GOVERNOR MIKE HUCKABEE HAS A VERY GOOD TWEET CONCERNING THE QUESTIONS AT THE TRUMP HEALTH UPDATE NEWS CONFERENCE, THAT REALLY MADE REPORTERS LOOK STUPID AS STUPID AS CAN BE AND HERE IT IS
24 comments:
Anonymous
said...
He is "so good" at his Twitter machine...?
Huckabee's post is something a third grader would compose. If that is the measure of being "so good" it is no wonder we are in the mess we are in.
Despots attack the press. The press attacks despots.
Then you should really despise Obama who spied on journalists and even got some of them jailed! The Democratic Party and the Media (but I repeat myself) promote intrinsic evils as defined by the Catholic Church, so naturally you support them.
The Hill reports, "Eric Trump on Wednesday said his father is not racist, saying all President Trump cares about is "the economy." "My father sees one color: green," Eric Trump said during an interview on "Fox & Friends" "He cares about the economy."
"For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains." - Timothy 6:10
Though amusing, I would be more impressed with good legislation as opposed to good tweeting capabilities. Just because the Press Corps acts like children doesn't mean elected officials need to join them in their schoolyard.
I would simply want the news and not editorials of an ideological/political bent which is what all the major news networks do especially CNN, MSNBC and FOX. At least Fox delivers its ideology with a smile and humor as they don't take themselves as seriously as CNN and MSNBC.
But news and those who pass as reporters today have made themselves into a caricature and can't be taken seriously any longer. Trump is right to call them out--like he, they are a contemptible, arrogant crowd who think they are above criticism. They aren't. Trump has free speech to criticize them as do I.
Trump has the same right to have and to express an opinion as anyone.
He, as anyone, does not have the right to his own facts, despite his propagandist Kelly Anne Conway's assertion regarding the existence of "alternate facts." (Alternate facts" are also known as "lies."
He has no right to label the media "the enemy of the people" simply because the media exposes his weaknesses and lies.
He has no right to denigrate the nation's judges and courts simply because they make decisions that do not support his positions.
He has no right to belittle those who oppose him simply because they oppose him.
No one was more fact free than Obama and unlike Trump, the media acted as his publicity arm and never dared question him. The media has become the enemy of decency and all that is good: they promote abortion on demand, gay marriage, stealing from taxpayers to support moochers, including foreign ones. Get a grip on reality. As for judges, many are left-wing ideologues who disregard the law like many on the Ninth Circus in San Fran, the most reversed Appeals Court in the US. However, Trump is fixing that problem long term with competent judges.
I will concede that President Trump is doing things that are gratifying for the pro-life movement and that this should go into the plus column. BUT is there not a danger of falling into the trap of allowing his playing of the Abortion card to turn into an Ace that trumps everything in the negative column? Indeed, are you not playing that card yourself to shut down discussion of these negatives?
As for judges, well, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I am sure you applauded when one District Court judge in Texas enjoined implementation of Obama’s attempted DAPA program and DACA extension and when that decision was upheld by the Fifth Circuit, a decision that was allowed to stand by an equally divided (because then understaffed) Supreme Court. Well, now the shoe is on the other foot, to use another metaphor, and it is President Trump’s actions that are being enjoined. But, of course, now you sing a different tune, to employ a third metaphor, because it is your guy who is on the receiving end.
One can certainly question the neutrality of any judge. But you know how this story ends. Under our system the final chapter is written by the Supreme Court, which admittedly is not an ideally neutral body. But this imperfect “rule of law” is the “best practicable” (to use the Aristotelian phrase). While admittedly not the perfect ideal, then, it is all we have to protect ourselves from the worse angels of our nature unleashed in the political process (or “the Devil” that we can become, as Robert Bolt’s Thomas More would put it). So, deal with it and stop whining, just as others had to deal with the DAPA decision.
I find it interesting that a Catholic would find it a "weapon" when a President speaks to a group on an issue central to our Faith as well as the entire history up until 1974. It was not intended to shut down discussion but show the stark contrast between President Trump and Obama who had zero respect for the Catholic Church who even went after the Little Sisters of the Poor because they would not cave into his evil regime. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama voted against legislation that would have required emergency medical care for a baby who had survived an abortion.
