

In fact, Trump only gives a verbal greeting to Zucker at first. He hugs her only after Bush suggests Arianne give Trump a hug. Then, with his own beautiful wife on his mind, Trump gives the hug saying, it’s okay with Melania! He was telling Arianne the only reason he is hugging her is because it’s okay with Melania!

The mendacity of mendacious Megyn Kelly would be astounding in any other context if it were not for the fact that she is just one of many of the mendacious, such as lying, cowardly, won’t-stand-up-for-gays Anderson Cooper.

She wanted to stand out as the filthiest of the filth, so Kelly went further by suggesting that Donald Trump might be “a sexual predator”. Below lie her exact, dissembling words:

What I said was, if Trump is a sexual predator, then it’s a big story. And what we saw on that tape was Trump himself saying that he likes to grab women by the genitals and kiss them against their will.”

Do a DuckDuckGo search for The New York Times Access Hollywood transcript and read the whole thing. Nowhere does Trump speak about doing anything to women against their will.

You are a liar, Megyn Kelly, a vicious prevaricator, deceiver, and dissembler who deliberately lied so people would think Trump said it and you would appear to be a relevant, incisive journalist. Like your words, your are utterly lacking in substance.

Further, Megyn Kelly supposedly has legal training. Yet she employed the term “sexual predator”, one of the gravest of designations a court, and only a court, can impose on a convicted defendant. It is a worse designation than “sexual offender”, which itself is a serious designation.

The designation “sexual predator” is usually, if not entirely, applied to those cunning men and women who stalk and violently molest or rape much younger victims, often torturing or killing them. Kelly used the term deliberately to shock voters and viewers, and her unfounded use of it, even in a conditional statement, represents a most grave, ethical breach for a journalist.

Fortunately, she subverted her own “logic” when, just prior to repeating the sexual predator term, she admitted she did not know if Trump was, in fact, a sexual predator.

We can go further. We don’t know that Trump did anything with anyone with their consent, much less against their consent.

Then why was she using the term???

I don’t know that Megyn Kelly is a pervert, but if she is, or if she is a sexual predator, it’s a huge story. Since she keeps using the word, sexual predator, maybe she has sexual predation on her mind. So if Megyn Kelly is a sexual predator, it’s a huge story that must be covered, just like we’re covering it right now by talking about it over and over again.

Please, make sure you tweet and post on Facebook and on any other social media that IF Megyn Kelly is a sexual predator – I don’t know that she is, and I’m not saying that she is, but maybe she is getting defensive if she denies it or takes issue with any talking about it – but if Megyn Kelly is a sexual predator, it’s a huge story, and we will cover it from now until Kingdom Come!

And even if we don’t know that it’s true, we are going to keep doing stories about if it is true. We’re going to keep driving it through your ear holes like a spike into Dracula’s heart!

Gingrich said it best in his righteous reply: “You are fascinated with sex, and you don’t care about public policy.”

Well, if Megyn Kelly is fascinated with sex… .

Uh, never mind!

Trump Fights Through Angry Media


The angry media is on the warpath!

Just look at the angry – not to mention dishonest or partial – storylines being published: The New York Times, “Donald Trump Pledges To Heal Divisions (And Sue His Accusers)”; Salon, Donald Trump, domestic terrorist: the man who tried to kill democracy – and why we had it coming”; The Washington Post, “Donald Trump, Officially Out of Ideas, Says He Will Sue…”.

Yet Trump, brimming with confidence, barrels through the barrage of negativity, taking his lumps, absorbing the sucker punches, sticks, and rocks of the media mob, and relentlessly dishing out a message of renewed national pride and strength through jobs for Americans.

The Times headline exudes the pure sarcasm of partisanship; Salon’s, a desperate hyperbole and a deficit of reason; The Post, a long-ago crippled journalism supported by the crutch of bitter partiality.

They are all losing credibility and the respect of growing numbers of Americans discontented with blinded news and commentary born of a malicious negativity.

Those organs exhibit a growing sense that their abominable candidate, Hillary Clinton, may not win. As the possibility of Hillary’s failure grows, it increases the pressure within each of her media minions, like stronger pressure in a ball that becomes so intense, the ball explodes. Some media minion heads are ready to do just that – pop! They have already given every advantage to Hillary, so they don’t have much else to offer besides a complete, utter breakdown and shoveling away of their journalistic ethics.

