Trump Makes Fun Of Protester’s Weight . . . Who Turns Out To Be One Of His Supporters

Like many, I was appalled to see the President of the United States mocking the weight of a protester on Thursday night. The type of juvenile taunting was degrading more for the office of Donald Trump than the protester. It turns out however that it was not even degrading for the protester at all, but a Trump supporter who was wrongly insulted by the President. The man is Frank Dawson who had taken away a sign from a protester. He was actually wearing a “Trump 2020” teeshirt.

Trump stopped his speech to ridicule the weight of protester by declaring “That guy’s got a serious weight problem. Go home. Start exercising.”

What is incredible is that Trump’s supporters are so firm that Dawson did not mind and did not even object to being ridiculed. He is quoted as saying “Everything’s good. I love the guy. He’s the best thing that’s ever happened to this country.”

Now that is a base.

243 thoughts on “Trump Makes Fun Of Protester’s Weight . . . Who Turns Out To Be One Of His Supporters”

  1. So this is what is being reported about Dawson’s actions.

    “A man next to the group, later identified as Frank Dawson, grabbed one banner and threw it into a nearby entryway. He then grabbed a second and threw it over the edge of the balcony and it landed in the crowd below.” (Newsweek)

    (Caps by the author of the article.)


    BY BRENDAN COLE ON 8/16/19 AT 11:24 AM EDT


    The man whom Donald Trump mocked at his rally in New Hampshire because of his weight was in fact a supporter of the president, it has been reported.

    About 30 minutes into the rally in Manchester on Thursday night, there was a disturbance by a small group of protesters who were carrying banners with the words “Jews against the occupation” according to The Washington Post.

    A man next to the group, later identified as Frank Dawson, grabbed one banner and threw it into a nearby entryway. He then grabbed a second and threw it over the edge of the balcony and it landed in the crowd below.

      1. “The debate over the attack on Andy Ngo, then, isn’t really a debate over press freedoms. ”

        The garbage that is written by Vox. Andy Ngo was acting as a journalist, was unarmed and undefended. Vox would like us to believe Ngo’s potentially fatal injuries weren’t about press freedoms. They certainly were. The left should be permitted to lie, cheat and steal while the right should be beaten until near dead.That is the scenario that seems acceptable to Vox and perhaps acceptable to those that frequent sites like Vox..

        1. Allan takes one sentence and presents it, out of context. Best to read the entire article.

          1. You didn’t bother providing any portion of the article and your own comment. What do you expect? I should copy the entire column. I copied an important passage that demonstrates the left’s hideous ability to hide the fact that they are violent or support violence. You don’t like that. I suggest you read things from better sources.

                  1. Maybe, anonymous it would have been better for you not to have read the article and spent the time reading about logic and proof.

                    So far you haven’t been able to demonstrate anything but the left’s violence and intolerance to other people.

        2. Peter/ anonymous is one of those who lives in a left wing media bubble, so it’s natural for him to use sources like Vox.

          1. Vox might be a liberal source. But it’s reasonably credible. You could do much worse than Vox.

            1. Vox may have the imprimatur of David Brock, but that doesn’t make it credible.

      2. “Portland’s Andy Ngo Is the Most Dangerous Grifter in America”

        ARUN GUPTA


        “Far-right forces will converge on Portland tomorrow, incited by the right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo. Though he poses as a journalist, the purpose of his platform is to sow harassment and violence against his targets on the Left — and the mainstream media have fallen for it.”


        One organizer of the End Antifa rally is Joe Biggs, a former staffer at Alex Jones’s Infowars website who has “encouraged date rape and punching transgender people.” He shared an illustration for the rally of a Proud Boy punching an antifascist, warning, “Free speech was fought for and paid for with blood. It will not be lost for anything less!” Biggs, whose Twitter account was suspended recently, used the platform to advise his followers to bring guns and declared “DEATH TO ANTIFA!!!!!!”

        After the FBI visited him, Biggs now says “he wants a peaceful demonstration and has told his followers to keep their weapons at home.”

        But that may be too little, too late as the far right is encouraging potential mass shooters to come to the rally. Recently, Haley Adams, a provocateur in Portland who told a reporter last year, “Damn straight I support white pride,” said on Facebook she “couldn’t wait” to meet Thomas Bartram on August 17. Bartram is an Infowars fan who showed up in El Paso days after the anti-Hispanic massacre and was briefly detained after allegedly brandishing a gun and trying to enter a migrant solidarity center. The center claimed police did not search Bartram’s truck that was decked out with violent pro-Trump images, saying “he has rights.” After being released, Bartram told media he was headed to the End Antifa rally.

