Month: April 2019

On his talk radio program Monday, the “Big Voice on the Right” provided his sizeable audience with evidence that the Democrat Party is beginning to “wake up” to an alarming reality: “That the Mueller report was a bomb, the Mueller report was a dud, and that they are not prepared to deal with Trump on any issue of substance.”

“Well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well. What do you know, the Drive-By Media, the Democrat Party are starting to wake up,” said a charged-up Rush Limbaugh to begin the segment. “I don’t think they can become fully woke, but they’re starting to wake up to reality.”

“They put every weapon they have in that Mueller report, in Trump-Russia collusion, and they are slowly awakening to the fact that it has bombed out on them,” said Limbaugh. The evidence is in the headlines and even at the unwatched White House Correspondents’ Dinner Saturday, he added. Rush then did one of the things he most enjoys: ran through a series of stories that revealed bad developments for Democats.

The first headline comes from The Atlantic: “The Clintons Are Nervous About 2020,” which starts off with this ominous passage: “Like pretty much every other Democrat in America, Bill and Hillary are nervous that their party’s primary field is too large, that it’s going to be dominated by the wrong kind of debate, that the candidates will succumb to their worst instincts, and that President Donald Trump will out-bully them anyway.”

The next Democrat-troubling headline comes from The Nation: “The Mueller Report Indicts the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory,” which, Limbaugh explained, argues that “the Mueller report doesn’t just dispel the conspiracy theories that have engulfed political and media circles for two years, it puts to rest the most popular recent one, that attorney general William Barr engaged in a cover-up.”

Then this report from The Chicago Tribune: “Remember the #NeverTrump Movement? It Collapsed.” And from The Wall Street Journal’s poll of big-time money managers: “Trump Will Win in 2020.” Rush pointed out that these money managers believe Joe Biden will win the Democratic nomination. Another troubling headline for the Dems comes from Politico: “Democrats Sweat Trump’s Economy,” which Limbaugh summarized as the Democrats admitting that they don’t have any real economic plan.

Limbaugh spent some time addressing this Dem feminist crisis story from NBC News: “Can a woman beat Trump? Some Democrats wonder if it’s worth the risk.” “Holy smokes! What a headline,” Limbaugh exclaimed. “Is it worth the risk to nominate a woman just to nominate a woman? This sounds like what they did with Mondull in 1984. … ‘Can a woman beat Trump? Some Democrats wonder if it’s worth the risk.’ Meaning, do we nominate a woman just to say we nominated a woman? Do we nominate a woman just to say that? What if we go down to defeat? Is it worth it?”

Another headline Limbaugh highlighted was from The Guardian: “Time to impeach? Headache for Democrats over how to take on Trump,” which prompted the host to remark: “Wait a minute! See what I mean? Two years ago it was a slam dunk, Trump was gone, Mueller was gonna get the goods, Trump-Russia collusion. Even Pencil Neck [Adam Schiff], Pencil Neck went on Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday night, and Bill Maher called him a Trump stalker.”

And then there’s this very problematic story from PJ Media: “Trump winning the 2020 money game for now,” which shows that “Trump’s campaign and the RNC raised a combined $76.1 million in the first three months of 2019,” which gives them “over $80 million in combined cash on hand — 21 times the amount Barack Obama and the DNC had raised at this time in 2011.”

Related: Trump Thanks Rush Limbaugh For Fox News Interview, And It’s Not Hard To Figure Out Why

Transcript via RushLimbaugh.com

Tuesday during his opening segment, Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson hammered those in the media that decried President Donald Trump’s absence from last Saturday’s White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Carlson took aim at several of the event’s speakers for not recognizing others beyond those that agree with them ideologically when it comes to defending the First Amendment.

“In case you weren’t invited, the White House Correspondents’ Dinner took place over the weekend,” Carlson said. “For the third year in a row, Donald Trump was invited but took a pass and didn’t show up. That has never happened in the long history of the dinner. Presidents always show up. They always show in a tuxedo and head downtown to suck up to the White House Correspondents’ Association. They don’t want to do that. They hate going — every one of them — all Presidents deeply despised the news media, but they make themselves go. They have no choice. It is a hostage situation.”

Carlson then took on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter.

Partial transcript as follows:

CARLSON: If you blow off the dinner, the press will punish you — guaranteed. They won’t admit it, of course, they won’t say it’s personal, they will make up some story.