Trump should sue each and every woman who lied about him. How convenient that they appeared so mysteriously out of the woodwork during the last weeks of the campaign to discredit him during a tight race!

Trump can and will help to heal our nation. One way he’ll do that is to restore and empower our American economy. His work in that area will bring back a lot of self-esteem and morale to American workers. Trump is much, much more qualified to create prosperity than ideological Hillary. Hillary has zero economic and business-building experience. Zero.

She does know how to launder money and enrich herself through a fraudulent foundation. And she knows how to expose our classified secrets. So if you need a blueprint for a criminal enterprise, hire Hillary!

Trump is a domestic terrorist? How pathetic that the not-so-clever Salon writer (or perhaps editor) had to commit a grave act of equivocation to make his limp point. Not only that, but he or she tries to pin guilt on common Americans, just like the Democrats were hoping the San Bernardino slaughterer was a white man instead of the hateful, raging Muslim he actually was (Thank you for that revelation, Wikileaks!).

By the way, that email, and Salon’s reporting, manifests unequivocally a prejudice against a whole class of people which has gone unreported throughout this entire campaign: white men. Hillary hates white men. The Democrat Party and its media minions hate white men. In particular, they hate Southern men.

Trump has not spent one minute in office, so he’s not even had a chance to exhibit any anti-democratic tendency. On the other hand, Mr. Obama has been rebuked by the federal courts, and his continued use of “executive orders” demonstrates his willingness to bypass Congress and flout the operation of the Constitution. Wedge that in your crack, Salon writer!

The Post can certainly look to itself for experience in being out of ideas. A cursory read of their pages reveals that to even a modest intellect. This campaign, their editors and reporters have shown one, single, solitary idea: Get Hillary elected. That idea is lame, and it breeds other lame ideas.

For instance, the solution of one writer, WaPo columnist David Ignatius, to the growing deprivation of the average American worker is NOT to bring jobs back to America nor to create new ones here, as Trump wants, but to promote a government provided wage to everyone. Why? He is pushing the idea that jobs won’t, or shouldn’t, be brought back to or created for Americans, and that robots should be allowed to take jobs away from Americans, too.

That’s the kind of thinking that supports Hillary Clinton. In fact, I believe that is Hillary’s thinking. She wants open borders. She wants trade pacts that bleed America of jobs. She supports wealthy owners and their corporations keeping jobs and money overseas. She supports Wall Street’s financial overlords and the dominion they hold over Americans.

It may be ironic, but she is the elitist, not Trump.

The elites must be able to make more money at the expense of average Americans. The elites must not be interfered with in their greed for greater and greater profit. The power of the elites to dump American workers for foreign workers or to jilt American workers for robots must not be tampered with! Just disenfranchise them from the economic system, from any sense of productivity, shove a check in their pocket, and let them subsist in isolation with a pair of headphones on while they play “their music” and chew on Twinkies, void of purpose.

Disgusting! Go eat a Twinkie, Ignatius!

Those who are out of ideas, or who vomit bad ones, should be ignored. Ignatius is just such a person. The media minions of Hillary Clinton are just such people.

What Democracy?


The tilt is in.

The media ridicules assertions that it is biased, then provides its own proof that it is in the way it reports the news.

Once again, I’ll draw an example from MSNBC and its Morning Joe program.

The show has spotlighted a few of Donald Trumps statements or actions, usually the more sensational ones. It continues to talk about his comments on the Access Hollywood video, either live or on the scrolls and banners at the bottom of the screen. And it continues to comment on Trump’s assertion the election is rigged. Those topics give them criticism they can stream continually without saying anything new.

Yet the Wikileaks revelations detailed in the emails of Clinton or of her campaign or other associates receive a cursory mention and dismissal. Morning Joe will scrutinize, for the purposes of derogation, Trump’s assertion the election is rigged. They will seek and bring on air someone from, say, the state of Indiana to tell us, “Naw, nothing going wrong in the Hoosier state!” But when they see in actual campaign emails or in undercover video footage Democrat or campaign operatives taking notes about how to register illegal aliens so they can vote, you hear not a peep, no indignation, no in-depth examination about the truth or falsity, no journalistic inquisitiveness.

