Lies of the Press

These are lies of the Left, too, as Leftist as the press industry has gone. In their editorial regarding former President and current Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump’s interview at the National Association of Black Journalists, the editors summarized some claims embedded in the NABJ‘s opening question, posed by Rachel Scott of ABC News:

“You have pushed false claims about some of your rivals…saying they were not born in the United States”; told “four Congresswomen of color…to go back to where they came from”; and “attacked black journalists”

I heard that part of the interview in its entirety; the quoted parts are incomplete, but contain enough to identify the dishonesties in Scott’s question.

Not born here: the only rival Trump said anything of the sort about was then-Presidential candidate and then-President Barack Obama (D), and it’s obvious he was using an already long-extant conspiracy theory to troll Obama and the credulous press, not making a serious argument.

[F]our Congresswomen of color…to go back to where they came from: what Rose dishonestly excluded from her claim was the context: the four Congresswomen were objecting to Trump’s characterization of the African nations of their heritage by insisting that those nations had much to teach us—and Trump—about how to do things. What Rose further excluded from her question was that Trump was not telling those Congresswomen to go back where they came from; he was telling them to go to their old nations, learn those lessons they claimed their nations had for us, and then come back and educate the rest of us.

Attacking black journalists? This is the intrinsic racism of Scott, the NABJ, and the American press at large. Trump attacks the press and nearly all journalists without regard to race or ethnicity. That includes black journalists, but it does not single them out to the exclusion of other groups of journalists.

It’s…unfortunate…that the WSJ‘s editors chose not to call out Scott for her lies about what Trump had said.

Harris Intends to Continue…

…her boss’, Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s, disdain for Israel and that nation’s obligation (not merely right) to defend itself, an obligation that of necessity requires it to destroy an enemy whose openly stated goal includes the butchery of Israeli women and children en route to the extermination of Israel the nation.

Here’s Progressive-Democrat Vice President and likely Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential nominee Kamala Harris on the matter of Hamas creche-mate Hezbollah’s attack on Israel’s Druze children in the northern village of Majdal Shams as cited by The Wall Street Journal:

[A]lthough Israel has a right to defend itself, she would “not be silent” about “the death of far too many innocent civilians.”

This is Harris cynically naively taking the terrorist Hamas at its word regarding the entity’s casualty claims, claims that are carefully undifferentiated between civilian and combatant casualties and that are wholly unsubstantiated. This is Harris, also, completely disregarding Israel’s statements regarding the civilian to combatant casualty ratio in this Hamas-inflicted war while also disregarding the civilian casualty losses Israel has suffered at the hands of both Hamas and Hezbollah.

Harris also is committing the moral equivalence sewage of equating Hamas and Hezbollah’s terrorism with Israel’s fight for its existence against these terrorists: she’s demanding an unconditional cease fire, immediately.

I will not be silent. So to everyone who has been calling for a cease-fire, and to everyone who has been calling for peace, I see you and I hear you. Let’s get the deal done so we can get a cease-fire to end the war. Let’s bring the hostages home, and let’s provide much-needed relief to the Palestinian people.

She doesn’t care (it’s not possible to conclude she doesn’t know) that such a cease fire would benefit only the terrorists while doing nothing to recover the terrorist-seized hostages, many of whom the terrorists have already butchered while held or allowed to die of injuries while held. She doesn’t care (it’s not possible to conclude she doesn’t know) that Hamas will not agree to release the hostages or the hostage bodies unless and until Israel withdraws completely from the Gaza Strip, leaving Hamas in place to reconstitute, rearm, and resume attacking and butchering Israeli citizens. This is a straightforward continuation of Biden’s anti-Israeli policy. All that Harris lacks, so far, is a public intent to interfere with arms resupply of Israel, as Biden has done.

This is the candidate the Progressive-Democratic Party wants to put in the White House. This is the anti-Israeli policy Party wants to infuse throughout Congress by expanding its Senate majority and seizing a majority in the House.

I Have Questions

Progressive-Democratic Party politicians, led by Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden and his soon to be Party-anointed (not voter-selected) heir, Progressive-Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris, insist that our economy is going like gang busters, inflation is down, and on and on. After all, they shout,

The stock market is soaring, household wealth is at record levels, and investment income has never been greater.

And yet,

…some families’ pandemic-era savings are running dry, and delinquencies on credit card and auto-loan payments have jumped.