        What connects these dots is Andy Ngo. He even did his bit to stoke right-wing paranoia in El Paso. In a July 29 tweet Ngo included an image of a flyer about an immigrant rights “border resistance tour.” Ngo claimed stick figures on the flyer represent “border enforcement officers being killed & government property fired bombed” as part of a plot by Antifa to “converge on a 10-day siege in El Paso, TX.” It’s been retweeted more than 11,000 times and hundreds of comments endorse violence against Antifa. Four days later Patrick Crusius allegedly killed twenty-two people in an El Paso Walmart in “response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

        Gateway Bigotry

        Ngo’s ascendancy began as an editor at the Portland State University newspaper, The Vanguard. At a university interfaith panel convened in April 2017, Ngo tweeted a brief video claiming, “the Muslim student speaker said that apostates will be killed or banished in an Islamic state.” The entire clip shows the student gave a long answer in response to a hypothetical question about Quranic law. The panelists stressed they weren’t experts, and the Muslim student later said “he may have misspoke.”

        Ngo’s tweet was picked up by Breitbart. The Vanguard fired him days later for a “dangerous oversimplification that violated very clear ethics outlined by the Society of Professional Journalists.” The Vanguard said Ngo’s actions “placed a PSU student in significant danger.” Ngo twisted his termination into an article for The National Review, “Fired for Reporting the Truth,” which the student paper said was a “misrepresentation” that resulted in “unjust threats” against them.

        Critics see this episode as establishing a pattern in Ngo’s work: using charged language and selective facts on social media that stoke bigotry, putting his subject at risk of harassment while boosting his own reach and status. It worked because in 2018 Ngo graduated to writing a “racist” and “massively Islamophobic” travelogue to two Islamic communities in England for the Wall Street Journal.

        1. The articles you provide appear to be among the most ludicrous ones available.

          “Portland’s Andy Ngo Is the Most Dangerous Grifter in America”

          Andy Ngo is dangerous? He actually puts his head in front of people’s fists and he has magnetic attraction to attract all the things thrown. The author is pretty stupid blaming the guy who was defenseless yet attacked by a crowd badly enough that he had a brain bleed which is life threatening.

          We know the left doesn’t like any opinions that differ from their own but what you are proving is that the left is violent to the extreme so that they believe the victim are the one’s that nearly killed a defenseless man.

          That is crazy.

  2. OT:

    Hillary Clinton’s Emails Were Sent to Gmail Address Similar to Name of Chinese Company
    August 15, 2019 Updated: August 16, 2019 Share

    All but four of the 30,490 emails from Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized email server were forwarded to a private Google email address featuring a name similar to a Chinese company, according to documents released by a Senate committee on Aug. 15.

    Virtually every email that was sent to and from the Clinton-email server was forwarded to “,” which raised concerns that a foreign actor gained access to Clinton’s emails after an intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) investigator searched Google for “Carter Heavy Industries” and came up with a result for Shandong Carter Heavy Industry Co., Ltd, according to the documents (pdf).

    Shandong Carter Heavy Industry is a Chinese manufacturer of excavators and heavy machinery. The company did not respond to a request for comment.

    Frank Rucker, the ICIG investigator, and Jeanette McMillian, an ICIG attorney, told the FBI about the anomaly on Feb. 18, 2016, at a meeting which included Peter Strzok, who had just taken over as the section chief heading the investigation. Rucker told Congress that Strzok was “aloof and dismissive” and didn’t ask many questions.


      1. Cindy Bragg – I think Judicial Watch dropped the news yesterday, however the fact they were going to another site has been “common knowledge” for some time.

        1. Paul C…..thanks…just wondering.
          BTW …just watched the great eating scene from TJones…LOL.!
          There is also a clip on the same google page of the DP explaining how that scene was filmed. It’s a short, wonderful tutorial.
          DPs are the true artists in fimmaking..IMO

          1. Cindy Bragg – there are many true artists in filmmaking. Ruin Johnson and George Lucas are not among them.

            1. Paul, I am curious as to why you single out George Lucas as not among the artists in filmaking? What type of definition are you using?

              1. I refer you to Red Letter Media and Mr. Plinkett’s reviews of the prequels of the Star Wars trilogy. Why do you think George sold Lucasfilms? Most people think it was because RLM proved he should never be allowed around a camera again.

                The reviews are far more entertaining than the prequels.