The only news the networks and the major press outlets provide is negative news about Trump. It’s the only news acceptable to them. Does that not raise the alarum that democracy and objectivity are dead?

Then you hear political mercenaries like Elise Jordan blather about Trump’s diversionary tactics, and Mike Barnicle chiming in about Trump’s only campaign narrative of anger, with Jordan predicting a nasty post-election November.

He seems to really be setting the stage for a nasty November, after his loss, and calling into question the veracity of the American political system; and he’s clearly not planning on being a gracious loser, which I hope that he would come around and understand how important it is to the democratic process, this idea that when you lose you concede with grace.”

Jordan worked for Rand Paul, who lost big and early in the Republican primary. My question to her in regard to losing with grace is: Do you mean losing graciously like the Bushes? Like Mitt Romney (who wasn’t running but acted as if he might)? Like Ted Cruz? Like Marco Rubio? Like John Kasich? Like Rand Paul?

None of them lost graciously. All provided either half-hearted support, no support, or even supported the candidate of the other party instead of their own party’s candidate, who won fair and square!

The actions of the elite Republicans deliberately sabotaged the Republican candidate and aided and abetted the very candidate Republicans have demonized for decades. They have destroyed the Republican Party, or contributed to its destruction. Yet Jordan wants to wax pious and declare that Trump should honor the sabotaged process and, by implication, mend the country and the party, even though it clearly isn’t and doesn’t feel healed.

Had Rand Paul earned the Republican nomination, do you think Jordan would be hollering about Hillary’s and her party’s subversion of the election process?

You bet!

Do you think she would be clamoring for an investigation of the Wikileaks revelations?

You bet!

Do you think she might be calling the process rigged?

You bet!

She would not have appeared on MSNBC, though, because they would not have given her time to explore the mystery of the lack of press coverage. Nope. That would be verboten! The media will not entertain any faithless questioning of its magisterium. Their inquisitors, like Barnicle, Mika Brzezinski, the social engineers at the Post and the Times, will place any dissent in their Iron Maidens and puncture it!

Democracy? Where? What the hell are you bastards talking about? Democracy means listening to the people, not you making the people listen and accept what you say, flooding them with an endless stream of your tunneling carnival sophistry.

Squatters on the Fourth Estate


That bastion of fair play and the highest journalistic ethics – ethics so high you cannot perceive them – The New York Times, has published another anti-Trump story with the intent to derail his presidential campaign once and for all.

The Times’ furious efforts to advance the ambitions of the Clinton Cartel appeared so promising over the weekend, and the Times thought it had driven a stake through the Trump campaign’s heart when it printed in a story the vulgarities Trump spoke in a secret video recording 11 years ago. The Times’ hard work was intended to shock and inflame readers, and its editors and reporters had little difficulty shrugging off any ethics or time-honored practices that could get in the way.

Their road to success, however, twisted and turned and rocked them with unforeseen potholes, namely Trump’s pantheresque performance at the second presidential debate Sunday, October 9, and his feral counteroffensive against Hillary, the GOP establishment, and the mud being hurled at him.

Trump clawed his way through Hillary’s layers of deceit and practiced pretense and left her policies and promises and curriculum vitae in tatters. He shredded Paul Ryan and other establishment elitists for jumping ship and handing Hillary a get-out-of-jail-and-into-the-white-house-free card with the sabotage of their own party’s candidate and ideals. Plus, Trump apologized for his verbal sins and stated he was a changed man.

All those things not only kept the campaign’s ship afloat, they re-started the engine and propelled it full steam ahead.

The Clinton Cartel and its media collaborators could not tolerate that!

Yesterday and late Tuesday, one or possibly two suggestions that Hillary might skip the third debate floated about the peripheries of the noticiasphere (noticias is Spanish for news and, as I have said, I am half Hispanic; there, I’ve coined a new word!). Then late yesterday, The New York Times published an online piece about two women who claimed Trump had touched or kissed them without their consent. One of the women, a Ms. Leeds, claimed she had never met Trump before the alleged incident but that as she recollected it she knew it was him.

She said the incident occurred some 30 years ago on a plane.

In general, I take women’s claims about sexual assault seriously and soberly. It’s a matter we must deal with fairly and adequately.

