Friday, June 30, 2017

BloggeRhythms

Today, another columnist joins the very, very small group that truly grasps the way that the POTUS manipulates the mainstream media, keeping them otherwise occupied as his administration quietly continues its accomplishments.

Charles Hurt began his column @washingtontimes.com writing: “Oh, the mad genius of Donald Trump!”

“On the cusp of one of the biggest victories of his administration, cracking down on illegal aliens who commit vicious crimes inside our country, President Trump took to Twitter.

“I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year's Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!”

Hurt continues: “The Trump presidency is a little like having a dog. Every day that passes, you love the dog more and more until it seems impossible to love her any more.”

And then, Hurt presents an example wherein the press is so intent on disgracing and demeaning the POTUS that a writer failed to realize he’d actually praised Trump in his column.  

“The Amazon Post” — the paper-of-record for Never Trumpers — rushed to the defense of Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough with a laughably illogical and twisted explanation.

“The notion that Brzezinski and Scarborough were desperate to hang out with Trump on New Year's Eve but were rebuffed seems dubious, at best,” reporter Callum Borchers wrote on the paper’s website.

“For one thing, the New York Times spotted the co-hosts at Trump’s New Year's Eve party at Mar-a-Lago.”

“So, wait a minute? The proof that Mr. Trump is lying about Ms. Brzezinski and Mr. Scarborough slumming around Mar-a-Lago around New Year's Eve is that — well — Ms. Brzezinski and Mr. Scarborough were slumming around Mar-a-Lago around New Year's Eve?

“Oof. Mr. Borchers probably learned this in journalism school. He should have gone to logic school instead.”

Hurt also included a most-perfect illustration of the double-standard continually applied throughout the MSM, writing: “Of course, the puritanical schoolmarms of the political press went absolutely bonkers over Mr. Trump’s broadside of their fellow travelers. They scolded him that his Twitter missives were beneath the office of the president.


“Really, you mean like molesting an intern in the Oval Office? “Presidential” like that?”

While Hurt is undoubtedly correct in his analysis regarding media hostility toward the POTUS, an article by Tony Lee @breitbart.com illustrates that the public is not only aware of the issue, “A majority of Americans believe that the “Deep State” is trying to “unseat” President Donald Trump, according to the most recent Harvard-Harris poll."

“The poll asked respondents: “Specifically, do you think the so called ‘Deep State’ – the collection of intelligence agencies and holdover government workers from the Obama administration — is trying to unseat President Trump using leaks of classified information?”

“Fifty-four percent of respondents answered “yes” while 46% believed the Deep State is not trying to unseat Trump, who has repeatedly asserted that he is the victim of a “Witch Hunt.”

Lee goes on to explain: “The Deep State has leaked to establishment media outlets like the Washington Post and New York Times to undermine and smear Trump and his advisers, some of whom are reportedly being investigated by the FBI for their ties to or meetings with various Russian officials. These outlets have written stories, based on anonymous Deep State sources, that, among other things, have suggested Trump revealed classified information to the Russians and called former FBI director James Comey a “nut job.”

A reader Dave, found the bright side of the circumstance, commenting: “Harvard would be hard leaning lefties, right?. The mere fact that they are looking past their programming and biases and are even now considering this says a lot.”

And then, another illustration of how far one of the left’s bastions, San Francisco, has deteriorated results in a case that is hardly believable.  

According to Brendan Kirby @foxnews.com today: “An illegal immigrant who found himself detained and turned over to federal immigration authorities is poised to collect $190,000 from the city of San Francisco, according to KPIX-5.

“The TV station reported that city lawyers have agreed to pay the settlement to Pedro Figueroa-Zarceno, a native of El Salvador who sued, alleging the city violated its "sanctuary" policy by alerting Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. The city's Board of Supervisors still must approve the deal, but there dos not appear to be much opposition.”

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, said: “That is beyond backwards. That is perverse. Talk about an incentive to come here illegally. I just can't wrap my head around that."

“San Francisco adopted its sanctuary policy in 1989, becoming one of the first jurisdictions in the country to prohibit police from cooperating with federal officials on immigration enforcement.

“Yet when Figueroa-Zarceno went to the police station in December 2015 to recover his stolen car, someone tipped off ICE. He found himself detained for two months, marked for deportation. Officials issued a civil deportation order in 2005, according to KPIX.

“Figueroa-Zarceno is fighting his deportation and has a hearing date in 2019, according to the TV station.”

“David Cross, a spokesman for Oregonians for Immigration Reform, agreed.

"There's an insanity in California that is just unfathomable," he said.

But it was another individual, Joseph Guzzardi, spokesman for Californians for Population Stabilization, who put his finger on the real tragedy for San Franciscan's. 

“Ripping” the decision to agree to a six-figure settlement with a man who is not even in the country legally, Guzzardi said: “It just goes to show the extent to which San Francisco city officials are willing to go to support their own sanctuary policies. It's completely and totally an assault on taxpayers and not justifiable in any way."

And that’s the real crime taking place, in which hard-working taxpayers are about to lose $190,000 to a criminal having no real right to be in California, or anywhere else in America.  Making one wonder, just how long voters will continue to put up with things like this?

That's it for today folks.

Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment