Doing Advance Work

News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Thursday, August 17, 2017

We have no way of knowing if the speakers at Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally last weekend were 'Nazis,' 'white supremacists,' or passionate Civil War buffs, since they weren't allowed to speak. The governor of Virginia shut the event down, despite a court order to let it proceed-Ann Coulter

August 16, 2017, "WHEN LIBERALS CLUB PEOPLE, IT'S WITH LOVE IN THEIR HEARTS," Ann Coulter 

"Apparently, as long as violent leftists label their victims "fascists," they are free to set fires, smash windows and beat civilians bloody.

No police officer will stop them. They have carte blanche to physically assault anyone they disapprove of, including Charles Murray, Heather Mac Donald, Ben Shapiro, me and Milo Yiannopoulos, as well as anyone who wanted to hear us speak.

Even far-left liberals like Evergreen State professor Bret Weinstein will be stripped of police protection solely because the mob called him a "racist."

If the liberal shock troops deem local Republicans "Nazis" -- because some of them support the duly elected Republican president -- Portland will cancel the annual Rose Festival parade rather than allow any Trump supporters to march.

They're all "fascists"! Ipso facto, the people cracking their skulls and smashing store windows are "anti-fascists," or as they call themselves, "antifa."

We have no way of knowing if the speakers at the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally last weekend were "Nazis," "white supremacists" or passionate Civil War buffs, inasmuch as they weren't allowed to speak. The Democratic governor shut the event down, despite a court order to let it proceed.
.
We have only visuals presented to us by the activist media, showing some participants with Nazi paraphernalia. But for all we know, the Nazi photos are as unrepresentative of the rally as that photo of the drowned Syrian child is of Europe's migrant crisis. Was it 1 percent Nazi or 99 percent Nazi?

As the "Unite the Right" crowd was dispersing, they were forced by the police into the path of the peace-loving, rock-throwing, fire-spraying antifa. A far-left reporter for The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, tweeted live from the event:

"The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding 'antifa' beating white nationalists being led out of the park."

That's when protestor James Fields sped his car into a crowd of the counter-protesters, then immediately hit reverse, injuring dozens of people, and killing one woman, Heather Heyer.

This has been universally labeled "terrorism," but we still don't know whether Fields hit the gas accidentally, was in fear for his life or if he rammed the group intentionally and maliciously.

With any luck, we'll unravel Fields' motives faster than it took the Obama administration to discern the motives of a Muslim shouting "Allahu Akbar!" while gunning down soldiers at Fort Hood. (Six years.)

But so far, all we know is that Fields said he was "upset about black people" and wanted to kill as many as possible. On his Facebook page, he displayed a "White Power" poster and "liked" three organizations deemed "white separatist hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. A subsequent search of his home turned up bomb-making materials, ballistic vests, rifles, ammunition and a personal journal of combat tactics.

Actually, none of that is true. The paragraph above describes, down to the letter, what was known about Micah Xavier Johnson, the black man who murdered five Dallas cops a year ago during a Black Lives Matter demonstration. My sole alteration to the facts is reversing the words "black" and "white."

President Obama held a news conference the next day to say it's "very hard to untangle the motives." The New York Times editorialized agnostically that many "possible motives will be ticked off for the killer." (One motive kind of sticks out like a sore thumb to me.)

In certain cases, the media are quite willing to jump to conclusions. In others, they seem to need an inordinate amount of time to detect motives.

The media think they already know all there is to know about James Fields, but they also thought they knew all about the Duke lacrosse players, "gentle giant" Michael Brown and those alleged gang-rapists at the University of Virginia.

Waiting for facts is now the "Nazi" position.

Liberals have Republicans over a barrel because they used the word "racist." The word is kryptonite, capable of turning the entire GOP and 99 percent of the "conservative media" into a panicky mass of cowardice.

This week, Mitt Romney and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) -- among others -- instructed us that masked liberals hitting people with baseball bats are pure of heart -- provided they first label the likes of Charles Murray or some housewife in a "MAGA" hat "fascists."

Luckily, the week before opening fire on Republicans, critically injuring House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, Bernie Sanders-supporter James Hodgkinson had used the vital talisman, calling the GOP "fascist." So you see, he wasn't trying to commit mass murder! He was just fighting "Nazis." Rubio and Romney will be expert witnesses.

And let's recall the response of Hillary Clinton to the horrifying murder of five Dallas cops last year. The woman who ran against Trump displayed all the moral blindness currently being slanderously imputed to him.

In an interview on CNN about the slaughter that had taken place roughly 12 hours earlier, Hillary barely paused to acknowledge the five dead officers -- much less condemn the shooting -- before criticizing police for their "implicit bias" six times in about as many minutes.

What she really wanted to talk about were the two recent police shootings of black men in Baton Rouge and Minneapolis, refusing to contradict Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton's claim that the Minneapolis shooting was based on racism.

Officers in both cases were later found innocent of any wrongdoing. Either the left has had a really bad streak of luck on their police brutality cases, or bad cops are a lot rarer than they think.

Some people would not consider the mass murder of five white policemen by an anti-cop nut in the middle of a BLM protest a good jumping-off point for airing BLM's delusional complaints about the police. It would be like responding to John Hinckley Jr.'s attempted murder of President Reagan by denouncing Jodie Foster for not dating him.

Or, to bring it back to Charlottesville, it would be as if Trump had responded by expounding on the kookiest positions of "Unite the Right" -- just as Hillary's response echoed the paranoid obsessions of the cop-killer. Trump would have quickly skipped over the dead girl and railed against black people, Jews and so on.

That is the precise analogy to what Hillary did as the bodies of five Dallas cops lay in the morgue.

Thank God Donald J. Trump is our president, and not Mitt Romney, not Marco Rubio and not that nasty woman."







...................