In terms of DACA, Obama who had previously stated publicly that he could not re-make immigration law on his own, did just that, when he couldn't get his will done in Congress. His use of executive authority was ultra vires because prosecutorial discretion cannot be applied carte blance to a massive group, and Trump by revoking this action was merely kicking back to Congress, a matter which under our Constitution is in their purview . This judge is abusing his power by attempting to strip from this president his right to revoke an executive order which was clearly illegal ab initio. So your comparison simply doesn't work.
St. Thomas More would be repulsed by the lawless modus operandi of today's Democrats as most recently evidenced by their sanctuary state nonsense.
As for your joining in attacks on the media, the matters you list are matters of opinion. Fair enough—by all means attack various opinions promoted by the media you detest. But please make a distinction between media expression of opinion and media reporting of facts challenging Trump’s constant falsehoods. And read Senator Jeff Flake’s impassioned defense of this role of the media in his Senate speech yesterday, if you dare:
Bean, the president isn't Catholic thus he does not believe the complete truth the Church teaches. The pope is making a path for some Catholic adulterers who can't help themselves to be integrated into the full communion of the Church without actually turning away from the adultery.
St. Thomas Moore would be more scandalized by the pope's tolerance of adultery than by a Catholic who was king placing himself above the pope when it came to marriage.
The bottom line though is the pope is Catholic Trump isn't!
Fr. McDonald, Because he doesn't believe what the Church teaches he is therefore free to practice adultery? What hogwash.
Regardless of what he believes, he is a serial adulterer and you and other continue to support him, conveniently overlooking what is, objectively, his on-going mortal sin AND the scandal it gives.
The bottom line is, Trump's non-Catholic status doesn't free him from the Natural Law.
Anonymous 2, I can't take you seriously if take Flake seriously. He likened Trump to Stalin, which is over the top ridiculous. Obama has Stalin like traits, crushing the Little Sisters of the Poor and his war on the unborn. Chew on that, if you dare.
I am sorry if I misunderstood the import of your umpteenth use of the abortion issue to defend Trump and Republicans. Doubtless I was having a moment of dejà-vu. And my Catholic faith does not blind me to any politician’s cynical use of the issue to gain political advantage. Wouldn’t it be interesting to examine the President’s own history on this issue, both what he has said and what he has done?
As for DACA, I hope you will understand if I defer to the courts on the constitutionality of this program rather than to your own opinion of the matter. The issue of the DACA program’s constitutionality remains undecided, as you should well know, and many constitutional scholars consider that it was and is indeed constitutional.
And “civil disobedience” in the name of a higher law has a long pedigree in the history of Western law and jurisprudence, as you should also well know.
Invoking Obama’s alleged Stalin-like traits are just another attempt at distraction—this time from the very particular comparison Flake was making in questioning Trump’s characterization of the press as “the enemy of the people.” Are we to assume that you agree with this characterization?
So you think Flake is reasonable in comparing Trump to Stalin? If that's your view, we have nothing further to discuss. Obama's thinking is clearly closer to Stalin's than any president I am familiar with.
There is no serious legal scholar who believes Obama's executive order establishing DACA is legal. It will be overturned by the Supreme Court and you know it.
I believe the vast majoroity of the media are the enemy of the people, which includes the unborn. Most of them clearly are Democrat operatives with bylines. Example: it was comedy gold when the media went into meltdown over Trump's medical exam. Ignoring the fact that the doctor who examined Trump was appointed by Obama. Did the media question Obama's health since he is a known smoker or Hillary's who kept falling over and choking when she was speaking. If you believe there is no difference, you are intellectually dishonest.
Full diclosure: I was a Democratic Party official as a young man but left the party over its extremist position on abortion. No other country on earth, save China, has the extreme abortion laws we have in the US. To paraphrase St. Thomas More, it profits a man nothing to sell his soul for the whole world, but for the Democratic Party?
Thank you for sharing this part of your life story. I respect your principled opposition to abortion but I do not agree with your apparently unwavering support of the Republican Party and President Trump. I am myself a nonpartisan Independent and am often inclined to simply say “A pox on both their houses.” When I lived in Britain I always voted for the Tories (Conservative Party). Here, politics is so dysfunctional that I cannot in good conscience give my unwavering support to either of the two major Parties. For one thing, ideological extremism of any sort does not appeal to me. Indeed, I regard it as incompatible with conservatism as I understand it. Moreover, the rampant monetary corruption that infects both major Parties appalls me. But Trumpian or Bannonite “populism” (even assuming Trump is a genuine populist, which I seriously doubt) is not a solution; it is a symptom of the problem. All of it lacks the virtue that I regard as essential to a healthy polity.
So, yes, I do think Flake’s comparison was reasonable, on the very particular point at issue of Trump’s attacks on the press. Other asserted comparisons of Stalin with Obama are a distraction and beside this particular point. As for the American Thinker piece you cite, I do not have the time to evaluate or fact check this source, but these people do and here are their findings:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-thinker/
And I repeat my question, which you have dodged: Are we to assume that you agree with Trump’s characterization of the press as “the enemy of the people”?
And I am sorry but you are just wrong in your assertions about DACA. There are many serious legal scholars who consider that the DACA program is constitutional. Here is one example, i.e., the August 14, 2017 letter from more than one hundred immigration law teachers and scholars:
You may not recognize the names but I most certainly do, and several of these signatories are among the leading immigration law scholars in the United States. But of course, you may be correct that the Supreme Court will ultimately find the DACA program unconstitutional if and when it addresses the issue of its constitutionality. To coin a phrase “We’ll see what happens” (or not).
And let’s not forget why the Obama administration implemented DACA in the first place—because of the aforesaid dysfunction in our political system. Congress should have addressed the Dreamer issue legislatively years ago instead of playing their corrupt and childish political games.
Anonymous2, is fact checking really necessary as far as what the American Thinker listed that was done under Mr. Obama?
Do you doubt what happened with James Rosen, Sharyl Attkisson, the IRS, the spying on a political opponents,the unmasking people associated with Donald Trump and their conversations, etc.?
As far as the below, they only cited one example and it was minor (a similarity with a muslim symbol)
"As for the American Thinker piece you cite, I do not have the time to evaluate or fact check this source, but these people do and here are their findings:
“Anonymous2, is fact checking really necessary as far as what the American Thinker listed that was done under Mr. Obama?
Do you doubt what happened with James Rosen, Sharyl Attkisson, the IRS, the spying on a political opponents,the unmasking people associated with Donald Trump and their conversations, etc.?”
Yes, James, Fact checking the American Thinker list_is_necessary, and while I do not seriously doubt “what happened” in the listed cases, the real question is “what did happen exactly?”
Here is the relevant extract from The American Thinker piece:
“Jeff Flake, John McCain, and journalists from all over the spectrum are ripping into Trump for his threat to the media. Flake even compared Trump to Stalin. I have to wonder where they all were when... Obama continually targeted Fox News (he obviously wanted 100% devotion). Obama specifically targeted James Rosen of Fox News. The State Department erased portions of an interview it didn't like on Iran with James Rosen. Obama's administration spied on Sharyl Attkisson. The IRS targeted and shut up political opponents. The Justice Department threatened legal action against those who dared disagree on climate change. Obama illegally spied on thousands of Americans for years. Obama spied on a political opponent before an election. Obama had staff who illegally unmasked people associated with Donald Trump and their conversations. I can think of nothing Trump has done that is close to the things Obama did to shut up opposition. It was Obama who was the threat to freedom and democracy, not Trump...yet Flake and McCain didn't speak out against Obama. Why? Trump is trying to give the power back to the people, and Obama was trying to amass more power for the government. Which is more autocratic?”
Now, I do not have time to “fact check “all of these tendentious assertions but I have fact checked some—specifically, about Rosen, Atkinson, and the IRS. The statements are very tendentious, if not indeed downright misleading, and they omit huge amounts of context and follow up reporting. I recommend that you do your own research into these matters. The following statement from an article in The Hill by Atkinson should whet your appetite:
“To date, the Trump Department of Justice — like the Obama Department of Justice — is fighting me in court and working to keep hidden the identities of those who accessed a government internet protocol address found in my computers.”
