Category Archives: 2016 Election

Why Drudge Report went to the dark side

Begun as an email newsletter, Matt Drudge‘s the Drudge Report became a news aggregator website in 1996.

By 2003, Drudge Report became so popular it made almost $1.3 million a year in advertising revenues. In 2006, while dissing the Drudge Report, Time magazine named Matt Drudge one of the 100 most influential people in the world. In 2007, New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg said that according to Nielsen/NetRatings, the Drudge Report got three million unique visitors a month, or approximately one percent of the population of the United States.

So successful is the Drudge Report that it has made its creator and editor Matt Drudge, 53, a multimillionaire, with an estimated net worth of $150 million.

What made Drudge Report so popular was its conservatism. Indeed, in 2001, Drudge told the Miami New Times that “I am a conservative. I’m very much pro-life. If you go down the list of what makes up a conservative, I’m there almost all the way.”

Drudge Report had supported Donald Trump in the 2016 election. But then I began to notice a change since Trump’s presidential inauguration when Drudge Report increasingly posted links to anti-Trump (and therefore anti-“Deplorables” — the 63 million Americans who had voted for him in 2016) mainstream media outlets like CNN and the Washington Post.

Simply put, I didn’t go on Drudge Report for CNN. So I stopped reading Drudge Report.

Sometime before WordPress took down FOTM on August 15, 2018, in comments on FOTM I broached the subject of Drudge Report ceasing being conservative. To ensure I wasn’t imagining things, I did a search online and found other websites saying the same thing. A longtime FOTM reader who had effusively praised FOTM and “Dr. Eowyn” took such issue with my observations about Drudge Report that he became verbally abusive. After I banned him from commenting, he sent me an email in which he stooped to racist and gender insults. All of which completely baffled me why he had so much invested in a news aggregator site that he took any criticism of Drudge Report as a personal affront.

Then TrailDust noticed the transformation of Drudge Report as well, and wrote two posts warning our readers:

A couple of our readers speculated that Matt Drudge turned to the dark side because he’s gay and has a new boyfriend. The never-married and childless Drudge has consistently denied the rumors of him being homosexual, but in January 2016, Southfloridagaynews.com reported that he had given away half of his real estate holdings to Juan Carlos Alvarado, his roommate of eleven years.

Citing a YouTube video by Josh Bernstein, Kelleigh Nelson of NewsWithViews has another explanation for why Matt Drudge went to the dark side. Below are excerpts from her November 9, 2019 post, “Drudge Sells Out Trump, Helps Democrats“:

Drudge used to break stories before the mainstream media or Fox News even knew about them; they went to Drudge to find out the latest.  Josh Bernstein recently exposed what has happened to Drudge.  He says we should boycott Drudge and I agree with him.

In a surprising turn, Drudge Report removed ads between the end of May and mid-July of this year according to Danny Rogers, a cofounder of the Global Disinformation Index, a project that’s analyzing domains to generate “risk ratings of the world’s media websites.” After noticing an absence of ads on Drudge around May 31, Rogers told BuzzFeed they didn’t see any ads on Drudge until about July 12.

During that period, Drudge cast off his advertising representative of close to 20 years, Intermarkets, in favor of a new and unknown company, Granite Cubed. It has no record in the digital ad industry, was only registered as a company in March of this year, and lists no staff or owners on its websites. Yet it just landed one of the biggest websites in the US.

Corporate records show that Granite Cubed is owned by Margaret Otto. According to Pathmatics, a marketing and advertising platform owned by Margaret Otto, she and her husband, Adrian, have close ties to both Matt Drudge and his father, Bob Drudge. The Ottos have known the Drudges since 1999.  Pathmatics, a marketing intelligence platform, estimates that over the past 12 months the site generated more than $30 million in ad revenue. Another estimate from the Global Disinformation Index, to be published in a report next month, pegs revenue at $9 million per year.

The Otto’s also acquired another company in 2017 founded by Bob Drudge called Refdesk.  Adrian Otto joined Google Cloud in 2017 and is their technical director. Matt Drudge is now in bed with Google and Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google.

Alphabet Inc., Google subsidiaries, and YouTube all detest President Trump and everything on the Drudge Report has switched from supporting conservative sites and our president to leftwing media who despises President Donald Trump and his supporters.  Drudge’s links now go to mainstream media like CNN and MSNBC.  Conservative media is rarely seen anymore.

Drudge gave up his relationship with his conservative advertising company of 20 years and joined with the enemies of freedom because they are family vested via Matt’s father, Bob Drudge.

It all makes for a startling shift for a publisher best known for a strategy rooted in changing nothing about his site’s operation. It’s also causing the ad industry to look closely at the mysterious new firm and its high-profile customer.

Bigger bucks must be involved.  Shades of Anthony Scaramucci.

Here’s the video of Josh Bernstein:

It must be said that Bernstein’s account is of Matt Drudge switching Drudge Report‘s advertising representative to a new and unknown company, Granite Cubed, the husband-and-wife owners of which have ties to Matt’s father, Robert Drudge, who is a Democrat. But Matt’s father (and mother too) has always been a Democrat, and a constant (Robert Drudge being a Democrat) cannot explain a variable (Matt turning against Trump and embracing the liberal media). Nor does Matt changing Drudge Report‘s advertising representative explain his political transformation — changing advertising representative likely is a result, not the cause, of his political transformation.

And so, the reason for Matt Drudge’s and the Drudge Report‘s transformation remains a mystery.

H/t Maziel

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Don’t kid yourself: The corporate liberals care nothing about protecting women

Ever since the #MeToo movement started, we’ve been told by democats that we must #BelieveWomen.

Yet when it comes to telling womens’ stories of abuse and harassment, the media and progressives do everything they can to bury the stories to protect their friends in high places.

Apparently it’s only acceptable to #BelieveWomen when they accuse republican men (even with scant-to-no proof).

NBC killed Ronan Farrow’s expose on Harvey Weinstein in their desire to protect predators.

ABC News spiked a story exposing the truth behind pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Obviously, the above two stories have a certain power couple connection – the Clintons. Funny how the two alphabets killed these stories at the time Hillary Clinton was running for president. Just a coincidence, I guess.

Now comes word that Nike is apparently victim-shaming a women runner who claims that Nike’s former trainer, Alberto Salazar , put her through physical and mental abuse.

The NY Post reports that athlete Mary Cain, while working with Salazar on Nike’s Oregon Project, the coach forced her to lose weight and ignored her acts of self-harm. Just 17 at the time, Cain describes scenes where Salazar would weigh her in front of her teammates and publicly shame her if she wasn’t hitting her weight.

Nike cut ties with Salazar this year after he was banned for 4 years from athletics for doping offenses.

Nike says they will launch an investigation and from their statement: “These are deeply troubling allegations which have not been raised by Mary or her parents before. Mary was seeking to rejoin the Oregon Project and Alberto’s team as recently as April of this year and had not raised these concerns as part of that process.”

The NY Post says that other women are backing Cain’s claims. From their report:

Multiple prominent runners, including New York City Marathon winner Shalane Flanagan, have spoken out in support of Cain. Olympic runner Kara Goucher backed up Cain’s allegations and criticized Nike’s handling of the situation on Twitter Friday.

“So [Nike] responds to [Cain],” Goucher wrote. “Takes the time to victim shame Mary, before saying they will investigate. I hope you come to me, because I have stories to match all of Mary’s claims and so much more. Don’t let this be more lip service, actually do something.

Read the whole NY Post story here.

As a result of this scandal, Nike CEO Mark Parker is stepping down to become executive chairman of the company on January 13, 2020. He endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.

Just another example of progressives’ and their double standards: They claim to care about women yet put politics, power and profits over the truth and well-being of women.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Ronan Farrow says Bill Clinton should be investigated for ‘credible’ rape accusations

Ronan Farrow, 31, the son of actress Mia Farrow and Woody Allen, is an investigative journalist who sparked the #MeToo movement by uncovering Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuses in articles in The New Yorker in late 2017, which won the magazine the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. Farrow then investigated and exposed sexual abuse allegations against New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and CBS Chairman/CEO Les Moonves, which led to the resignations of both in 2018.

Although Farrow is a liberal and despite his association with Hillary Clinton (in 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed Farrow as her Special Adviser for Global Youth Issues and Director of the State Department’s Office of Global Youth Issues), he has demonstrated his journalistic objectivity by saying that an investigation into “credible” rape accusations against former President Bill Clinton is long “overdue”.

Farrow said that in an interview last Friday night, November 1, 2019, on HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher”.

As reported by Fox News, Farrow told Maher, “Bill Clinton…has been credibly accused of rape. That has nothing to do with gray areas. I think that the Juanita Broaddrick claim has been overdue for revisiting,” and that Bill wouldn’t escape scrutiny today because society’s views on sexual misconduct have “changed.”