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

When Palm Beach social clubs barred African Americans and Jews in the 1990s, Donald Trump sent copies of 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner,' a film about upper class racism, to Palm Beach town council members and filed a lawsuit against them-WSJ 1997

April 30, 1997, "Trump’s Palm Beach Club Roils the Old Social Order," The Wall Street Journal, by Jacqueline Bueno. "Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner"

1967 film

Nov. 2015 article references 1997 WSJ above:

11/13/2015, "When Trump Fought the Racists," American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord 


"A 1997 Wall St. Journal story featured his Florida fight against anti-Semitism, racists." 

"The WSJ story...focuses on the battles Trump faced as a new arrival to Palm Beach, including his new competition with the social clubs of the old order....

It revolves around Trump’s purchase and operation of the famous Mar-a-Lago estate, built in the 1920s by Post Cereal heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post. Trump had recently purchased the sprawling, seaside estate and turned it into a club. This being located in upscale Palm Beach, Florida, there were other prestigious clubs in the area, clubs that catered to the old order of upper crust Palm Beach society. The problem? Quietly, these other clubs had long barred Jews and African Americans— which is to say they practiced a quiet but steely racism.... 

The (WSJ) story, which quotes Abe Foxman, the longtime head of the Anti-Defamation League, says, in part, the following:

"Mr. Trump also has resorted to the courts to secure his foothold here, and many residents wince at the attention his legal battles with the town have drawn — to the town in general, and to the admission practices at some of Palm Beach’s older clubs in particular.

…The culture clash began to approach a climax last fall, when Mr. Trump’s lawyer sent members of the town council a copy of the film “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” a film that deals with upper-class racism. Mr. Trump then approached the town council about lifting the restrictions that had been placed on the club. He also asked some council members not to vote on the request because their membership in other clubs created a conflict of interest. 

Last December, after the council refused to lift the restrictions, Mr. Trump filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Palm Beach, alleging that the town was discriminating against Mar-a-Lago, in part because it is open to Jews and African-Americans. The suit seeks $100 million in damages."...
 
Mar-a-Lago
In other words? In other words, long before he was running for president, there was Donald Trump battling racism and anti-Semitism in Palm Beach society. Using every tool at his disposal. 

The film he chose to send the Palm Beach town council was no accident. Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner was released in 1967 and starred film legends Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, and Sidney Poitier. The Oscar-winning story revolved around a liberal, upper-class older couple who are stunned and discomfited when their daughter, played by Katharine Houghton, brings her new fiancĂ© — Poitier — home to dinner and an introduction to her white parents. As liberals, her parents were staunch supporters of racial equality and had raised their daughter accordingly. Yet suddenly, in comes the very personal reality of equality when their daughter waltzes in the door after a vacation with husband-to-be Poitier, a black widower and doctor. Soul searching about just how devoted to equality they really are ensues.

Thus it was no accident that Trump selected this movie to tweak the members of both the Palm Beach town council and the larger white society it represented. Trump understood exactly what the game was and he would have none of it. In addition to sending a copy of the movie, he launched his lawyers, who filed that $100 million lawsuit “alleging that the town was discriminating against Mar-a-Lago, in part because it is open to Jews and African-Americans.”... 

Yet here comes the utterly predictable charge of racism from deportracism.com.... 

The harsh reality of the racism charge against Trump is not only that it is bogus, utterly false from start to finish. The reality is the charges of racism against Trump are coming from the one political force in the country that has a long, deep, and immutable history of racism. A racism that is no relic of a long ago past but both current and visceral, used now as it has always been used — to divide and judge by skin color for political profit. 

The good news here that in Donald Trump someone — finally — is standing up to fight back. Just as he fought back all those years ago in Palm Beach when no one was looking."
..............................

Added: [Comments on this article welcome at Facebook here] 

Above images from UK Telegraph article, link inactive as of 8/17/17: 11/3/2015, "How Trump Fought Racism and Anti-Semitism in Palm Beach Two Decades Ago," UK Telegraph blog, by brakeshoe

Following is excerpt from UK Telegraph article posted in 2016 at Free Republic: 

"How Trump Fought Racism and Anti-Semitism in Palm Beach Two Decades Ago," U.K. Telegraph ^ | updated 3/17/2016 | Blogger Blakeshoe

Posted on 3/18/2016, 9:50:29 AM by SueRae

"[Comments on this article welcome on Facebook here] Updated March 17, 2016 — See below lede"] 

"Amidst the shuffle of the Trump candidacy is how well he is polling in the Black community, over twice as high as any other GOP candidate, which we documented back on November 2nd. 

What’s not as well known is Trump’s successful battles against racism and anti-semitism over the last three decades and more. From this April 1997 Wall Street Journal story about his Mar-a-Lago property and his roiling the old social order in the then–racist Palm Beach scene, we have this little tidbit worth bringing to your attention (photos added by me):

March 17th Update:

Since the original November 3rd publication, more on Donald Trump’s fight against the rampant racism and anti-Semitism in Palm Beach has come to our attention, going as far back as 1985 in Vanity Fair; and also in the Washington Post...See navy blue text."...

(Excerpt) Read more at my.telegraph.co.uk ..."

"[Note: Despite the UK domain, I am happily ensconced in Cherry Hill, NJ]"




....................

Proving unfit to be Virginia Governor, Terry McAuliffe statements incited racial fear and hatred. His deadly claims were not only false but contradicted Va. State Police. McAuliffe told Black Lives Matter activist that 'white nationalists' had stashed weapons around town, which was false. Families had to worry their children might find them and possibly kill themselves or others. NY Times had to remove McAuliffe claim that 80% of rally attendees had semi-automatic weapons-Reason.com via Disobedient Media

8/16/17, "Virginia State Police Say They Didn’t Find Caches Of Weapons in Charlottesville," disobedient media 

Source: "Virginia State Police Say They Didn’t Find Caches of Weapons in Charlottesville," Reason.com, C.J. Ciaramella 

"Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe said police found weapons stashed by white nationalists. Police say they didn’t.

Contradicting statements by Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Virginia State Police say they did not find caches of weapons stashed around Charlottesville in advance of last Saturday’s deadly white nationalist rally. 