                1. Paul, I understand that his film might not be the reviewer’s cup of tea, but Lucas created something new using techniques not used before. I was more interested in your approach to art.

                  1. Allan – according to Frank Lloyd Wright “If people buy it, it is art.” There are thousands of definitions of art. However, FLW comes closest to saying that the prequels were art. Personally, I think they were sh*t. When the last two came out I was working for Pearson on a major project for school text books. It was a 6 month contract that took 18 months. Good money though.

                    Anyway, I was working with a team of Social Studies specialists and we all went to see the prequels. As a team we decided the Jedi were whiny twits and we changed our allegiance to The Empire, they were just trying to keep control like the British had done.

                    Films are not made for people like me. I am not their target audience. I know too much about the process and how the sausage is made. Now, the guys at RLM know even more and are a lot funnier. I follow their reviews religiously (even though I am an agnostic). They do a better job of deconstructing the films than I do now, since I am out of the game.

                    1. Paul, Lucas’s following films brought nothing new to the table so I don’t believe they added anything, but his first film did and that is what is behind the question.

                      I asked this because whether it be paintings. theater, film etc. the question of what is art always made me wonder because there is so much trash out there that has been hyped to such an extent that I consider it high priced art to demonstrate that one is “woke”. Though I like art and the theater I trained heavily in the sciences so I am skeptical about opinion absent proof which is difficut in the arts.

                      I have gone to major art shows in the US and abroad. I see wonderful things and then I see absolute trash. Sometimes it appears people are buying a signature at a very high price rather than the art being sold.

                    2. Allan – taste is always personal and the viewer always brings themselves to the work, including if they are having a bad day. If you are really interested, there are Great Courses (probably available at your library) on appreciating art and understanding art. Or, there are books available (the bigger the better).

                    3. Paul, I’ve tried researching exactly what you are talking about but was never satisfied. I find most have a tendency to discuss what the art is intended to mean, history or techniques. Sometimes they talk about the light not being in the right place for a whole bunch of made up reasons when the light in the more correct place wouldn’t look good. At art shows like Basil I talk to some of the top artists of the day and some of the finest gallery owners to see their take. Most of them seem as puzzled as am I though there is without a question of the recognition of good art.

                      I think there are common features in art that would lead one to conclude the artwork is good such as balance (physical and color), a pattern of movement, symmetry etc. I figured you might have your own opinion since invariably you recognize that some real cr-p is being sold for 6 figures and more.

                    4. Allan – sometimes we (the audience/the critics) haven’t the foggiest idea what the artist meant when they did the painting or sculpture. Sometimes it is very apparent what they are up to. It took me years to understand and appreciate Chagall. The same would happen with Jackson Pollack. So, tastes change over time. We know that humor changes over time. The older you get the less funny 15 f*rt jokes in a row become. So, your taste may change. What you thought was cr*p, you will appreciate.

                      Many museums offer art appreciation courses. That is where you might start. Then go on every docent led tour you can go on. Each will teach you something. I have actually taken over the docent tours if I think they are not doing a good job. 😉 Go to museums wherever you are. I have found some lovely finds in small museums. And look at every type of art. You don’t know what you like, if you don’t see it. 🙂

                    5. Thanks Paul, I have found that most of the docents are just repeating what they are told and that leaves one rather empty. I’ve gone on occasions with the curators and sometimes found that more interesting. I had to leave but my wife remained for dinner with a rather well known artist, his wife and the curator of the Smithsonian. The artist at the time had one of the largest if not the largest personal collections of African art and the Smithsonian curator was there to pick out pieces for the African art show at the Smithsonian. My wife sat on the floor with the other two as they fast passed the art around and a collection was assembled. The strange thing to me was that I thought they would discuss the pieces but there was little or no discussion.

                    6. Allan – when they are picking pieces for a show, they rarely have time to discuss the piece. The curator knows what they are looking for and your wife was lucky to touch the art. 😉 I am jealous. I agree there is a difference in quality in docents. The Phoenix Art Museum used to have a 2 year training program before you could lead a group. However, the curators rarely led a group, so there you were. I like the new audio tours they have when they are available. This allows you to move at your own pace.

                    7. Paul, If I find one of these lecture tours where there are a lot of educated people I might go. I think the answers to my questions that I don’t express very well can better be handled by a group of individuals where each sees something from their own perspective. I was in a small local museum the other day and I immediately spotted a Henri Laurens sculpture. IMO it was terrible but I had a year ago seen one at art Basil that was very similar and of the same size but was incredible. Was this museum Henri Laurens existing in the museum only because of the signature or was it just my personal view that didn’t represent the artistic value?