How does one explain this? Doesn’t it at least raise questions in your mind? And this is just one instance. [continued]
On the general character of the American Thinker, here is a passage from RationalWiki on the publication:
“American Thinker (affectionately nicknamed "American Stinker" by its fans) is an online wingnut publication that's more or less the poor man's WND or Newsmax. They've published articles by such conservative luminaries as Noel Sheppard (NewsBusters) and Pamela Geller and such climate "experts" as S. Fred Singer and Christopher Monckton, as well as an interview with (and hagiography of) white nationalist Jared Taylor.
The magazine, of course, is chock-full of right-wing conspiracy theories, woo, and pseudoscience. On the conspiracy side, they promote birtherism, "creeping sharia," red-baiting, and still occasionally prattle on about Vince Foster. On the science side, they concentrate on creationism and global warming denialism.”
Now, you may choose to defend The American Thinker against such characterizations, but again, doesn’t it at least raise questions in your mind?
But, of course, all this is beside the point. Obama is no longer president, Trump is. And even if everything The American Thinker alleges about Obama were true, in exactly the way it presents these matters, it would not justify Trump’s attacks on the press. Two wrongs do not make a right. And thus, once again, the article is yet another attempt to distract and deflect by attacking someone else, a favored tactic of this Administration as we all know.
24 comments:
He is "so good" at his Twitter machine...?
Huckabee's post is something a third grader would compose. If that is the measure of being "so good" it is no wonder we are in the mess we are in.
Despots attack the press. The press attacks despots.
Which side are you on?
Anonymous (Kavanaugh),
Then you should really despise Obama who spied on journalists and even got some of them jailed! The Democratic Party and the Media (but I repeat myself) promote intrinsic evils as defined by the Catholic Church, so naturally you support them.
The Hill reports, "Eric Trump on Wednesday said his father is not racist, saying all President Trump cares about is "the economy." "My father sees one color: green," Eric Trump said during an interview on "Fox & Friends" "He cares about the economy."
"For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains."
- Timothy 6:10
Though amusing, I would be more impressed with good legislation as opposed to good tweeting capabilities. Just because the Press Corps acts like children doesn't mean elected officials need to join them in their schoolyard.
Journalists or journalists' sources?
Espionage Act, you know...
And there is a WORLD of difference between attacking "The Media" and calling it the enemy of the people and prosecuting those who break the law.
I would simply want the news and not editorials of an ideological/political bent which is what all the major news networks do especially CNN, MSNBC and FOX. At least Fox delivers its ideology with a smile and humor as they don't take themselves as seriously as CNN and MSNBC.
But news and those who pass as reporters today have made themselves into a caricature and can't be taken seriously any longer. Trump is right to call them out--like he, they are a contemptible, arrogant crowd who think they are above criticism. They aren't. Trump has free speech to criticize them as do I.
Trump has the same right to have and to express an opinion as anyone.
He, as anyone, does not have the right to his own facts, despite his propagandist Kelly Anne Conway's assertion regarding the existence of "alternate facts." (Alternate facts" are also known as "lies."
He has no right to label the media "the enemy of the people" simply because the media exposes his weaknesses and lies.
He has no right to denigrate the nation's judges and courts simply because they make decisions that do not support his positions.
He has no right to belittle those who oppose him simply because they oppose him.
Kavanuagh at 3:48
No one was more fact free than Obama and unlike Trump, the media acted as his publicity arm and never dared question him. The media has become the enemy of decency and all that is good: they promote abortion on demand, gay marriage, stealing from taxpayers to support moochers, including foreign ones. Get a grip on reality. As for judges, many are left-wing ideologues who disregard the law like many on the Ninth Circus in San Fran, the most reversed Appeals Court in the US. However, Trump is fixing that problem long term with competent judges.
Kavanaugh,
More bad news for you. President Trump will be addressing the March for Life. Remind me when Obama did that.