In an interview Monday on the Pod Save the People podcast, hosted by Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson, McAuliffe claimed the white nationalists who streamed into Charlottesville that weekend hid weapons throughout the town. 

They had battering rams and we had picked up different weapons that they had stashed around the city, McAuliffe told Mckesson.

McAuliffe’s comments were picked up by other news outlets and spread through social media. But Corinne Geller, a spokesperson for the Virginia State Police, says that no such stashes were found.

“The governor was referring to the briefing provided him in advance of Saturday’s rally and the extra security measures being taken by local and state police,” Geller tells Reason. “As a safety precaution in advance of August 12, such searches were conducted in and around Emancipation and McIntire Parks.

No weapons were located as a result of those searches.” 

The Virginia State Police also disputed McAuliffe’s claims that Virginia State Police were underequipped to deal with the heavily armed militia members at Saturday’s rally.

“The governor was referencing the weapons and tactical gear the members of various groups attending the rally had on their persons,” Geller says. I can assure you that the Virginia State Police personnel were equipped with more-than-adequate specialized tactical and protective gear for the purpose of fulfilling their duties to serve and protect those in attendance of the August 12 event in Charlottesville.” 

McAuliffe claimed in an interview with The New York Times that law enforcement arrived to find a line of militia members who “had better equipment than our State Police had.

In longer comments that were later edited out of the Times‘ story, McAuliffe said that up to 80 percent of the rally attendees were carrying semi-automatic weapons. “You saw the militia walking down the street, you would have thought they were an army,” he said. 

Virginia police have come under criticism for failing to quell violence at the rally, which left one counterprotester dead and more than 30 injured."



..................


After decades of violent protesting and rioting, the militant left now has 100% moral authority to enact whatever violence and destruction it wants, is incapable of being immoral, can't be judged in any way-Rush Limbaugh, 8/16/17

George Soros in 2012 happily predicted violent US street riots: "As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable. Yes, yes, yes,” he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”"...(4th parag. from end)
...................

Rush: "Even Mitt Romney has come out and sided with the leftist protesters....Mr. Republican, Mitt Romney, is actually claiming that the leftist protesters are not racist and they’re not bigoted, that they’re opposing racism and bigotry....Mitt, have you ever taken a gander at YouTube? Have you ever taken a look at what this Antifa group does? Have you ever seen some of the violence they have perpetrated at G20 conventions or World Trade Organization rallies in Seattle? I mean, they’re all over the place and they are violent. It’s not just that they’re violent; they are demanding....Moral superiority? So Mitt Romney is defending Antifa, defending the left, and a lot of people on the right are." .......................

Rush: "They were marching all over the Left Coast. They had just come off a number of years of blaming Ronald Reagan for AIDS because he had not said anything about it when he was president. It was the same then as it is today, the same outrage."...
.............. 

8/16/17, "America’s Anchorman Analyzes the Insane Degree of Anger at Donald Trump," Rush Limbaugh

"RUSH: I’ve got all kinds of people asking me today, “Why is this insane degree of anger at Donald Trump? This seems unlike anything we’ve seen yet. Why so over the top?” I’ve been asking myself the same thing. It’s my job here, man, to come up with these answers. The best thing I can come up with is he said there were nice people on both sides. That seems to have just sent everybody over the edge. 

That seems to have been the equivalent of giving aid and comfort to racists and Nazis and white supremacists and bigots and sexists and homophobes, transgenderphobes, cisgenders, you name it. By claiming that there were nice people on both sides, that seems to have sent everybody over the edge. Not that alone. And, folks, there is no other news today....

I’ve never seen a day where there isn’t anything in the news except this. CBS last night, 100 percent of the CBS Evening News was this, basically Trump’s press conference yesterday, his third press conference on this whole thing in Charlottesville, Virginia.

And it has become clear, as I have observed all of this, that where we are in America culturally right now, is that the Alt-Left, which is alternatively known as Occupy Wall Street — same people that protested at Ferguson, Missouri, and in Baltimore, Maryland. The same people that protested in Oakland, California, at Berkeley. The same people that have been protesting leftist causes my entire life, it’s the same groups, it’s the same people. The bodies may change; I mean people grow older, new people join the movement. There’s nothing new about this leftist movement.

What is new is that apparently we’ve reached the point in American history where they have 100 percent moral authority. ...What I’m trying to say is that the media and even — heck, folks, it’s a bunch of people on the right now. As far as the popular culture is concerned, the Alt-Left, as just a title I’m giving them to distinguish them from the others, but the militant leftist protesters have been judged now to be...incapable of being immoral.

We are not permitted to say that they’re immoral. We’re not permitted to judge them in any way. They have moral authority. 

And that’s where we are. And so any criticism of people on the left is going to tie you automatically with the Alt-Right, the Nazis, the neo-Nazis, the white supremacists and whoever it is that makes up that group. That must be universally condemned, the same type of people that on the left are immune....They are now protected, is probably the best way to describe this.

It’s a challenge today to go through this, not for the reasons that you might think. I’ve never been one to join conventional wisdom. I’ve never been one to join the pack. And I’m not going to join conventional wisdom today just to join conventional wisdom. 

The easy thing to do today, the easy thing for anybody to do would be to, without question and without curiosity, just dump all over, not just Trump, but the Republican Party. Because the way this is being played out, it’s the Republican Party that has questions to answer. It’s the Republican that has to have its come-to-Jesus moment over this stuff. Because it is, as it’s being played out here, it’s the Republican Party which has flirted with racism all of these decades. And it’s the Republican Party that’s flirted with bigotry. It’s the Republican Party that must explain itself today.

And I simply, as an almost instinctive thing, reject conventional wisdom. I always have. It’s a personality quirk of mine. And it’s not just in matters of politics.

RUSH: Here’s what I think is gonna happen here and after I take just a brief amount of time explaining this, we’re gonna then turn back and get into some of the specifics. Many, many teachable moments here. And a lot of eye opening realities that, if you don’t keep things in perspective, it’s gonna depress you tremendously, and that’s what we’re here today to try to prevent.

