Media lied and people really did die

A very real question should be asked by real journalists: Did some US media outlets encourage people to NOT take a drug that could have saved their lives- all because they hate Trump? https://t.co/QiSiXwQpmr — Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) July 3, 2020 The media went bonkers when President Donald John Trump called a regimen of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin “a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.” For example, the Washington Post reported — without evidence — “Drug promoted by Trump as corona virus ‘game changer’ increasingly linked to deaths.” Thousands of other news organizations who posted similar articles.

Source: Media lied and people really did die

Leah Libresco: An Honest Woman

Stately McDaniel Manor

Leah Libresco
credit: twitter

Upon occasion, one stumbles on something rare and precious, something almost unthinkable and seldom seen.  In this case, an honest leftist writing about the Second Amendment.  May I introduce, gentle readers, Leah Libresco, writing at, of all places, The Washington Post, that former newspaper that thinks one of the most vicious and barbaric terrorists that ever lived “an austere religious scholar.”She is, in this field, refreshing:

View original post 1,391 more words

Trump declared Antifa a terrorist organization, and Democrats are worried — Watcher of Weasels

THIS ARTICLE APPEARED FIRST IN AMERICANTHINKER.COM Trump declared Antifa a terrorist organization, and Democrats are worried By The Great, Andrea Widburg Language warning! On Sunday, President Trump took aim at Antifa, which apparently has driven the violent side of the protests ripping through America’s Democrat-run cities. With full-throated support from Attorney General Barr, Trump is designating Antifa as…

Trump declared Antifa a terrorist organization, and Democrats are worried — Watcher of Weasels

Charlottesville Hoax links

News anchors and pundits have repeated lies about Donald Trump and race so often that some of these narratives seem true, even to Americans who embrace the fruits of the president’s policies.  The most pernicious and pervasive of these lies is the “Charlottesville Hoax,” the fake-news fabrication that he described the neo-Nazis who rallied in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017 as “fine people.”

 Just last week I exposed this falsehood, yet again, when CNN contributor Keith Boykin falsely stated, “When violent people were marching with tiki torches in Charlottesville, the president said they were ‘very fine people.’” When I objected and detailed that Trump’s “fine people on both sides” observation clearly related to those on both sides of the Confederate monument debate, and specifically excluded the violent supremacists, anchor Erin Burnett interjected, “He [Trump] didn’t say it was on the monument debate at all.  No, they didn’t even try to use that defense. It’s a good one, but no one’s even tried to use it, so you just used it now.” 

Real Clear Politics

I’ve been publicly debunking the “fine people” hoax since 2017. The press created the hoax by consistently and intentionally omitting the second half of President Trump’s comments about Charlottesville. If you only see or hear the first half of what the president said, it looks exactly like the president is calling neo-Nazis “fine people.” But in the second part of Trump’s comments, he clarified, “You had people in that group who were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of the park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

In other words, the president believed there were non-racists in attendance who support keeping historical monuments. To remove all doubt, the President continued with “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay?”

Keep in mind that it doesn’t matter if the President’s assumption about the attendees was accurate or not. He clearly stated his assumption that some people were there for the monument protest, which he contrasted to the racists who were there to march and chant racist stuff. The New York Times interviewed a member of the non-marchers who said they did not stand with the racists. They cared about guns and free speech. See for yourself, here and more background on that group here.

Last week I chatted at length with one of the Charlottesville protest attendees. He hates racism, loves free speech, and wasn’t “marching with” anyone. He reports that there was chaos from the start, with lots of people all over the venue doing lots of different things. And there was no way to know what all of the people in normal street clothes were thinking by attending. He was there because he figured it would be a diverse group, from Antifa to neo-Nazis, with plenty of normal non-racists in between. Bolstering his argument is his Jewish heritage. He didn’t think he was attending a neo-Nazi event. He learned that from the press.

The “Fine People” hoax funnel

Do Blue States Subsidize Red States?

Countering those concerns, some leftists have resurrected the myth that it’s actually red states that are “welfare queens.” While this represents a pivot from the original argument (which is over states in better fiscal condition subsidizing those in worse), it is relevant, as it would imply that perhaps the reason red states are in better fiscal condition is because the federal government has been giving them an assist.

And it would be false.

In my 2019 book Debunk This!, I analyzed a similar argument from two angles; that Republicans themselves were more likely to be moochers, and that red states as a whole are.

Liberals Resurrect Myth That Blue States Subsidize Red States

In other words, Sammin points out that because red state budgets tend to be smaller, it would make more sense to look at intergovernmental grants (payments from the federal government to state governments) on a per-capita basis, not as a percentage of state budgets.

Against a national average of $1,935 in intergovernmental spending per American, red states receive just $1,879. Blue states get considerably more, at $2,124 per resident. Purple states see the least of their money returned to them per capita, at just $1,770.

StatesPopulationInterGov.InterGov. Per Capita
Total Red State96,086,631$180,551,551,000$1,879
Total Purple State77,676,459$137,532,631,000$1,771
Total Blue State134,982,448$286,776,111,000$2,125
Grand Total312,471,695$604,860,293,000$1,936

To address the question of “subsidizing”, it might be interesting to look at per capita taxes paid by each class of state.

Andrew McCarthy: Michael Flynn’s prosecution was a travesty of justice

It has long been obvious that the case brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller against Michael Flynn stunk to high heaven. That has been copiously confirmed over the last three weeks as the Justice Department made a series of stunning disclosures that undermined whatever vestige of propriety remained.

General Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, served fleetingly as President Trump’s first national security advisor. At the time, in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s stunning defeat in the 2016 election, the media-Democrat complex fueled a “collusion” narrative — purportedly, Trump had schemed with Russia to hack Democratic email accounts, and would now do the Kremlin’s bidding from the Oval Office.

Flynn was caught up in this fever dream because, as a top Trump campaign adviser and transition official, he had some conversations with the Russian ambassador — just as he was speaking with many foreign dignitaries.

Although the FBI and the Obama administration had recordings of these calls and knew Flynn had done nothing improper, the fact that they occurred was used to stoke the claim that Flynn may have agreed on Trump’s behalf to drop sanctions Obama had imposed on Russia. He had not, but the mere mention of sanctions was politically explosive.

There was no basis to believe Flynn, a decorated former US combat commander, would ever be Moscow’s mole, much less that he had committed a crime. But Obama officials speculated that perhaps they could nail him for violating the Logan Act. On the books since 1799, this provision purports to make it a crime to engage freelance diplomacy without government authorization. It is almost certainly unconstitutional, no one has ever been successfully prosecuted for violating it, and the government hasn’t even tried to indict anyone on it since before the Civil War. It would be absurd to try to apply it to any American, but to contemplate doing it against a transition official slated to become national security adviser was particularly ludicrous.

Yet the FBI used it pretextually as a basis to conduct a perjury-trap interview of Flynn at the White House in his second day on the job. Knowing its investigation was baseless, the bureau did not seek the required permission from the White House to grill a member of the president’s staff. Former FBI director James Comey has weirdly bragged that, against protocol, he sent two agents to Flynn’s office — after Comey’s then-deputy, Andrew McCabe, called to discourage Flynn from getting a lawyer or giving a heads-up to the White House counsel.

New York Post