                    8. Allan – one of the things about sculpture is that you should examine it from every side. Take your time. It could just have been the lighting. Sculptures are usually made in a series, so this may have been a duplicate of the one you saw before. They are usually numbered in the base, i.e., 1/24, first of a run of 24.

                      Again taste is personal and changes. Do you collect art?

                    9. Yes, Paul, I collect art and yes I prefer sculpture that can be observed in 360 degrees. If a sculture is made out of bronze it invariably is numbered and reproduced a limited number of times. Generally not that many for each piece. In recent years many artists have been selling gicleés sometimes enhanced which is a turnoff. My walls and closets are full so I am not on the hunt.

                    10. Allan – my wife and I also collect (we have different tastes) and have so much now that we have art stacked in the hall, ready to go into rotation.

                    11. Paul and Allan need to get a room and tickle each other in their erogenous zones.

      2. There were inklings of it that have increased, but now they are focusing down on the recipient.

        1. Rachel,
          Please do not post pictures or videos of yourself here….. there are probably LGBT websites where you can display these, maybe even hook up with somebody who is into the same thing you are.

          1. Allan, disconnect from the internet for 1 week. You will learn a lot about yourself, your wife and your neighbor.
            You are an addict to posting on here. You already know this. Take a break

            1. I have a degree in pop psychology, which is why I like giving worthless advice to others.
              Gives me something to do other than my other pastime, making snide remarks here.

              1. Anonymous – could you please post a picture of your pop psychology degree? You can black out your name, however leave the school. I have enough psychology credits for a minor so I would not need that many more for a major. If the school is close enough, it might be worth the effort to get another degree and that would replace my pop psychology hat.

                1. It isn’t really a school.
                  My degree in pop psychology came out of a cereal box.
                  Unfortunately, they no longer put the decoder rings, toy cars, and diplomas in cereal boxes, so you’re probably out of luck.

            2. It sounds like you are the one with the problem and could use your own advice. I’m perfectly happy. You can’t even post with a name. You are probably afraid of someone counting your posts while noting how ridiculous you sound.

    1. Having a private, unsecured server that she lied about, backing it up to the Cloud, openly using this email address in an environment where both friend and foe constantly spy on each other, and allowing people with zero clearance access to it, was akin to shouting every word outside her window.

      When Trump said maybe we should ask Russia for Hillary’s emails, he wasn’t kidding. Of course numerous other countries have them. They were totally unsecured. That is why they have such redundancy in security, and used closed networks for classified information. There is a reason why they develop SCIFs. My father has worked in them before, and documents were kept in numerous safes. There was this red sign over the door that read, “Feeling lonely? Want to talk to someone tonight? Then forget to lock your safe.”

      The government is not kidding about the handling of classified information. It takes negligence very seriously. Anyone who had clearance must have been shocked that Hillary Clinton did the above and remained free.

      1. Karen, Hilary has an unbridled arrogance, doesn’t know her limits and is quite stupid about a lot of things. Add to that the fact that she is selfish to the extreme and totally lacks morality. When I lthink of how one should deal with her my guess is to treat her like a psychopath.

    1. Anonymous – I agree with you, if he stole a sign he should be arrested or at least ticketed and the person given their sign back. BTW, has anyone been charged in the Antifa attack on Andy Ngo?

  3. I was appalled when Obama gave the finger to the United States. I do not remember you (JT) being appalled about that.

      1. Estovir – I was not a fan of Jan Brewer, but I did like Fife Symington, Rose Moffard, and Jack Williams.

    1. Paul, the man that removed the dangerous sign from the left wing idiot didn’t run away with the sign. Who is claiming the sign was taken away from the area or not returned?

      The other case was a pure case of theft. Not worth a permanent criminal charge but worth a good talking to.

  4. Jonathan Turley:

    ‘The man is Frank Dawson who had taken away a sign from a protester. He was actually wearing a “Trump 2020” teeshirt.’

    So what do we know about this stand-up guy:

    He’s an obese ex-cop and military-man who steals the signs of protesters. And he “loves” his fellow-fatty — our president.

    What a guy: Making American Great Again…Keeping America Great.

    Another exceptional American.

    1. And he apparently had the guy tossed from the forum, too.

      Start quote: “That guy’s got a serious weight problem,” Trump said of Frank Dawson, whom he mistook for a protester while speaking at the Southern New Hampshire University Arena in Manchester. “Go home. Start exercising. Get him out of here, please.”

      “Got a bigger problem than I do, got a bigger problem than all of us,” Trump added –end quote

      Yep, get “him” (Trump) out of here.




    2. We understand your logic. Because he was in the military and an ex-cop he is a deplorable. Not a good position or a position with any merit but you have a right to your opinion however wrong it is.

      1. Allan: “Because he was in the military and an ex-cop he is a deplorable.”

        Talk about twisted logic. Who said anything about him being “a deplorable.”

        Because he’s an ex-cop and military-man, I would expect him to be law-abiding, but nope — he stole a sign.

        1. I see. You have concluded he stole the sign. Of course you don’t know what happened. I heard that the other person was waving the sign around and was in danger of hurting another individual. Is that stealing a sign.?

          Are you trying to tell us that only military people and police officers are expected to be law-abiding? For an Antifa supporter that might be what one expects. Most of us non-leftists believe everyone is supposed to be law abiding and it is time that you recognize that.

          1. Allan said: “I heard that the other person was waving the sign around and was in danger of hurting another individual. Is that stealing a sign.?”

            Got a reference for that, bud?

            This is posted up-thread:


            “A man next to the group, later identified as Frank Dawson, grabbed one banner and threw it into a nearby entryway. He then grabbed a second and threw it over the edge of the balcony and it landed in the crowd below.” (Newsweek)

            As for the rest of your comment? Go blow your smoke in somebody else’s direction.

            1. Do you have a video of something different? I didn’t think so. You seem to believe that videos demonstrating the left behaving badly must be phony and that what is written without proof by people with an agenda on the left must be true. Andy Ngo’s potentially fatal beating isn’t that important even though it is on tape, but what is important is what is on the minds of some warped people that then write about it to satisfy their leftist agenda and the warped minds reading what they write..

              Got it bud?

              1. ‘Allan said: “I heard that the other person was waving the sign around and was in danger of hurting another individual. Is that stealing a sign.?”’

                We’re waiting for your source. Back it up, bud.

                1. Funny thing. When videos are provided you say they are fake even though the videos are taken at different times and different places. You haven’t provided proof that anything you said happened in that fashion. You only provided a writers opinion of what happened and unfortunately the writers you trust are those that lie, cheat and steal. I provided a different opinion.

                  Was Dawson arrested? Not to my knowledge. Was there a serious investigation as to what happened? Also not to my knowledge. In other words you are basing your statement on what fulfills your agenda, not on what is proven or true. One can’t believe that what you think is true is actually true.

                    1. Apparently you don’t understand what proof is. What any one person writes is what they may believe but to substantiate it they need proof. Therefore, whatever news you are quoting is just words. If the news source doesn’t don’t prove their words you don’t have proof. It was your contention that the event happened in a specific way. Prove it. So far you can’t even though your contention was made as a statement of fact.

                      Did whatever training you had include logic and what proof is?

                    2. Allan said: “I heard that the other person was waving the sign around and was in danger of hurting another individual. Is that stealing a sign.?”

                      Where did you hear it Allan. Give us a source.

                      (Newsflash: We won’t be getting a source from Allan… — because he just makes sh*t up.)

                    3. “Where did you hear it Allan. Give us a source.”

                      I didn’t make a statement of fact. You did. That leaves the burden of proof at your doorstep.

                      You don’t have any proof just like no one had proof that the Steele Dossier was legitimate. We knew it wasn’t when it first came out but we couldn’t prove it until now. Now the proof is accumulating. You provided statements of fact on this subject without the proof and were proven wrong again and again.That means what you say is fact cannot be trusted.

                      So it is with your new statement of fact. Where is your proof.? My statement wasnt a statement of fact. Yours was. Prove your statement of fact. We won’t hear the proof because you seem to survive on rhetoric that is created specifically for your agenda regardless of truth.

                  1. Allan is apparently one of those guys who likes to argue — just for the sake of arguing. Now if he did it well, that would be one thing, but whoa… — it’s off into crazy-land. Best to steer clear of him unless one wants to waste a boatload of time. He’s another ideologue who is here to advance his agenda.

                    1. “Allan is apparently one of those guys who likes to argue — just for the sake of arguing.”

                      Look in a mirror anonymous. You are the one starting the arguments. You provided what you heard without proof. I provided what I heard also without proof. That should have ended things but you started an argument looking for my proof when all I said was that I heard something.

                      You couldn’t believe someone heard something different then you did and started an argument to prove I couldn’t have heard what I did. There is something very wrong with you.