I think that this current round of whatever this is — and it’s just the latest. This has been going on with these leftist groups for as long as I have been doing this program. I remember back in — this had to be 1989 or maybe 1990. If you’ll please indulge me here for a moment. I want to give you my historical perspective of this, because it’s truly missing on all of this news reporting and coverage.
 
When the program was new, we started with 56 radio stations, and they were all very small, and we would not survive if we stayed on only those 56. There was nothing wrong with them; it’s just they were not large enough and in big enough cities to sustain what we were trying to do here. So it became imperative to get stations in the top 10, actually top 15 markets to carry the program off the bat. And one such market was Los Angeles.

I remembered whenever we got a new clearance, a new station, one of the things I did was always sit down for an interview with the local newspaper, because they, of course, were totally perplexed and confused. They didn’t know who I was, but they knew this radio show was taking off and that I was some kind of conservative. And even back in 1989 and ’90, being conservative was the same as being a Martian. Being a conservative was the same as being an unknown oddity.

And at the time that we were getting our Los Angeles station, the AIDS protests and riots were going crazy. They were throwing condoms at Cardinal O’Connor in St. Patrick’s Cathedral. They were marching all over the Left Coast. They had just come off a number of years of blaming Ronald Reagan for AIDS because he had not said anything about it when he was president. It was the same then as it is today, the same outrage. You get just as mad watching these people as you get mad watching them today.

And back then, I remember sitting and talking to an LA Times reporter about this. She was prepared to write a story of how I was this brute and I was insensitive, all because I’m a conservative, she didn’t know who I was. And I finally asked her, “You want to characterize me this way. What about all of these people that are destroying businesses and conducting protest marches that are damaging and destroying property?”

And her answer to me was, “Well, that’s the only way they can be heard.” As far as she was concerned, they were totally justified. 

They were leftist protesters. It didn’t matter that they were AIDS related protesters or if they were protesting at the time George H. W. Bush. They were leftist protesters, and, as such, they were thoroughly justified. You could not question them. You could not doubt them. And they were victims.

So they were entitled to do anything they had to do to get noticed. 

They were entitled, as far as the media’s concerned, to do anything they had to do in order to be heard, to have their grievances addressed. I came from the majority, and, as such, I was automatically the enemy. And I automatically was out of touch. And I automatically didn’t understand.

So I’m sitting here wondering why I’m being pasted, why I’m being ripped to shreds just because I’m a conservative and have a new radio show. And, meanwhile, people are literally damaging property and attacking other people are being given a pass. My point in telling you the story is nothing’s new. It hasn’t changed. If anything, it’s gotten worse. If anything, the left has now achieved moral authority.

 

If it’s Black Lives Matter, if it is Occupy Wall Street or whatever manifestation of the left that they exist in today, it’s the same thinking, it’s the same organizers, it’s the same people in many regards. I mean, the people that are showing up here in Charlottesville were probably in Ferguson, and they were in Baltimore, and they will be at the next place. They travel around. 

Many of them are bought and paid for. But as far as the media is concerned, they have achieved moral authority. They are incapable of violence, for example.

This is maddening. If you allow yourself to get caught up thoroughly in this, you’ll go crazy trying to untangle what appears to be no common sense, what appears to be just inexplicable. How in the world can this group be given an exemption? But they have been, because they’re victims, and because they are helping to advance the anti-conservative agenda that the media and the Democrat Party and all these people happen to support. And so anything that advances that is morally okay, morally superior.

But that’s only one half of it. The other half of it is when otherwise conservative people see this and join it because of a fear of being tainted by the criticism of people on the right — let me explain. We have people who are conservatives. They self-identify, claim they’re conservatives. Others who are Republicans may not be actual conservatives, but they’re pointed out as conservatives.

And then over here you’ve got these Looney Tunes. You’ve got the Klan, which is Democrats, has always been Democrats, but now they somehow get tied to the right wing. You have the Nazis, which are socialists, which is much closer to the Democrat Party than anything you and I believe. You have white supremacists, you have all of those people, and because the media has characterized those people as creatures of the right, there is an element of conservatism scared to death of being identified with them.

And so as to avoid being identified, let’s say you’re a conservative that works at a popular conservative magazine, you’re an editor, you’re a writer, you’re a blogger, and you see this that’s happening in Charlottesville or you see what happened in Ferguson. It’s the same thing. It’s the same thing as what happened in Baltimore....And you see what happened, and you size up what’s happening. And in this case in Charlottesville, we have white supremacists, we have Nazis, we have the Klan.

So you’re a conservative at one of these magazines, and you are not going to run the risk of being identified with these wackos on the right, so what do you do? You cross the line and you side with the people who are condemning them so that you will not be tagged and associated. And in a strict human sense, it’s totally understandable.

But in the process, what happens? There is no renouncement of what’s going on on the left. People who would normally renounce, denounce, criticize correctly what’s going on on the left don’t because they feel the need to join the chorus on the left in condemning that which is said to be extreme right wing.

And so the left continues to get away with no criticism. You look at the media, the media will not tolerate any suggestion that there’s even violence in the Alt-Left....That was all on the right, if you ask the media. There wasn’t any violence on the left. The violence on the left happened after the Alt-Right went out after ’em.

It’s not true. The left-wing protesters are in fact the ones who do violence. They destroy things. They start fires. They destroy automobiles. In Ferguson they were destroying private property of people who lived in the neighborhood. They most certainly do violence. They most certainly threaten violence. They lead with it. But today, they’re exempt. You can’t say they are violent. If you do, they will come after you.

By “they” I mean the media, the establishment, whatever you want to call it. They’ll come after you and tar you and feather you and destroy you and lump you in with the extreme so-called wackos on the right. Well, nobody wants that to happen, so they don’t denounce the left. They join the left in open criticism so as to avoid being tainted themselves. So that’s where we are right now.
 
There’s one person who’s not doing that. Who is that? There’s only one person not doing it. That’d be Donald Trump. You see what’s happening to him. Donald Trump is trying to tell the truth. This is plain as day what happened to him on this. On Saturday, Trump goes out, says what he says about it. Unsatisfactory. 