TJM:
I will concede that President Trump is doing things that are gratifying for the pro-life movement and that this should go into the plus column. BUT is there not a danger of falling into the trap of allowing his playing of the Abortion card to turn into an Ace that trumps everything in the negative column? Indeed, are you not playing that card yourself to shut down discussion of these negatives?
As for judges, well, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I am sure you applauded when one District Court judge in Texas enjoined implementation of Obama’s attempted DAPA program and DACA extension and when that decision was upheld by the Fifth Circuit, a decision that was allowed to stand by an equally divided (because then understaffed) Supreme Court. Well, now the shoe is on the other foot, to use another metaphor, and it is President Trump’s actions that are being enjoined. But, of course, now you sing a different tune, to employ a third metaphor, because it is your guy who is on the receiving end.
One can certainly question the neutrality of any judge. But you know how this story ends. Under our system the final chapter is written by the Supreme Court, which admittedly is not an ideally neutral body. But this imperfect “rule of law” is the “best practicable” (to use the Aristotelian phrase). While admittedly not the perfect ideal, then, it is all we have to protect ourselves from the worse angels of our nature unleashed in the political process (or “the Devil” that we can become, as Robert Bolt’s Thomas More would put it). So, deal with it and stop whining, just as others had to deal with the DAPA decision.
Anonymous 2,
You are definitely NOT Kavanaugh.
I find it interesting that a Catholic would find it a "weapon" when a President speaks to a group on an issue central to our Faith as well as the entire history up until 1974. It was not intended to shut down discussion but show the stark contrast between President Trump and Obama who had zero respect for the Catholic Church who even went after the Little Sisters of the Poor because they would not cave into his evil regime. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama voted against legislation that would have required emergency medical care for a baby who had survived an abortion.
In terms of DACA, Obama who had previously stated publicly that he could not re-make immigration law on his own, did just that, when he couldn't get his will done in Congress. His use of executive authority was ultra vires because prosecutorial discretion cannot be applied carte blance to a massive group, and Trump by revoking this action was merely kicking back to Congress, a matter which under our Constitution is in their purview . This judge is abusing his power by attempting to strip from this president his right to revoke an executive order which was clearly illegal ab initio. So your comparison simply doesn't work.
St. Thomas More would be repulsed by the lawless modus operandi of today's Democrats as most recently evidenced by their sanctuary state nonsense.
TJM:
As for your joining in attacks on the media, the matters you list are matters of opinion. Fair enough—by all means attack various opinions promoted by the media you detest. But please make a distinction between media expression of opinion and media reporting of facts challenging Trump’s constant falsehoods. And read Senator Jeff Flake’s impassioned defense of this role of the media in his Senate speech yesterday, if you dare:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/17/our-democracy-will-not-last-jeff-flakes-speech-comparing-trump-to-stalin-annotated/?utm_term=.203245887429
We have been duly warned.
St. Thomas More would be repulsed by the very presence of a thrice "married" man holding the office of the President.
He would also be repulsed by those who support him for political advantage.
WAIT, are we reliving the history of why Thomas More was martyred?
Who is supporting the serial adulterer here, then doing everything under the sun to rationalize their position?
We were warned LONG before this moment. Some took heed, some did not.
Bean, the president isn't Catholic thus he does not believe the complete truth the Church teaches. The pope is making a path for some Catholic adulterers who can't help themselves to be integrated into the full communion of the Church without actually turning away from the adultery.
St. Thomas Moore would be more scandalized by the pope's tolerance of adultery than by a Catholic who was king placing himself above the pope when it came to marriage.
The bottom line though is the pope is Catholic Trump isn't!
Fr. McDonald, Because he doesn't believe what the Church teaches he is therefore free to practice adultery? What hogwash.
Regardless of what he believes, he is a serial adulterer and you and other continue to support him, conveniently overlooking what is, objectively, his on-going mortal sin AND the scandal it gives.
The bottom line is, Trump's non-Catholic status doesn't free him from the Natural Law.
Anonymous 2, I can't take you seriously if take Flake seriously. He likened Trump to Stalin, which is over the top ridiculous. Obama has Stalin like traits, crushing the Little Sisters of the Poor and his war on the unborn. Chew on that, if you dare.