In an interview with Dateline NBC that aired on February 24, 1999, former nursing home administrator Juanita Broaddrick said then-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton raped her in 1978 during his gubernatorial campaign.

As recounted by Broaddrick to Dateline NBC, she had offered to volunteer for Clinton’s campaign. On April 25, 1978, Broaddrick was attending a nursing home meeting at the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas. Bill Clinton suggested that instead of meeting in the hotel’s coffee shop, they meet “for coffee” in her hotel room that she was sharing with her friend and employee Norma Rogers, so as to avoid a crowd of reporters in the hotel lobby. Broaddrick said:

“Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip … He starts to, um, bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him ‘No,’ that I didn’t want this to happen but he wouldn’t listen to me…. It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to ‘Please stop.’ And that’s when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip…. When everything was over with, he got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says ‘You better get some ice on that.’ And he turned and went out the door.”

Broaddrick’s roommate Norma Rogers said she returned to their hotel room to find Broaddrick on the bed “in a state of shock”, with her pantyhose torn in the crotch and her lip swollen as though she had been hit. Broaddrick told her Clinton had “forced himself on her”. Rogers helped Broaddrick ice her lip, and then the women left Little Rock. Rogers said that Broaddrick was very upset on the way home and blamed herself for letting Clinton in the room. Broaddrick also confided in four other persons about the rape.

Since 1999 when she first went public with her rape accusation, Broaddrick has persisted in her charges against Bill Clinton, slamming Democrats for refusing to believe her:

  • In 2000, when Hillary Clinton was running in the U.S. Senate election in New York, Broaddrick published an open letter to Hillary, denouncing her for  covering for her husband’s rape.
  • During the 2016 presidential election, Broaddrick repeated her rape claims on Twitter: “I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73. …it never goes away.”
  • On October 9, 2016, Broaddrick appeared on a panel with Trump, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Willey an hour before the second presidential debate between Trump and Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton was in the audience.
  • In January 2018, Broaddrick self-published a memoir, co-authored by Nick Lulli, with the title You’d Better Put Some Ice On That: How I Survived Being Raped By Bill Clinton.

Back to Ronan Farrow.

In his new book, Catch and Kill: Spies and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators, Farrow revealed that Hillary Clinton had tried to pressure him into not publishing the bombshell sexual allegations against Harvey Weinstein.

As described by The Hollywood Reporter on October 9, 2019:

Weinstein also attempted to leverage his long-term relationship with Hillary Clinton to pressure Farrow…. In summer 2017, while Farrow was trying to lock down an interview with Clinton for his foreign policy book…he received a call from Clinton’s publicist, Nick Merrill, who told him that the “big story” Farrow was working on was a “concern for us.”

In an interview with Fox News on October 16, 2019, Farrow gave more details. He said that Hillary Clinton “attempted to withdraw from an interview that she had committed to for a foreign policy book that I was working on, for which I interviewed every other living secretary of state. And, before doing so, her staff raised concerns about the fact that I was working on this story about one of her most significant donors [Harvey Weinstein] — a big bundler of Hollywood money.”

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

George Soros admits he’s impeded by Trump to turn U.S. socialist

A week ago, on Oct. 26, 2019, 89-year-old billionaire George Soros, who has spent his fortune promoting open borders and leftwing politicians, media, and organizations, said he has been impeded by opponents, including President Trump, in his lifelong quest to transform the United States into socialism, which he calls “open society”.

Soros said that in an interview on Michel Martin’s  All Things Considered on National Public Radio (NPR). Although NPR is funded by U.S. taxpayers, Soros’ Open Society Foundations, to which he had given more than $32 billion, is a financial supporter of NPR — as much as $1.8 million in 2011.

Between the election of President Trump and Britain’s ongoing debate over Brexit, Soros recognizes that populism is on the rise and that his brand of liberal democracy is faltering. He said:

“When I got involved in what I call political philanthropy some 40 years ago, the open society idea was on the ascendant — closed societies were opening up. And now, open societies are on the defensive and dictatorships are on the rise. I have to admit that the tide has turned against me, but I don’t think that I have failed. If you really have principles that you believe in, then you have to fight for them — win or lose.”

Soros said his priority now is fighting President Trump’s reelection — that’s some “promotion of democracy”!. Stopping short of endorsing her, Soros said Sen. Fauxcohontas Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the favored candidate of the Demonrat Party elites, is “the clear-cut person to beat.”