Violated conventional wisdom. Trump did not specifically identify the Klan, the white supremacists and the Nazis. And therefore, Trump must be sympathetic to them. A firestorm was created, and the media then demanded that Trump do it again, and this time, call ’em out by name. So Trump did.

Now, somebody in the White House probably was very persuasive in suggesting President Trump do it. I’m sure they watch the media in there, and I’m sure there’s a lot of people there that think that you can accommodate the media. You can’t. We can’t. Those of us on the right cannot accommodate them. We cannot turn them. We cannot make them understand. We cannot ever be seen favorably by them. Trump has learned this.

So he goes out after whatever pressure there was on him in the White House to change his statement, and identify by name Nazis and the white supremacists and the bigots and the Klan and whatever. He goes out and does it, and what’s the media do? 

“You didn’t mean it,” they say. “You didn’t mean it. You’re only doing this because we pressured you and that means it wasn’t in your heart. So you don’t get any credit from us. You’re just a phony. You don’t mean it!” Trump’s sitting there fuming, ’cause he knew instinctively this is what’s gonna happen.

He’s probably mad at somebody in the White House for steering him this way. So he does the press conference — it happened yesterday — and yesterday’s press conference was Trump erupting over, I think, any number of things, people that made him do things he didn’t want to do in the two previous press conferences. When he says, “Look, I went out there before we knew all the facts; then I went out there and I mentioned the names, and you people say I get no credit for that.”

So yesterday’s press conference was probably Trump as Trump criticizing both sides, but he stepped in it when he said, “There are fine people on both sides.” That’s all it took. I dare say that this hysteria that’s taking place in the media, both on the left and on the right, is rooted in Trump saying, “There are fine people on both sides,” because there aren’t fine people in the Nazis, and there aren’t fine people in the white supremacists, and there aren’t fine people in the Klan.

Well, by the same token, there aren’t a lot of fine people in these various movements that exist on the left. But you can’t say that. Trump was probably trying to be accommodating, and he was trying to identify both sides as being somewhat guilty and somewhat responsible. But because he said, “There are fine people on both sides,” that is what blew this all up and provided the ammo for the hysteria that is now perceived to be legitimate. Now, how long is this gonna go? How long is this episode gonna last? Some people think this is it. This isn’t gonna blow over. This is the worst it’s been." image above from RushLimbaugh.com
..................




Rush Limbaugh "Related Links"


............................



Media has ignored important information published in The Nation that so-called Russian 'hack' of DNC was actually a leak that could only have taken place in US Eastern time zone and definitely didn't involve Guccifer-Salon.com, Danielle Ryan...(Salon.com commenter: DNC hack or leak is irrelevant, indisputable truth is Trump campaign hooked up with Russians, and many in Trump WH align with Nazis who engage in illegal and unprotected speech)

8/15/17, "What if the DNC Russian "hack" was really a leak after all? A new report raises questions media and Democrats would rather ignore," Salon.com, Danielle Ryan

"A group of intelligence pros and forensic investigators tell The Nation there was no hack— the media ignores it."

"Last week the respected left-liberal magazine The Nation published an explosive article that details in great depth the findings of a new report — authored in large part by former U.S. intelligence officers — which claims to present forensic evidence that the Democratic National Committee was not hacked by the Russians in July 2016. Instead, the report alleges, the DNC suffered an insider leak, conducted in the Eastern time zone of the United States by someone with physical access to a DNC computer.

This report also claims there is no apparent evidence that the hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 — supposedly based in Romania — hacked the DNC on behalf of the Russian government. There is also no evidence, the report’s authors say, that Guccifer handed documents over to WikiLeaks. Instead, the report says that the evidence and timeline of events suggests that Guccifer may have been conjured up in an attempt to deflect from the embarrassing information about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign that was released just before the Democratic National Convention. The investigators found that some of the “Guccifer” files had been deliberately altered by copying and pasting the text into a “Russianified” word-processing document with Russian-language settings.

If all this is true, these findings would constitute a massive embarrassment for not only the DNC itself but the media, which has breathlessly pushed the Russian hacking narrative for an entire year, almost without question but with little solid evidence to back it up.

You could easily be forgiven for not having heard about this latest development — because, perhaps to avoid potential embarrassment, the media has completely ignored it. Instead, to this point only a few right-wing sites have seen fit to publish follow-ups.

The original piece, authored by former Salon columnist Patrick Lawrence (also known as Patrick L. Smith) appeared in The Nation on Aug. 9. The findings it details are supported by a group of strongly credentialed and well-respected forensic investigators and former NSA and CIA officials. The group call themselves Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or VIPS, and originally came together in 2003 to protest the use of faulty intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq under President George W. Bush.

As of Aug. 12, the only well-known publications that have followed up on The Nation’s reporting are Breitbart News, the Washington Examiner and New York magazine (which described Lawrence’s article as “too incoherent to even debunk,” and therefore provided no substantial rebuttal). Bloomberg addressed the report in an op-ed by one of its regular columnists. 

The silence from mainstream outlets on this is interesting, if for no other reason than the information appears in a highly-regarded liberal magazine with a reputation for vigorous and thorough reporting — not some right-wing fringe conspiracy outlet carrying water for Donald Trump.

Maybe the logic goes that if mainstream journalists leave this untouched, that alone will be enough to discredit it. True believers in the Russian hack narrative can point to Breitbart’s coverage to dismiss this new information without consideration. That is not good enough. Lawrence’s article, and the report behind it, deserves some proper attention.

Let’s back up for a second. Where did this report come from?
As explained by Lawrence, VIPS has been examining available information about the DNC hack and/or leak, but the group lacked access to all the data they needed because intelligence agencies refused to provide it.

One of the VIPS researchers on the DNC case, William Binney — formerly the NSA’s technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis — suggested in an interview with Lawrence that intelligence agencies have been hiding the lack of evidence for Russian hacking behind the claim that they must maintain secrecy to protect NSA programs.