TJM:
I am sorry if I misunderstood the import of your umpteenth use of the abortion issue to defend Trump and Republicans. Doubtless I was having a moment of dejà-vu. And my Catholic faith does not blind me to any politician’s cynical use of the issue to gain political advantage. Wouldn’t it be interesting to examine the President’s own history on this issue, both what he has said and what he has done?
As for DACA, I hope you will understand if I defer to the courts on the constitutionality of this program rather than to your own opinion of the matter. The issue of the DACA program’s constitutionality remains undecided, as you should well know, and many constitutional scholars consider that it was and is indeed constitutional.
And “civil disobedience” in the name of a higher law has a long pedigree in the history of Western law and jurisprudence, as you should also well know.
Invoking Obama’s alleged Stalin-like traits are just another attempt at distraction—this time from the very particular comparison Flake was making in questioning Trump’s characterization of the press as “the enemy of the people.” Are we to assume that you agree with this characterization?
Anonymous 2,
So you think Flake is reasonable in comparing Trump to Stalin? If that's your view, we have nothing further to discuss. Obama's thinking is clearly closer to Stalin's than any president I am familiar with.
There is no serious legal scholar who believes Obama's executive order establishing DACA is legal. It will be overturned by the Supreme Court and you know it.
I believe the vast majoroity of the media are the enemy of the people, which includes the unborn. Most of them clearly are Democrat operatives with bylines. Example: it was comedy gold when the media went into meltdown over Trump's medical exam. Ignoring the fact that the doctor who examined Trump was appointed by Obama. Did the media question Obama's health since he is a known smoker or Hillary's who kept falling over and choking when she was speaking. If you believe there is no difference, you are intellectually dishonest.
Full diclosure: I was a Democratic Party official as a young man but left the party over its extremist position on abortion. No other country on earth, save China, has the extreme abortion laws we have in the US. To paraphrase St. Thomas More, it profits a man nothing to sell his soul for the whole world, but for the Democratic Party?
For those of you getting misty eyed over Obama and his relationship with the Press. Where was flakey Flake then?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/01/trump_is_stalin_yet_obama_actually_threatened_journalists_rights.html
TJM:
Thank you for sharing this part of your life story. I respect your principled opposition to abortion but I do not agree with your apparently unwavering support of the Republican Party and President Trump. I am myself a nonpartisan Independent and am often inclined to simply say “A pox on both their houses.” When I lived in Britain I always voted for the Tories (Conservative Party). Here, politics is so dysfunctional that I cannot in good conscience give my unwavering support to either of the two major Parties. For one thing, ideological extremism of any sort does not appeal to me. Indeed, I regard it as incompatible with conservatism as I understand it. Moreover, the rampant monetary corruption that infects both major Parties appalls me. But Trumpian or Bannonite “populism” (even assuming Trump is a genuine populist, which I seriously doubt) is not a solution; it is a symptom of the problem. All of it lacks the virtue that I regard as essential to a healthy polity.
So, yes, I do think Flake’s comparison was reasonable, on the very particular point at issue of Trump’s attacks on the press. Other asserted comparisons of Stalin with Obama are a distraction and beside this particular point. As for the American Thinker piece you cite, I do not have the time to evaluate or fact check this source, but these people do and here are their findings:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-thinker/
And I repeat my question, which you have dodged: Are we to assume that you agree with Trump’s characterization of the press as “the enemy of the people”?
And I am sorry but you are just wrong in your assertions about DACA. There are many serious legal scholars who consider that the DACA program is constitutional. Here is one example, i.e., the August 14, 2017 letter from more than one hundred immigration law teachers and scholars:
https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdfs/Immigrants/LawProfLetterDACAFinal8.13.pdf
You may not recognize the names but I most certainly do, and several of these signatories are among the leading immigration law scholars in the United States. But of course, you may be correct that the Supreme Court will ultimately find the DACA program unconstitutional if and when it addresses the issue of its constitutionality. To coin a phrase “We’ll see what happens” (or not).