                2. Hello, Anonymous. This was the allegation made in an interview. Protestors snuck signs into a Trump rally in order to protest the President, and harass his supporters. Dawson took the signs and tossed them away.

                  I do not know the law on this scenario. It is my understanding that protestors are not allowed to crash ticketed events, which is why security can escort them out. Whatever the law is, it should be applied equally. If Dawson can get arrested for tossing hecklers’ signs, then a lot of Leftists would get arrested as well. The ACLU typically has a page about knowing your rights for protestors, but I have not looked at it in a while. Is sneaking signs past security and crashing a rally the same as pro life activists quietly holding signs on a public campus? It would be an interesting discussion.

                  “He was because he didn’t see me rip the signs away from those three people sitting near us,” Dawson told the Fox News Channel. “They were trying to cause a ruckus and they jumped up and started yelling I don’t care what they were yelling.”


                  This interview has been quoted and referenced in various news outlets, including CBS:

                  “Fox News spoke to the man later and identified him as Frank Dawson, a former law enforcement officer and Navy veteran. Dawson told Fox that protesters sitting near him were “trying to cause a ruckus” so he ripped their signs away — and he didn’t fault Mr. Trump for calling him out by mistake.”


                  So, the source was an interview. Investigating what happened would require going through video and witnesses.

                  I have no idea what the criminal code is in reference to protest signs, especially if they were snuck past security. But it is clear that Allan did not make up the allegation.

                  1. “But it is clear that Allan did not make up the allegation.” Karen, trying to defend Allan

                    No, it’s not.

                    Allan said this:

                    “I heard that the other person was waving the sign around and was in danger of hurting another individual.”

                    Your links don’t support what Allan is alleging. We’ve heard nothing about others being in any danger from the signs.

                    Trump has security to deal with those who are endangering others. Dawson isn’t part of that security team and had no business getting involved.

                    Dawson apparently didn’t approve of the disruption and he decided to take matters into his own hands; he felt entitled to do so.

                    1. I agree with you that Dawson did not approve of the disruption. During two interviews that I know of, he remarked that they were bullying people, causing a ruckus, and causing a disturbance. He also said that he had a bad feeling based on his law enforcement experience. Allan’s interpretation of those terms as waving the signs around and in danger of hurting someone is not unreasonable. Bullying tends to denote a threat.

                      We have heard a couple of interviews from Dawson. I have not heard anything from the protestors. We do know that they had to sneak those signs past security, so they used false pretenses to come and disrupt the rally. I have not seen any video or other witness testimony of the incident, besides Trump’s comments from the podium. So I don’t know what actually happened, and I don’t know the law on throwing away a heckler’s sign. I don’t know if the bullying denoted whacking anyone or just deliberate offense. Everyone should be aware of their surroundings in today’s dangerous climate.

                      You might not agree with Allan’s interpretation, but now you know a source.

                    2. It is very clear, anonymous. Karen provided the source. I just heard a bit about it in discussions so I wasn’t specific, nor did I offer my statement as fact.

                      On the other hand you believed your statement to be factual but still haven’t provided proof. Instead you want to interpret what I said to meet your needs. That is what your statements are all about, meeting your ideological needs. If it doesn’t fit change the rhetoric until it does.

                      You even quote articles that in essence are saying a defenseless man alone was the cause of his near death experience in a crowd of violent leftists that beat him and threw things at him. Your logic and your appeal to violence are extraordinarily inane.

                3. ‘Allan said: “I heard that the other person was waving the sign around and was in danger of hurting another individual. Is that stealing a sign.?”’

                  Allan can’t back it up. It’s that simple. And now he’s tying himself in knots, as he tries to shift the burden…


                  1. Karen has the primary source.

                    Now, anonymous, provide us the proof behind what you claimed. You can’t and might not even understand what proof is.

                    1. Allan says: “Karen has the primary source.”

                      I asked you for YOUR source, Allan. I’ve already provided mine.

                      I checked out Karen’s sources and they don’t confirm what you’ve asserted. You “heard” something. So where did you hear it?

                    2. “I asked you for YOUR source, Allan. I’ve already provided mine.”

                      Here you are arguing again anonymous for no apparent reason. You provided your source but you didn’t provide proof that your source was correct. Do you know what the word proof means? Apparently not. I only stated what I heard which appears to be quite similar to what Karen heard from Dawson.