At the same time, other anonymous forensic investigators have been working independently on the DNC case. They recently began sharing their findings via an obscure website called Disobedient Media. One of those anonymous investigators is known as the Forensicator. A man named Skip Folden, an IT executive at IBM for 33 years and a consultant for the FBI, Pentagon and Justice Department, acted as a liaison between VIPS and the Forensicator. Folden and other investigators have examined the evidence, attested to its professionalism, and sent a detailed technical report to the offices of special counsel Robert Mueller and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. VIPS believes this new evidence fills a “critical gap” in the DNC case. In a memorandum sent to President Trump, VIPS questions why the FBI, CIA and NSA neglected to perform any forensic analysis of the Guccifer documents, which were central to the narrative of Russian hacking
.
VIPS states two things with what they describe as a high degree of certainty: There was no Russian hack on July 5, and the metadata from Guccifer’s June 15 document release was “synthetically tainted” with “Russian fingerprints.”

How did the group come to the conclusion that it was a leak, not a hack?

Investigators found that 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded locally on July 5, 2016. The information was downloaded with a memory key or some other portable storage device. The download operation took 87 seconds — meaning the speed of transfer was 22.7 megabytes per second — “a speed that far exceeds an internet capability for a remote hack,” as Lawrence puts it. What’s more, they say, a transoceanic transfer would have been even slower (Guccifer claimed to be working from Romania).
Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible,Folden told The Nation. 

Further casting doubt on the official narrative is the fact the the DNC’s computer servers were never examined by the FBI. Instead, the agency relied on a report compiled by Crowdstrike, a cybersecurity firm compromised by serious conflicts of interest — the major one being that the firm was paid by the DNC itself to conduct its work. Another is that the firm’s owner is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a think tank known for its hostility toward Russia.

The Intelligence Community Assessment published in January of this year, which claims “high confidence” in the Russian hacking theory, presented no hard evidence. Yet many in the media have relied on it as proof ever since. Ray McGovern, another VIPS member and formerly the chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch, called that intelligence assessment a “disgrace” to the profession.

The VIPS report also notes that the timing of events is strangely favorable to Hillary Clinton. It is hard to disagree. 

On June 12, 2016, Julian Assange announced that he would publish documents related to Clinton’s campaign on WikiLeaks. Two days later, Crowdstrike, the firm paid by the DNC, suddenly announced the discovery of malware on DNC servers and claimed it had evidence that the Russians were responsible for it. This set in motion the narrative for Russian hacking.

A day after that, Guccifer appeared, took responsibility for the purported June 14 hack and announced that he was a WikiLeaks source, working on behalf of Russia. He then posted the documents which VIPS now claims were altered to make them appear more “Russian.”

On July 5, two weeks later, Guccifer claimed responsibility for another hack which the VIPS report categorically states can only have been a leak, based on the speed of data transfer. 

As Lawrence suggests, this timing was convenient for the Clinton campaign, which could avoid dealing with the contents of the leaks by instead focusing on the sensational story of Russian hacking.

Since we’ve covered what is in the VIPS report, it is equally important to note what this report does not do. It does not claim to know who the leaker was or what his or her motives were. 

Lawrence is also careful to note that these findings do not prove or disprove any other theories implicating Russia in the 2016 election (such as possible Russian connections to Donald Trump’s family and associates, etc.). This deals purely with the facts surrounding the DNC hack/leak last summer.

Many who have questioned the official version of events have sought to link the murder of Seth Rich to the theory that the DNC suffered a leak, not a hack. Rich, a 27-year-old DNC employee, was shot twice in the back as he walked home from a bar in Washington, five days after the supposed July 5 hack of the DNC’s servers. 

Numerous unproven theories have surrounded Rich’s murder. There are those who suggest that Rich had been angered by the DNC’s treatment of Bernie Sanders, decided to leak information which would be damaging to Clinton’s campaign, and was then murdered by Democratic operatives. Others have claimed that perhaps Rich had found evidence of Russian hacking and was murdered by Russian operatives. 

There is no evidence for any of these theories — and neither VIPS nor Lawrence in his article attempt to link Rich’s murder to the hack/leak of information from the DNC. (Washington police have said since the night of Rich’s death that he was the victim of an armed robbery attempt that went wrong.) Nonetheless, the emergence of this information may lend credence to those theories for those who want to believe them.

Instead of subjecting the various accounts of what happened last summer to rigorous scrutiny, the media instantly accepted the narrative promoted by the Clinton campaign and U.S. intelligence agencies. It has continued to do so ever since. Now, as new information comes to light, the media has largely acted as if it did not exist.

For the media and mainstream liberals to dismiss the information presented in Lawrence’s article as lacking in evidence would be breathtakingly ironic, given how little evidence they required to build a narrative to suit themselves and absolve Clinton of any responsibility for losing the election.

The authors of this report are highly experienced and well-regarded professionals. That they can be dismissed out of hand or ignored entirely is a sad commentary on the state of the media, which purports to be concerned by the plague of “fake news.”

If these new findings are accurate, those who pushed the Russia hacking narrative with little evidence have a lot to answer for. The Clinton campaign promoted a narrative that has pushed U.S.-Russia relations to the brink at an incredibly dangerous time.

Unlike the cacophony of anonymous sources cited by the media over the past year, these experts are ready to put their names to their assertions. They expect that pundits, politicians and the media will cast doubt on their findings, but say they are “prepared to answer any substantive challenges on their merits.” That is more than any other investigators or intelligence agencies have offered to this point.

Given the seriousness of this new information, the DNC’s official response to The Nation’s story is so lackluster it is almost laughable
U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government hacked the DNC in an attempt to interfere in the election. Any suggestion otherwise is false and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration. It’s unfortunate that The Nation has decided to join the conspiracy theorists to push this narrative.
The clear implication here is that anyone who questions what U.S. intelligence agencies “have concluded” is a conspiracy theorist pushing lies on behalf of Trump or Vladimir Putin. It is clear that the DNC expect the matter to be left at that, with no further inquiry from the media or anyone else.