Penny Starr of Breitbart points out that NPR portrays Soros as a benign philanthropist who only wants to “promote democracy” in some 120 countries across the world. That “promotion of democracy” included a $25,100 donation to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Suggesting that any criticism of Soros is motivated by rank anti-Semitism, never mind the fact that Soros had admitted helping Nazis to confiscate property from Jews, NPR states that “Soros, who is Jewish and a survivor of the Nazi occupation of Hungary, has also been a frequent target of conspiracy theorists, white nationalists and neo-Nazis.”

Here is the 1998 60 Minutes interview that YouTube repeatedly took down, in which Soros admitted he had helped Nazis against Jews. Below is my transcription:

Steve Croft (“60 Minutes” interviewer: “My understanding is that you went out with this [Nazi] protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson…and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.”

Soros, knodding his head in the affirmative: “Yes.”

Croft: “That sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?”

Soros, shaking his head: “No. Not at all, not at all.”

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Twitter to ban all political advertising

Jack Dorsey, CEO of  Twitter and self-appointed censor of free political speech, announced on the eve of Satan’s holiday that ALL political advertising  on Twitter is now banned.

In addition, the ban extends t0 election advertising and political issues. Think anti-abortion, pro second amendment, and global climate change skeptics. In addition, it does not take an Einstein to figure out that this policy is aimed directly at President Trump, who uses Twitter to inform citizens of important issues that Twitter and the rest of the left wing, libtard, socialist/communist media cabal ignore.

From: The Guardian-US Edition

by Julia Carrie Wong in San Francisco

Wed 30 Oct 2019 18.19 EDT

First published on Wed 30 Oct 2019 16.05 EDT

 

Twitter will ban all political advertising, the company’s CEO has announced, in a move that will increase pressure on Facebook over its controversial stance to allow politicians to advertise false statements.

The new policy, announced via Jack Dorsey’s Twitter account on Wednesday, will come into effect on 22 November and will apply globally to all electioneering ads, as well as ads related to political issues. The timing means the ban will be in place in time for the UK snap election.

jack 🌍🌏🌎

@jack

We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought. Why? A few reasons…🧵

384K

4:05 PM – Oct 30, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

111K people are talking about this

Twitter had previously implemented rules and restrictions for political advertising.

The announcement comes as Facebook is embroiled in a controversy over its decision to exempt ads by politicians from third-party fact checking and from a policy that bans false statements from paid advertisements. Dorsey explained the motivations behind the change in a lengthy Twitter thread that appeared to include several references and responses to the convoluted arguments that Facebook has put forward in recent weeks.

The organic spread of political messages online “should not be compromised by money”, he wrote. The advanced state of digital advertising technology, including “machine learning-based optimization of messaging and micro-targeting” and deepfakes – fake or manipulated videos that appear real – combined with the pollution of the online information ecosystem with misinformation, “present entirely new challenges to civic discourse”.

“This isn’t about free expression,” he added, in a seeming riposte to the Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s recent defense of online political advertising in a speech billed as a “stand for voice and free expression”. “This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. It’s worth stepping back in order to address.”

Dorsey tweeted another counter-argument to Facebook with an accompanying winking emoji, writing: “It’s not credible for us to say: ‘We’re working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, but if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad…well…they can say whatever they want!’”

jack 🌍🌏🌎

@jack

Replying to @jack

For instance, it‘s not credible for us to say: “We’re working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, buuut if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad…well…they can say whatever they want! 😉”

 48.6K

4:05 PM – Oct 30, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

7,398 people are talking about this

That argument appears to mock Facebook’s recent attempts to justify its decisions to exempt posts by politicians from its third-party factchecking program, and ads by politicians from a policy that bans false statements from paid advertisements.

Together, the policies have created a situation in which Facebook is simultaneously asserting its commitment to reducing misinformation while allowing incumbent politicians and political candidates to lie in paid campaign ads.

Dorsey called for “forward-looking political ad regulation”, noting that transparency requirements that have been proposed by US lawmakers are “progress but not enough.”

“The internet provides entirely new capabilities, and regulators need to think past the present day to ensure a level playing field,” he said.

Trump’s campaign manager, Brad Parscale, called Twitter’s decision “another attempt by the left to silence Trump and conservatives” while Hillary Clinton called it “the right thing to do for democracy in America and all over the world” and the New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez deemed it “a good call”.