Here, for example, is Jeff Zucker’s spokesman, claiming that not going to media dinner is the same as attacking the media.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Say what you will about the press, this is an event honors the First Amendment.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that’s what it’s about. It’s an awards dinner and a fund-raiser. In the past, Presidents have always shown up even if they were angry. The President would get in time. It is yet another example of what we are seeing. The administration’s attack against the media takes many forms. One form is the President having a rally this Saturday instead of attending the dinner.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Dumb people are so self-confident. Have you noticed that? It’s almost like there is a self-esteem confidence reverse access. I think that’s real. Anyway, they are telling us that going to your own events instead of our event is a form of harassment. Do you know what’s not harassment according to CNN? Spying on former Fox reporter, James Rosen, and his parents because you don’t like what he is covering.

The Obama administration actually did that, and then Obama went to eight separate White House Correspondents’ Association dinners. Nobody ever denounced him as immoral. Obama hated reporters, by the way, most people do hate reporters for good reason. But reporters loved him back anyway. They agreed with his politics. That’s what happens.

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

It’s safe to say that if you go to a 5K run with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s name attached to it, you’re not exactly under the impression that the money is going to go to the Republican National Committee.

However, depending on how the event is marketed, you may not necessarily be under the impression the money is going directly to Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign coffers — and that’s why the freshman representative finds herself embroiled in a controversy.

The “fun run,” which took place on Saturday in Astoria Park in Queens, could be mistaken as an environmental event if you didn’t look closely at the advertising for it.

“The Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 5K & 1K Kid Dash is a Family Fun Run supporting U.S. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal on the Saturday following Earth Day,” the event’s website reads.

“Listen to live music, enjoy Fogo Azul as you cross the finish and learn about a Green New Deal.”

TRENDING: Watch: Dan Crenshaw Responds Perfectly to Deranged Critic Calling Him a ‘Nazi’ at Campus Event

The Facebook post about the run, similarly, didn’t give a whole lot of indication what the registration fees were going toward.

And, according to the New York Post, some runners certainly didn’t know.

“I think it’s really for this particular New Green Deal,” one runner said. “No question.”

“It’s going to help raise awareness and educate people,” another said.

“It’s to help the environment. To support the Green New Deal,” another woman told the Post. “It’s a good cause.”

Well, all right, perhaps they were running a race and weren’t exactly in the mode to explain themselves.

But then, Ocasio-Cortez didn’t seem interested in talking to an obviously winded New York Post reporter who tried to ask her questions en route.

Carrying an unidentified child, Ocasio-Cortez simpy ignored the issue.

RELATED: A Storm’s Brewing for AOC: ‘Multimillionaire Mystery Donor’ Steps Up to Knock Her Out of Office

She also didn’t mention her own campaign coffers while talking to participants before the event, according to the Post.

“We’re getting together for our own health, for our planet’s health … and to fight for the Green New Deal together,” she said, the Post reported.

Except … every dollar collected on Saturday went to AOC for Congress, the congresswoman’s campaign fund.

“It was a campaign fundraiser,” Ocasio-Cortez spokesman Corbin Trent told the Post.

This isn’t just sketchy, it’s also potentially illegal — especially when you consider that there was a 1K run for children as young as 3 with a $20 entrance fee.

For one thing, there are Federal Election Commission regulations regarding donations to a campaign by a minor. One of the stipulations, for instance, is that “[t]he decision to contribute is made knowingly and voluntarily by the minor.”

At an event where there were adults who clearly didn’t know what they were spending their money upon, what could be said about children who might be using their money under the misapprehension they were benefiting the Green New Deal as opposed to its progenitor?

Furthermore, FEC guidelines state that for a minor to give to a campaign, “[t]he contribution is not made using funds given to the minor as a gift for the purpose of making the contribution, and is not in any way controlled by another individual.”

When parents are ponying up crisp cash at an event raising money for Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign, that could be construed as a violation.

And there’s no denying the whole thing at least looks shady — like it’s a fundraiser disguised as a 5K run for the environment.

As one runner told the Post, “The site says it’s to benefit her environmental plan. If it is going to go directly to her campaign they should have said so.”

Now, I don’t pretend that FEC investigators are going to get themselves in a lather about an event that raised $11,000 for a freshman legislator who’s already raised $726,000 in just the first quarter of this year, almost all of it from outside her district.

Nor am I going to get myself in a lather about a dubiously advertised campaign event and pretend it’s some fantastic outrage.

Sure, Ocasio-Cortez could still get in a bit of trouble over it. However, in the whole scheme of Washington politics, the mire out of which swamp monsters like Abscam and the Clinton Foundation have lurched, $11,000 seems almost quaint.

However, Ocasio-Cortez has been in trouble for campaign finance issues that weren’t quite so quaint, particularly a complaint by the National Legal and Policy Center which alleged irregularities involving the funneling of campaign funds into shell companies, inter alia. While this is unconnected to the run, it could represent a pattern asserting itself.