By the looks of things, that’s exactly what will happen."

"Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance journalist, writing mostly on geopolitics and media. She is based in Budapest, but has also lived in the U.S., Germany and Russia. Follow her on Twitter."

.................. 

Among comments at Salon.com

...................

"Oscar James ·
Sydney, Australia 

The VIPs have been discredited numerous times. Their only success was saying Iraq had no WMD but Blind Freddy knew that. Danielle Ryan is very disengenous as she ignores many facts. Why is Salon running such a fact free article? Disappointing."

.....................

"Larry Uebbing ·
The entire DNC 'hack' or 'leak' has become irrelevant. What is relevant is the indisputable truth that people in the Trump campaign were willing to hook up with the Russians in an attempt to discredit their opponent. They have admitted it, it is cut and dried. The whole DNC thing was never of any real importance. What is relevant is that many in the WH are willing to align themselves with self proclaimed Nazis, people who advocate the violent overthrow of the US government, which is illegal and unprotected speech. There is so much more. The DNC fiasco is nothing and should be forgotten."

"Kip Wargo ·
Cleveland State University 

Thats exactly as I see it. Its not the leak that bothers me , which I see as a DNC failure to protect its info, but the actual actions of the Trump campain to work with the Russians to get and utilize the stolen info. 

I think its all about money. That is why we never saw Trumps tax returns. I also wonder how many lies does Trump have to make before his supporters renounce him? The list of lies seems endless to me."

........

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

In Jan. 2017 Charlottesville was declared the capital of Trump resistance including considering making it a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants. Organized riots are being used to transform the country, to essentially take it over, making it look like they're representative of popular opinion. It's a great scam with complicit media-Rush Limbaugh

"These protests, these riots are all organized and have become strategic. They are tools the American left...is using to basically transform the country, to take it over, making it look like they are nothing more than than the representatives of the popular opinion of the country. It's one of the greatest scams  that we’ve seen being run. The media is complicit and makes it happen....I never heard of this Alt-Right, by the way, until sometime late last year. And when I was first asked what it is, I didn’t know. I couldn’t answer it. I don't know what the Alt-Right is. It seems the left has defined the Alt-Right as white supremacists and Nazis, so forth and so on." 

8/15/17, "Charlottesville Was an Organized Crisis Democrats Didn’t Let Go to Waste," Rush Limbaugh

"RUSH: I think the mayor of Charlottesville took a page out of the book from the mayor from Baltimore....Remember where she said — what was her phrase? Give them space. Give them room so they can get it out of their system, give them space.

Look, the police were ordered to stand down in Charlottesville. Somebody wanted that to happen, folks. The police were told to stand down. The police are saying, “No, no, no, no. We were retreating to go get our riot gear.” Well, why didn’t you show up in riot gear? If you retreated to get the riot gear, why didn’t you come back with the riot gear on if that’s where you went?” They were ordered to stand down.

I'll tell you something else. I think all of this is organized, folks. I think Terry McAuliffe, in fact, was trying to use this whole episode to launch his presidential bid and he botched it because he doesn’t have that big ability to get noticed. I mean, this is a pretty big deal. This is what Democrats do. This is what Clinton, Oklahoma City bombing launched the rebirth of his presidency. The Democrats see a crisis and found out how they can benefit from it while making people think they’re trying to fix it or solve it. And I think McAuliffe was doing the same thing.

Remember Rahm Emanuel, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste? I think not so much there are people that wanted this to happen but knew it was going to and so let’s see if we can milk it. And in order to milk it, it had to happen. And in order for it to happen, the police have to stay out of it. As the NYPD said, “It wouldn’t have had have happened here. We wouldn’t have let these two groups get within eyesight of each other. And we certainly wouldn’t let some renegade car enter this whole scene.” Somebody wanted it to happen, or somebody knew it was gonna happen and didn’t want it to stop because they wanted to try to capitalize on it.

RUSH: Look, if I didn’t have this every day — this microphone — I’d be as hog-tied, frustrated as you are. And I am. I am. I just I acknowledging I have an outlet for it here. But, folks, all of this — this is all organized, and it isn’t anything new. The same people that rallied after Hurricane Katrina are this bunch. The same people were in Ferguson. They’re the same people that rallied in Oakland. These are the same people that have been around for at least since the Bush administration protests.

Occupy Wall Street. It’s the same bunch of people, just moving from protest to protest and march to match. It’s the same bunch of people. Now they do have their true believers, don’t misunderstand. I mean, there’s plenty of poisoned-minded college kids out there who have been brainwashed and literally poisoned with hate for their country, and they’re there. But I’m telling you, the organization for this is the same. It’s being done on purpose.

It’s not spontaneous. It’s being done on purpose. It is reported as though it’s all spontaneous. It’s reported as though, “Everything was peaceful and everything was tranquil — until some people decided to march in Charlottesville to oppose the tearing down of the Robert E. Lee statue, and that is what ignited the flame.” That’s the exact opposite of how this is all happening. It’s the left that is thoroughly organized and bought and paid for and is essentially on call, if you will.
 
They are on standby. Few people would probably know that or acknowledge it, even if told, because the way it’s reported makes it all look spontaneous...

It’s reported as though it is a national outrage! “The people of America are beside themselves at the idea we need to preserve American history! The American people cannot stand the idea that there’s a Robert E. Lee statue anywhere, and they side with the leftist protesters that want to take them down.” That’s the way it gets reported. You’re being lied to — we’re all being lied to — every minute of every day in the form of what they tell us is news, which is really just the narrative that is the advancement of the leftist agenda.

RUSH: By the way, folks, Hillary Clinton has just given $800,000 from her campaign fund to the Trump resistance movement, which is what’s funding all of these rent-a-thugs. It’s all a left-wing movement, and it’s all organized.

RUSH:...Peter Beinart in The Atlantic magazine had a story before Charlottesville happened, and it’s all about the danger of the violence that’s coming from the American left today. 

I’m stunned that The Atlantic ran it, but again they ran it before Charlottesville happened....