Daniel Kreiss, an associate professor of journalism and media at the University of North Carolina, argued that companies should focus on restricting the use of personal data in ad targeting rather than banning all political ads, which he said “favors incumbents and media appointed elites vis-a-vis challengers”.

J Nathan Matias, an assistant professor of communication at Cornell University, said that the ban could have a number of unintended consequences, including pushing campaigns to use more bots and “hybrid human-software coordination on Twitter”.

“It’s very hard to define ‘political’ things from non-political discourse,” he added. “If their policies are too loose or their enforcement too clumsy, Twitter could do real damage to public health, the uptake of government services and civic life.”

~ Grif

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

876 abortion clinics lost taxpayer funding – thank you, President Trump

The Title X Family Planning Program, aka Public Law 91-572 or “Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs”, was enacted under President Richard Nixon in 1970 as part of the Public Health Service Act.

Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing “low-income” or uninsured people (including those who are not eligible for Medicaid) with birth control, pregnancy tests, cancer screenings and other health care services at reduced or no cost. Supposedly, Title X’s purpose is the promotion of healthy families by enabling individuals to decide the number and spacing of their children.

In FY2010, Congress appropriated around $317 million for Title X, all paid for by taxpayers, 25% of which ($79.25 million) went to Planned Parenthood clinics.

Although Planned Parenthood (PP) is prohibited from using Title X money to perform abortions, Title X indirectly funds PP’s abortions by freeing America’s largest abortion provider from spending its funds on non-abortion purposes.

One of President Trump’s campaign promises was to end U.S. taxpayer funding of abortion.

To that end, in May of this year, President Trump issued a new policy to deny Title X funds to “family-planning” facilities like Planned Parenthood that  mention abortion to patients, provide abortion referrals, or share space with abortion providers. Pro-aborts call the new policy a “domestic gag rule”.

In June, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the policy to be implemented, which led to the withdrawal of Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities from the Title X program. In so doing, the abortion providers forfeited some $60 million, that is how determined they are on killing unborn and newly-born humans (“post-birth” abortions).

In a new report, the pro-abort organization Power to Decide laments that across America, an “alarming number” of “health centers”, i.e., abortion clinics, are “impacted” by the new policy, including:

  • 876 abortion clinics have lost Title X taxpayer funding. 
  • 17 Title X grantees have exited the Title X program, representing nearly 20% of all grantees.
  • Planned Parenthood, which previously served over 40% of all Title X patients, has exited the Title X program entirely, as have all Title X grantees in five states—ME, OR, UT, WA, and VT.
  • 15 states are losing all or some of their Title X funding.
  • Another 15 states are losing Title X clinics.

Thank you, President Trump!

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Admiral Mike Rogers & The Dog That Didn’t Bark

The phrase “the dog that didn’t bark” originates from a Sherlock Holmes story (“The Adventure of Silver Blaze”) – the indispensable clue coming in the form of something that would normally have occurred – but didn’t.

Which brings us to the relentless effort on the part of the Democrat Party (and its Deep State overlords) to remove President Trump from office, and thus undo the election of 2016. Since that time the Progressive forces visible to the public – the so-called mainstream media, the minions of the Democrat Party – have fed the public with allegations of “Russian collusion,” emoluments clause violations, 25th Amendment removal, and “obstruction of justice.” In spite of their all-out efforts, that poisonous Progressive tree has failed to produce impeachment fruit.

The Democrats’ motto appears to be: “if at first you don’t succeed, and second you don’t succeed, and third you don’t succeed, coup, coup, again.”

We now find ourselves being hauled out on to yet another limb of that tree – an “impeachment investigation” (a/k/a “impeachment inquiry”) borne of neither House vote nor due process – purportedly to investigate not “Russian collusion,” but “Ukrainian coercion.”

An obvious question becomes was there ever any good faith belief on the part of Democrats that President Trump had committed any bad acts, much less any serious enough to support a bona fide impeachment and removal from office?

Or has this all been an unprecedented, a downright evil attempt to remove a duly-elected President from office using trumped-up charges (pun intended) – a de facto attempt at pulling off a political coup to overthrow the rightful President of the United States?

It is submitted for your consideration that in answer to that question, “a dog that didn’t bark” provides the telltale clue.

Continue reading

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Nancy Pelosi’s Constitutional Process Crimes

Cross-posted from www.trevorloudon.com

“It’s a pun!” the King added in an offended tone, and everybody laughed, “Let the jury consider their verdict,” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first — verdict afterwards.”