Beyond that, there’s the self-serving nature of it all.

The implication, after all, is that raising money for Ocasio-Cortez benefits the health of the planet. Not that this goes directly to the Green New Deal or anything — after all, money can’t go specifically to a piece of legislation, no matter how impractical or moribund it may be.

Apparently, the fact that it’s going to directly to Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t need to be disclosed, either. Surely those runners and their offspring would recognize the righteousness of the cause if they were told, right?

That makes this shell game perfectly acceptable?

No, she’s not the only politician who would do this, but that’s the entire point:

No matter how she markets herself, she’s just another politician.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

The New York Times has finally apologized for printing a blatantly antisemitic cartoon on the opinion pages of its international section last week.

The Times ran a cartoon on Thursday showing a blind President Donald Trump, wearing a skullcap, and being led around by Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu–who is portrayed as a dog. The leash and collar on the Netanyahu dog character in the cartoon have a Star of David on it.

It mirrors literal Nazi propaganda against Jews and then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, as some on social media have noted:

Pic 1: The Jew leads Winston Churchill.
Nazi Germany 1940.

Pic 2: The Jew leads #DonaldTrump @nytimes USA 2019. pic.twitter.com/on0Nj6NueO

— Kay Wilson (@kishkushkay) April 28, 2019

The Times‘ decision to print this has come under near-universal criticism from across the media and political spectrum, and in response the Times on Saturday retracted and deleted the cartoon–issuing an editor’s note that did not include an apology.

“A political cartoon in the international print edition of The New York Times on Thursday included anti-Semitic tropes, depicting the prime minister of Israel as a guide dog with a Star of David collar leading the president of the United States, shown wearing a skullcap,” the initial editor’s note on Saturday retracting the image reads. “The image was offensive, and it was an error of judgment to publish it. It was provided by The New York Times News Service and Syndicate, which has since deleted it.”

While the Times retracted it, and said it was “an error of judgement to publish it,” its original editor’s note statement did not apologize for this. The Times also has not, as Breitbart News has already reported, been transparent with the public or its audience on how this happened or who in particular is responsible–or if multiple people were responsible–and what consequences that person or those people will face. A Times spokeswoman, Danielle Rhoades-Ha, also did not answer when asked by Breitbart News about structural reforms that may be necessary as a result of this mistake.

Many, including President Trump’s son Donald Trump, Jr., ripped the Times for not being journalistically responsible not only with its initial decision to publish the cartoon but also with the organization’s handling of the retraction:

Of course they did. No one has ever held them accountable why would they do it to themselves???

NYT Ducks Transparency, Accountability for Antisemitic Cartoon https://t.co/lyLHx41gxD

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) April 28, 2019

Yair Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister’s son, also ripped the Times in an exclusive for Breitbart News.

Even so, despite the criticism, the Times held on for more than a full day after the initial retraction without an apology–and without any transparency about what was happening inside the newspaper and why this happened in the first place.

But now, with this latest statement on Sunday–three days after the publication of the antisemitic image and a full more than 24 hours after the initial retraction–the Times is finally openly apologizing for its actions and announcing an internal review and “significant changes” to its editorial process to come.

We apologize for the anti-Semitic cartoon we published. Here’s our statement. pic.twitter.com/nifZahutpO

— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) April 28, 2019

“We are deeply sorry for the publication of an anti-Semitic political cartoon last Thursday in the print edition of The New York Times that circulates outside of the United States, and we are committed to making sure nothing like this happens again,” the New York Times said in a statement.  The Times continued:

Such imagery is always dangerous, and at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise worldwide, it’s all the more unacceptable. We have investigated how this happened and learned that, because of a faulty process, a single editor working without adequate oversight downloaded the syndicated cartoon and made the decision to include it on the Opinion page. The matter remains under review, and we are evaluating our internal processes and training. We anticipate significant changes.

The Times has still not identified who that “single editor” was who somehow made the decision, unilaterally, to publish this cartoon–or whether that person has been held accountable in any way, especially whether that person still works for the Times. The Times has also not stated whether anyone else should have been involved in the oversight process before the issue went to print, and whether anyone dropped the ball–and it has not stated what exactly is wrong with its internal processes and what changes are coming. Rhoades-Ha has still not answered any of these questions and more.

But the fact that the Times is now apologizing after initially refusing to do so, and announcing an internal review of its editorial processes that presumably if the publication believes in journalistic integrity as it says it does would be made public in its entirety upon conclusion of the review, shows just how serious a mistake this was for the so-called newspaper of record.