Thus, I have questions. No show of hands, the questions are intensely individual and personal, and so are your answers. Just think your answers; talk among yourselves, if you wish.

  1. Is what you’re paying for groceries today more or less than what you paid just a few years ago, pre-pandemic? Has your take home pay kept up with that, or are you paying a bigger chunk of your take home for those groceries?
  2. Is what you’re paying today for gasoline or diesel for your personal cars and trucks more or less than what you paid before? Has your take home pay kept up with that, or are you paying a bigger chunk of your take home for these?
  3. Is what you’re paying today for electricity or natural gas to heat or cool your homes or to cook those expensive groceries more or less than what you paid before? Has your take home pay kept up with that, or are you paying a bigger chunk of your take home for these?
  4. Are you eating out less than you used to?
  5. Are you able to keep your credit card paid off every month or your balance stable from month to month, or is or is your balance growing?
  6. Are you able to put as much, or any, money into savings or a rainy day pile as you were before?
  7. Are you able to put as much money into your employer’s 401(k) program, if he has one, or into your IRA as you were before?

You can think of other things on which you spend or would like to spend (a home, perhaps, or a slightly bigger one to accommodate your growing family or the one you’d like to start) that are more expensive today than before, especially as compared to your take home pay.

Those Party politicians are not talking to you when they talk about how wonderful the economy they’ve constructed these last 3+ years is and how much they want to do even more over the next 4 years. They don’t care about you; they don’t even notice you exist.

The other party will address these problems directly. At the core of its economic plans is bringing down the cost of energy. Energy lies at the heart of everything we produce for sale and wish to buy, from energy for production, through transport to points of sale, through those sales. To get at the cost of energy, that other party will get regulatory blocks to production greatly reduced, and it will encourage increased drilling for oil and natural gas, as well as construction of nuclear power plants.

Worried about atmospheric CO2 production from increased oil and natural gas drilling? Keep in mind that CO2 from American hydrocarbon production and use is already at world lows, per capita; our technology keeps CO2 emissions at a minimum. The CO2 emitters are Russia, the People’s Republic of China, and India. Nuclear power plants produce no CO2 emissions in their operation, and very little in their construction.

The answer to those seven questions and to your additional ones will be much more favorable with Party’s Big Government-is-the-answer politicians no longer in a position where their ignoring you matters.

She Avoided, Again

Last month, 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray was gang-raped and murdered by illegal aliens in Houston, TX. Last Saturday, Progressive-Democrat Vice President and likely Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential nominee Kamala Harris traveled to Houston to campaign for her nomination and then for office. However, she lacked the courtesy—even the courage—to visit with Jocelyn’s parents; she was reluctant, apparently, to face the possibility of having to explain the role her open border position might have played in their daughter’s rape and murder.

This, though, is of a piece with Harris’ visit to Border Patrol facilities in El Paso, TX, shortly after her boss, Progressive-Democrat Joe Biden assigned her the responsibility of overseeing the security of our southern border, or as the press had it before they began trying to purge their history, assigned her the role of Border Czar. On that visit, Harris was in the area, but she declined actually to go to the border itself.

All of this, insulting as it is to young Jocelyn’s memory and to her parents, is part and parcel with Harris’ strongly held position of open borders and her holding that illegal aliens shouldn’t be illegal.

Pseudo-Support, Two Ways

Pennsylvania’s Progressive-Democrat governor Josh Shapiro claims to be pro-school choice, yet when the State’s Republican legislature passed a $100 million voucher program, he vetoed it: his fellow Progressive-Democrats in the legislature objected, and their opposition would have “complicated” passing the State’s upcoming budget bill. Shapiro used his Party opposition as cover for his closet opposition to support for non-public school programs. Never mind that the same Republican legislature could have passed the State’s budget bill over continuing Party opposition.

Then there’s this claim by an organizer of a letter to Progressive-Democrat Vice President and likely Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris opposing any thought of her nominating Shapiro to be her running mate:

He is far too supportive of school privatization to be the vice president. We don’t need to be soft on this issue because public education is the cornerstone of our democracy.

Education certainly is a cornerstone of our (republican) democracy. There’s nothing magic about public education, though, especially in today’s world where public education districts, run for the most part by teachers unions, are so badly failing our students.

Pseudo-support for voucher schools and pseudo-support for education in general, each with the same Progressive-Democrat at the center—these are the positions of the Progressive-Democratic Party.