“Stuff and nonsense!” said Alice loudly. “The idea of having the sentence first!”

“Hold your tongue!” said the Queen, turning purple.

“I won’t!” said Alice.

“Off with her head!” the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

“Who cares for you?” said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) “You’re nothing but a pack of cards!”

– Alice in Wonderland (Lewis Carroll); Chapter XII, Alice’s Evidence

We need not recount here the myriad ways that Nancy Pelosi’s so-called “impeachment investigation” is a Constitutional travesty –  perusal of the non-“mainstream” media and White House Counsel Pat Cippolone’s  letter to the House more than suffice.

The “impeachment investigation” is structured as a Congressional hit-squad, not a bona fide inquiry; it makes even Stalin’s show trials look legitimate in comparison, for at least those were held in public – something the Lavrentiy Beria-resembling Adam Schiff dares not do.

During the Mueller circus we witnessed various folks being charged with “process crimes” totally unrelated to “Russian collusion” – apparently driven by Andrew Weissmann’s attempts to squeeze (false) implicating testimony (against Trump) from the targets, or his retribution if they didn’t succumb to said attempts.

It can be argued that the lack of due process, lack of fealty to procedural precedent, and overall lack integrity, means that by design this “impeachment inquiry” is itself  a series of “process crimes” against our Constitution, committed by those who have designed it, and those who are executing it.

Further, those who are “in the know” about what’s going on, and are in a position to do something about it, or at least to blow the whistle about it, are accomplices to these “process crimes.”

After all, if the Democrats were genuine in their professed belief that impeachable offenses were committed by President Trump – yet also remained loyal to the letter and spirit of our history and our Constitution – they would be sensitive to the serious portends of even commencing such an effort.

So if this was a legitimate effort the Democrats would have made sure that the design of, and conduct of the process would be unimpeachable.

This they have not done. Quite the opposite.  This “investigation” demonstrates not only the Democrats’ duplicity, but also their desperation.

For you see, extremely serious crimes were committed against the Trump campaign; so now the Democrats and Deep State have placed themselves into a position of (as they see it) having to cover up “by any means necessary.”

Continue reading

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

The Left plans to doxx every 2016 Trump donor’s name and address

In order to intimidate and harass Trump supporters, a leftist activist group with the innocuous name, Public Media Service Group, is doxxing everyone who donated to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The group’s vehicle is a website called Racist Watch, which mapped out the name and address of every Trump donor, and enabled a search of one’s neighbor(s) who donated to Trump.

PJMedia’s Megan Fox was the first to expose Public Media Service Group’s doxxing. She remarked:

“Look how many are even in deep blue New York City! If anything, people with Trump Derangement Syndrome are going to flip out when they search their neighborhood and find themselves surrounded by “racists.” I think they’re going to need a bigger safe space.”

According to ZeroHedge, after Fox’s exposure, the Racist Watch website was taken down.

However, now renamed Donald Trump Watch, the website promises to return “with all new mapping of Trump Donors.”

H/t CSM

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Democrats are now the party of the super-rich; Republicans, party of workers

A new study by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) confirms what some of us already know about the partisan nature of the class-division manifested in the 2016 election:

The Democratic Party is now the party of the very rich, whereas the Republican Party of Donald Trump has become the party of working Americans.

The Wall Street Journal article on this, “Democrats and Republicans Aren’t Just Divided. They Live in Different Worlds,” by Aaron Zitner and Dante Chinni, is behind a paywall. The article’s summary:

America’s political polarization is almost complete. Its two main political parties increasingly represent two different economies. And they barely overlap.

Democrats can be found in educated cities and suburbs where professional jobs are plentiful. Republicans live in working-class and rural communities, home to agriculture and basic manufacturing.

The WSJ uses the following indicators as measurements of socio-economic class:

  1. Real GDP (the value of goods and services produced) of a congressional district.
  2. Median household income of a congressional district.
  3. Type of employment.
  4. Education

By those measures, it is clear that in just ten years, from 2008 to 2018, Democratic voters have become not just the rich, but the super-rich, whereas Republican voters are overwhelmingly middle-class and the working poor.

Contrary to the media’s malicious stereotype, even in 2008, the GOP was not the party of the super-rich: The party won no congressional districts with GDPs of more than $62 billion. In contrast, the Democratic Party was already trending toward being a party of the super-rich, having won congressional districts with GDPs of $70 billion to $90 billion or more.