That does not mean we should accept without proof each and every claim made. Skepticism kicks in whenever someone years later, and at a time that can be particularly damaging to the accused, decides to do something about an incident she should have managed at the time, or close to the time, of its occurrence.

I am sure Donald Trump has angered his share of people over the years. He drives tough bargains. People may have lost out on deals they wanted badly. He hosts beauty pageants which by nature of the inherent competition all but one of contestants lose. That losing bruises egos and sends dollars and prestige and future opportunities away from several people to one person.

Further, it’s hard to escape the fact that several organs of the news media, broadcast and press alike, have been hurling mud at Trump for a long time, possibly in collaboration with one another and with the Clinton Cartel. They scrutinize Trump more broadly and deeply than they do Hillary or previous candidates. They find fault and carp about those faults with an amplifier.

The incessancy of their efforts belies a deliberate manipulation of the outcome of this 2016 presidential election, and where these have not been able to create and sustain voter preference for Hillary’s character or policies, they have driven a steamy, distracting narrative about Trump’s private life to make her seem the better choice.

Remember The New York Times story on Roxanne Brewer? The day the Times published its story on the interview with her, Brewer stood up and asserted the story she read about herself wasn’t the story she gave to the Times. Many of the women Trump has tutored and worked with have stood up and loudly proclaimed they have never experienced the type of behavior the Times and other organs have been trying to pin on Trump for a long time: savvy business person Amarosa, beauty queen Carrie Prejean, and fashion designer Nicole Miller in a Business Insider interview in August of 2015 stand out as just a few of the many.

Now the Times is reaching back 30 years, hoping to pull a rabbit out of its bag of tricks. The Times knows there is little time left for the allegations to be proven or disproven prior to the election; indeed, how could they be? How would Ms. Leeds prove her 30-year-old contention? How would Trump prove a negative, in other words, that he did not touch or kiss anyone without her consent?

It’s just a little bit fishy that all this sensational, sizzling, sexual stuff is emerging from the keyboards of the Fourth Estate squatters at the exact time when Wikileaks is providing Americans with a treasure trove of genuine documents, facts, and uncensored expressions from the Hillary campaign and Clinton Cartel emails. Wikileaks is doing what the Fourth Estate, if we had one, should have been doing all along. In the emails, Hillary and/or her staff openly:

ridicule Catholics and Christians

admit she tells Wall Street one thing and the public another

look down on common Americans as ignorant and unworthy of honesty

admit it’s impossible to adequately vet Muslim immigrants and refugees

are in touch with the Justice Department and FBI investigating her

may be obtaining advance notice of debate questions

desires open borders regardless of economic consequences for Americans

obtains veto power over what will be allowed in a New York Times article about her

gets speech and appearance tips from one of the debate moderators.

Wikileaks has unloaded so many emails that it has been impossible to read and process and curate them all, much less sensibly publish them.

So how does one trust the reporting of the media? How does one take the allegations of the women seriously while protecting Trump’s right to innocency until proven guilty? How does one get at the truth of these allegations ever, much less in time for November’s vote? And how does one weigh them against the litany of Hillary’s wrongdoing and dishonesty, a litany that, like some web pages, one seems to never be able to scroll down to the end of. Which candidate’s flaws will actually have a greater impact on we the people and our country as we know it?

Please note the difference in what has been happening to Trump versus what is supposed to happen. Almost from Day One the media either dismissed Trump’s candidacy or it belittled it or reviled it. It was an outsider campaign, outside the establishment system that included the major media organs. As Trump’s candidacy defied the odds and thrived, gaining zealous support from tens of millions of disenfranchised Americans, those organs ratcheted up their criticisms and innuendo and began to search for evidence that would back up the stridency and dismissiveness they exuded from the beginning.

That is what worries the composed, rational mind. Trump may or may not have done the deeds described in some of the allegations, but the manner and the timing and the history of unsubstantiated claims of all the hostile media organs casts doubt upon their motives and “fact-finding”. It’s hard to believe that these stories are driven by anything but rabid partiality. If some of them are true, then the news organs themselves have subverted the women and their claims by placing a higher premium on the pursuit of partiality. The media have relegated the women to pawns in a political chess match.

Caveat Emptor!