There’s another piece here about: “Think Things Will Be Rosy for Democrats in 2018? Not So Fast.” Dan Balz in the Washington Post. This is also an interesting piece, and it’s along the lines of the piece that ran in November of 2011 when the Democrats acknowledged they’re getting rid of white working-class voters.

But I want to get back to Charlottesville here on the theme we had earlier that the mayor played a role in the police department there standing down. The Washington Free Beacon is reporting that the Virginia state police say they were not outgunned in Charlottesville despite Terry McAuliffe’s claim.

Now, I just want to reiterate a theory of mine. I’m not suggesting that any of these people made this happen or orchestrated the event. 

I think they knew it was gonna happen and sought to capitalize on it. I think it’s why the police were told to stand down. Terry McAuliffe wants to be president. He’s thinking of seeking the Democrat presidential nomination for 2020. And I think he was gonna launch his candidacy from this event. He tried to, and the fact that you haven’t heard about it is an indication how poorly he did and how badly it went.

But it’s right out of the Rahm Emanuel playbook: Never let a good crisis go to waste. I’ve been saying since yesterday, in any of these events, you ask yourself who benefits? There’s always a benefit here, because this is organized, these protests, these riots are all organized and have become strategic. They are tools that the American left, the Democrat Party is using to basically transform the country, to essentially take it over, making it look like they are nothing more than the representatives of the popular opinion of the country.

It’s one of the greatest scams that we’ve seen being run. The media is complicit and makes it happen. Terry McAuliffe in the aftermath, in order to explain why didn’t the cops do anything? Why did the cops stand down? It’s a big deal. And McAuliffe came out and said, “Well, the riot cops and the state police were outmanned, they were outgunned. I mean, these Nazis and these white supremacists, they had military grade ammo and weapons.” Really?

Well, it’s what McAuliffe told the New York Times Sunday. He said the right-wing protesters had better equipment than the state police and that that accounted for part of the reason police took what critics have decried as a hands-off approach. McAuliffe said, “Hey, it’s easy to criticize, but I can tell you this. Eighty percent of the people here had semiautomatic weapons. You saw the militia walking down the street. You would have thought they were an army. I was just talking to the state police upstairs. They had better equipment than our state police had. And yet not a shot was fired, zero property damage.”...

So...The Nazis and the white supremacists were a militia. And they had better weapons than the state police. Now, wait a minute. All of a sudden Democrats likes Terry McAuliffe are saying the police are not sufficiently armed? I thought the Democrat Party was the party that believed the police were vicious, mean, racist pigs. I thought the Democratic Party thought the problem was that the cops have guns and that there’s too much militarization going on in police forces. But now all of a sudden Terry McAuliffe wants more of that.

Terry McAuliffe, the governor, wants the police to be more militarized. Well, that’s not what they were saying after Ferguson and Baltimore. So why have they changed their tune?
Anyway, this is not true anyway. There weren’t any firearms visible in any of these video clips that we’ve seen and some of the still shots. The idea that the white supremacist nationalists and the Nazis had semiautomatic weapons and were more deeply armed than the state police? That’s just a bit of a stretch.

And from the Associated Press.Experts: Police Response Inadequate at Charlottesville Rally. So this theme is picking up....This is a story from August 14th....It’s from The Daily Caller. 

Charlottesville Mayor Mike Signer declared the city the ‘capital of the resistance’ at a rally held in January following the election of President Donald Trump.”...So the mayor of Charlottesville, guy by the name of Mike Signer, said that Charlottesville is the capital of the resistance.

He said this in public at a rally in January after Trump was inaugurated. Signer — maybe he pronounces it Signer. I don’t know....I just haven’t heard it pronounced and it looks like it’s Signer, Signer. If I’m mispronouncing it, please don’t be distracted by that.

Signer organized the rally to announce his plans to ‘resist’ the Trump administration by providing legal assistance to immigrants and directing the Charlottesville’s Human Rights Commission to address reports of xenophobia or racism.

This is right after Trump’s inaugurated. Look at what this mayor is already presuming. Charlottesville’s Human Rights Commission to address reports of xenophobia or racism? He also said “he was considering violating federal law by making Charlottesville a ‘sanctuary city’ for illegal immigrants
. 
“The rally was reportedly attended by hundreds of citizens as well Khizr Khan, the father of a Muslim American soldier died in combat in Iraq, who chastised Trump for his proposed Muslim immigration ban in a speech at the Democratic National Convention.”

I’m telling you, folks, all this is organized. The mayor of Charlottesville has been getting ready for this ever since Trump was inaugurated. “January 31st, 2017, Charlottesville mayor holds rally to declare city capital a resistance.” That’s from the NBC affiliate WVIR. So don’t doubt me on this one.

And then we have another story. This is a flashback from The Daily Caller: How Obama Handled Racial Nationalist Attack.” And this is about the Black Lives Matter demonstration in Dallas where an avowed black nationalist murdered five police officers during a Black Lives Matter demonstration
.
“The act of violence was well-planned and was motivated entirely by the hate-filled ideology of the shooter, Micah Xavier Johnson. 

With several officers dead by the hand of a committed black nationalist, one might think the Obama administration may have considered the assassinations domestic terror and launched an investigation into groups associated with this ideology.”

But he didn’t. He did condemn the shootings, but he did not call out or even allude to the hateful views of the shooter....You know how Obama dealt with the murder of five Dallas cops?...He blamed “powerful weapons” for the violence. Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, “exploited the tragedy to push for gun control and praise the cause of Black Lives Matter. No mention of Johnson’s ideology or ‘hate’ in was made in her statement.”

Now, Trump and his team have been urged to speak out against the so-called Alt-Right from the get-go. I never heard of this Alt-Right, by the way, until sometime late last year. And when I was first asked what it is, I didn’t know. I couldn’t answer it. I don’t know what the Alt-Right is. It seems to me the left has defined the Alt-Right as white supremacists and Nazis, so forth and so on."  

Rush Limbaugh "Related Links"





.........................

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.