                      Here is my exact quote: ” I heard that the other person was waving the sign around and was in danger of hurting another individual. Is that stealing a sign.?” Do you know what “I heard” means? Did you notice I didn’t quote anyone? All you want to do is argue but when it comes to proving what you consider fact, you fail.

                    3. Allan wouldn’t recognize or understand “proof” if it were staring him in the face. This thread demonstrates his abilities (or lack thereof) quite well.

                    4. “Allan wouldn’t recognize or understand “proof” ”

                      Anonymous, you can make yourself look foolish if you like. “I heard” means I heard and doesn’t require proof because it isn’t a statement of fact. Your statement was presented as fact but had no proof. You are stuck and can’t get out of the hole you dug. Keep digging deeper and make yourself look even more argumentative and foolish.

                    5. “Allan confirms what most of us know: He’s an utter idiot.”

                      I want to make it absolutely clear that anonymous doesn’t provide content and attacks the person instead of what they are saying. I keep asking you for proof and all you can respond with are insults.

                      Essentially this set of insults is in response to my statement: “Here is my exact quote: ” I heard that the other person was waving the sign around and was in danger of hurting another individual. Is that stealing a sign.?”

                      Apparently you don’t understand the significance of the words “I heard” and you are unable to differentiate the words “proof” and “source from one another. Most learn the difference in grade school but perhaps they had you sitting in the corner because you keep insulting people without cause.

    1. You say that like that’s a bad thing. It’s precisely why we elected Donald J. Trump to smack them around down there in Washington DC. Duh.

        1. Yeah, damn that f***Ed up Constitution when it doesn’t serve your interests.

        2. It is apparent that Anon doesn’t know or understand basic social studies that should have been learned by sixth grade.

        3. Anon1…………..”f…d up electoral college”
          Yeah. Dang that Constitution. But it looks good on paper, doesn’t it?
          If our elected leaders would just stop swearing to uphold it, everything would be alright.

          1. I don’t know who will ultimately win the Democratic nomination, but whoever it is might try to win more than 20 out of the 50 states.
            Failing that, lopsided popular vote victories in one or two states might win bragging and bitc*ing and whining rights that we’ll see on display here for another 4 years.

  5. Today the nation of Israel invited one of the Nazi Gang of Four to come to their country and visit her mom. Back in the 1930s we had an organization in America called The German American Bund. It was comprised of German Americans who favored Hitler and hated Jews. They supported the Holocaust. When WWII started they went underground. The Gang of Four are a sort of new version of Nazi anti Jewish terrorists. They publically call for the Jew haters on the West Bank to send rockets into Israel and take on other war efforts to destroy the Jews. The Fake News has ignored all of their statements made on the air and in public gatherings and now just throw rocks at Trump for stating that they might not be welcome on a visit to Israel. Folks here on the blog: read up on the Holocaust. Avoid CNN. If any of the Gang of Four represent your district then vote them out. This is America! Not Nazi Germany under Hitler.

  6. The theme of making America Great Again and now Keeping It Great is an interesting one. I found a book in the outhouse here at my marina written by some Democrat from Illlinois. The first two pages were tore out so someone could wipe with them so I do not know what year the book was published. The author is from Illiniois and the title is: “Call To Greatness”. Trump might have borrowed his theme from this book. I am reading it now and will know more later. Anyone from Illinois here on the blog? The author’s name is Adlai Stephenson which is an odd name. Perhaps the Dems are out front on this political notion out there in that corn state.

  7. Whoever the Dem 2020 candidate is to face Trump……

    Trump slaps wrestling promoter Vince McMahon in the face @ the 9:43 mark.
    It’s not fake. Trump actually smacks Vince in the face. Then another guy rushes Vince. That guy looks like Trump’s bodyguard Keith Schiller.

    1. excellent slap and they caught the sound perfectly. Vince can take a good slap. That was fun and they made a lot of money off of it.

      in pro wrestling, the hooks the holds the slams the punches the slaps, they are forceful and hard,. but they are choreographed. it’s not fake it’s “KAYFABE” … which means fake btw.

      now if you want to see un-choreographed catch no holds barred wrestling, watch ufc

      tv wrestling is the original reality tv, it’s also called “improvisation” by actors. in reality tv, they have scenarios, they just dont use scripts. otherwise, it’s mostly “Kayfabe” as pro wrestling.

  8. Mocking someone for their weight is wrong. Mocking Trump as orange is also wrong. The argument should be about policies and consequences, anyway.