And let’s not forget why the Obama administration implemented DACA in the first place—because of the aforesaid dysfunction in our political system. Congress should have addressed the Dreamer issue legislatively years ago instead of playing their corrupt and childish political games.
Anonymous2, is fact checking really necessary as far as what the American Thinker listed that was done under Mr. Obama?
Do you doubt what happened with James Rosen, Sharyl Attkisson, the IRS, the spying on a political opponents,the unmasking people associated with Donald Trump and their conversations, etc.?
As far as the below, they only cited one example and it was minor (a similarity with a muslim symbol)
"As for the American Thinker piece you cite, I do not have the time to evaluate or fact check this source, but these people do and here are their findings:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-thinker/"
James J.
“Anonymous2, is fact checking really necessary as far as what the American Thinker listed that was done under Mr. Obama?
Do you doubt what happened with James Rosen, Sharyl Attkisson, the IRS, the spying on a political opponents,the unmasking people associated with Donald Trump and their conversations, etc.?”
Yes, James, Fact checking the American Thinker list_is_necessary, and while I do not seriously doubt “what happened” in the listed cases, the real question is “what did happen exactly?”
Here is the relevant extract from The American Thinker piece:
“Jeff Flake, John McCain, and journalists from all over the spectrum are ripping into Trump for his threat to the media. Flake even compared Trump to Stalin.
I have to wonder where they all were when...
Obama continually targeted Fox News (he obviously wanted 100% devotion).
Obama specifically targeted James Rosen of Fox News.
The State Department erased portions of an interview it didn't like on Iran with James Rosen.
Obama's administration spied on Sharyl Attkisson.
The IRS targeted and shut up political opponents.
The Justice Department threatened legal action against those who dared disagree on climate change.
Obama illegally spied on thousands of Americans for years.
Obama spied on a political opponent before an election.
Obama had staff who illegally unmasked people associated with Donald Trump and their conversations.
I can think of nothing Trump has done that is close to the things Obama did to shut up opposition. It was Obama who was the threat to freedom and democracy, not Trump...yet Flake and McCain didn't speak out against Obama. Why?
Trump is trying to give the power back to the people, and Obama was trying to amass more power for the government. Which is more autocratic?”
Now, I do not have time to “fact check “all of these tendentious assertions but I have fact checked some—specifically, about Rosen, Atkinson, and the IRS. The statements are very tendentious, if not indeed downright misleading, and they omit huge amounts of context and follow up reporting. I recommend that you do your own research into these matters. The following statement from an article in The Hill by Atkinson should whet your appetite:
http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/351495-it-looks-like-obama-did-spy-on-trump-just-as-he-did-to-me
“To date, the Trump Department of Justice — like the Obama Department of Justice — is fighting me in court and working to keep hidden the identities of those who accessed a government internet protocol address found in my computers.”
How does one explain this? Doesn’t it at least raise questions in your mind? And this is just one instance. [continued]
On the general character of the American Thinker, here is a passage from RationalWiki on the publication:
“American Thinker (affectionately nicknamed "American Stinker" by its fans) is an online wingnut publication that's more or less the poor man's WND or Newsmax. They've published articles by such conservative luminaries as Noel Sheppard (NewsBusters) and Pamela Geller and such climate "experts" as S. Fred Singer and Christopher Monckton, as well as an interview with (and hagiography of) white nationalist Jared Taylor.
The magazine, of course, is chock-full of right-wing conspiracy theories, woo, and pseudoscience. On the conspiracy side, they promote birtherism, "creeping sharia," red-baiting, and still occasionally prattle on about Vince Foster. On the science side, they concentrate on creationism and global warming denialism.”
Now, you may choose to defend The American Thinker against such characterizations, but again, doesn’t it at least raise questions in your mind?
But, of course, all this is beside the point. Obama is no longer president, Trump is. And even if everything The American Thinker alleges about Obama were true, in exactly the way it presents these matters, it would not justify Trump’s attacks on the press. Two wrongs do not make a right. And thus, once again, the article is yet another attempt to distract and deflect by attacking someone else, a favored tactic of this Administration as we all know.
P.S. Misspelling alert: Atkisson not Atkinson. Sorry.
Post a Comment