Democrats, the Party of the Rich

In 2008, the Democratic Party was already trending to being a party of the rich. Ten years later, the transformation was complete:

  1. Whereas in 2008, the Democrat Party pulled most of their votes from congressional districts with some of the lowest GDP, by 2018, Democrats now largely represent voters who live in districts with the highest GDP, including GDP of $90 billion or more.
  2. Whereas in 2008, the median household income of Democrat congressional districts was about $52,000, by 2017, that median household income had jumped 17% to about $62,000. That of Republican voters, however, barely changed.
  3. Type of employment:
    1. Democrats represent districts with the biggest clusters of high-paying professional jobs, including the hi-tech hubs around Silicon Valley and Boston:
      • Between 2008 and 2018, Democrats increased their already majority share of jobs in finance and insurance from 61% to 64.3%.
      • Between 2008 and 2018, Democrats increased their already majority share of jobs in digital and professional industries from 63.7% to 71.1%. Nearly three-quarters of digital and professional jobs are now in Democratic districts.
    2. Between 2008 and 2018, Democrats decreased their representation in congressional districts with lower-paying agricultural and mining jobs, from 46.1% to 39.5%, and of low-skill manufacturing jobs from a majority of 53.8% to 43.6%.
  4. Education: Between 2008 and 2017, Democrats increased their share of adults with college degrees from about 27% to about 34.5%.

(B) Republicans, the Party of the Middle Class and Working Poor

Already, in 2008, the GOP was not favored by the super-rich. Ten years later, by 2018, the GOP’s transformation into a party of America’s middle-class and working poor was complete.

  1. Whereas in 2008, the GOP had a modicum of support in congressional districts with GDPs of $60-68 billion, by 2018, the GOP had lost all congressional districts with GDPs above $62 billion. Instead, the vast majority of GOP’s congressional districts had lower GDPs of $22-40 billion.
  2. In 2008, the median household income of Republican congressional districts was about $51,000. After ten years, by 2018, Republican media household income had barely increased, to about $53,000.
  3. Type of employment:
    1. Between 2008 and 2018, Republicans decreased their already minority shares of high-paying jobs in finance and insurance from 39% to 35.7%, and of jobs in digital and professional industries from 36.3% to 28.9%.
    2. In contrast, between 2008 and 2018, the GOP of Donald Trump became the party of honest workers in lower-paying jobs, increasing their share of jobs in agriculture and mining from 53.9% to 60.5%, and in basic manufacturing from 46.2% to 56.4%.
  4. Education: Between 2008 and 2017, Republicans barely increased their share of adults with college degrees from about 25% to 27%.

The WSJ concludes, quoting Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union:

“When folks have less in common with one another, it’s hard to expect that they’re going to see the problem the same way, let alone recognize that a problem exists.”

John Binder of Breitbart explains the connection between the Democratic Party and globalism, and of the geographical coast-vs.-inland divide in the 2016 election:

Democrats represent the overwhelming majority of professional, high-paying industries that are not threatened by free trade and foreign imports — including workers in the financial, insurance, and tech industries.

Oppositely, Republicans increasingly represent workers in the agriculture industry, the mining industry, and low-skilled manufacturing industry — sectors that have been readily gutted because of global free trade and dumping of foreign imports in the American economy.

The Democrats’ voter base of the wealthiest billionaires in the country or professional white-collar employees who work in fields unthreatened by free trade can explain the party’s shift toward a globalist free trade agenda that seeks multilateral trade negotiations and the elimination of all tariffs.

The vast majority of 2020 Democrats running for president have said they would lift the job-creating tariffs that President Donald Trump has placed on foreign steel and aluminum imports.

Meanwhile, Republican voters — the majority of whose jobs are threatened by free trade, as the research notes — have become the most supportive demographic group of tariffs on foreign imports and an economic nationalist agenda that reduces foreign competition in the labor market and American economy.

Of course, regionally, the Democrat base consists nearly exclusively of top income earners and rich executives who live in metropolitan areas and major cities along the coasts.

In the 2016 election, failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton won the vast majority of high-income coastal congressional districts in the West Coast and the Northeast.

Trump, who decisively won the election, took home electoral college votes from the heartland of the U.S., winning states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia, the very communities that had been devastated by the Washington, DC, free trade apparatus of the last three decades.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:
error0