    1. Trump IS orange–fake tanning, and he is a public figure, so being mocked comes with the territory. But, as a supposed role model, he occupies the White House, which places an obligation to behave like a decent, respectable person instead of a schoolyard bully. There is his failing. He is not patriotic and does not respect the office. The ego comes first. Then, there’s the fact that he has no business calling anyone fat because he is seriously overweight.

      1. Well, I say he IS patriotic and he DOES respect the office and all the man does is WORK on behalf of the American people. He even donates his salary. Also, did you see where the attendance at his New Hampshire rally last night even beat Elton John’s numbers?? Yeah.

        1. Please. He made much more than the measly presidential salary for himself and fellow pigs at the trough like Ivanka and his grifter sons with the tac cuts, and your kids will be paying for that. Smarten up!

            1. Allan……I’m starting to think that Anon1 is just a sock puppet, like enigma. …an invention of Squeeky.’s to keep the post lively. He’s just a little too mechanical and overly in your face, like it’s all an act.

              1. Cindy, I think both Anon and Enigma are individuals. Anon was arrogant as Jan F. and all his Anon names though a recent posting may have been an error by him or another used his name. Enigma has said that he has a blog.

                1. Allan…..Yes I’ve seen “enigma’s” blog, and .maybe Anon1 is real, but Squeeky said in a comment to me at least 6 to 8 months ago, that enigma was a sock puppet she had manufactured.
                  I had really been going after him and maybe she couldn’t watch anymore, knowing the deception. Of course, who is Squeeky really…Maybe Anon?? LOL Probably not even a girl.
                  It would take me weeks to find that comment, but wish I knew exactly where it is.
                  Anyway, people don’t have to reveal all on here, but I do like knowing that I’m conversing with a real person.

                  1. Cindy, I’m not sure what Squeeky said or meant. With those two posters what you see is what they are. Squeeky is a lot smarter and would be a lot more interesting

                    1. Allan….maybe so, and maybe someday I’ll find that comment. It really shocked me.
                      But in the mean time, glad you’re a real guy!

                    2. Allan….Thank you, Allan. He is better each week. He decided to drive into Austin to the hospital that saved him. We thought if he walked around there and saw the ICU, his room, etc, it would help deal with the fact that he almost died. That visit had healing powers indeed, and he feels so much better. He even got to thank the ICU staff in person, which meant alot to him and to them.

                    3. That is nice Cindy. Hospital workers are under appreciated and sometimes doctors are as well.

      2. So, being mocked, especially about physical attributes, comes with the territory, except when it’s against anyone else. It’s OK to do to Trump, but not OK for Trump to do to anyone else.

        It is hypocritical for people on the blog to call Trump orange and “fattie”, etc, while in the same thread claim that Trump has an obligation to behave respectably. Start with your own behavior before you judge anyone else’s.

        Trump is a mirror. He is polite to those who are polite to him. He is rude to those who are rude to him. If Trump is rude to anyone, and they don’t like it, then they should try being more polite themselves.

        I wish Trump were more effective in his quarrels. One should note that his predecessors’ habit of taking the high road and ignoring all the insults allowed the Left to define not only them, but all Republicans. Today, bigoted statements against conservatives are taken as Gospel, because they were not crushed when they were made. Trump should fight, but should do so effectively, and without ad hominem. I do not see the latter happening anytime soon.

        If Trump didn’t respect the office then he’d be having trysts with interns in the Oval Office while his secretary hid in the dining room.

    2. Karen, your fat orange cult leader is the one dragging down the national conversation. How are you missing this?

      1. Apparently the national conversation is more than willing to be dragged around by the nose, aided and abetted by the MSM.

      2. Anon1 — God protects His children. When the darts from the enemy come, they will be deflected. How are you missing this about Trump??

      3. Anon –

        #1 Trump is not my cult leader. I criticize him when warranted.

        #2 People who call someone fat, orange, and a cult leader have no business calling for civility in the object of their vicious jabs

        #3 Trump talks a lot like Democrats have spoken to and about conservatives for decades. Don’t like it? Welcome to what it’s like to hear Democrats talk about you in the media, online, in school, on TV, in movies, at awards ceremonies, and in the mailers of environmental organizations. Kind of rude, isn’t it? Democrats have been dragging the national conversation down for decades, demonizing Republicans and conservatives for political purposes. That’s what they always do when someone criticizes their policies or bring up unintended consequences. You must hate the poor, or kids, or immigrants, or single mothers, etc. Those who hear it enough years do so themselves. We see it all the time here, on almost every topic.

        Of course, you won’t fully appreciate it until you are called a Nazi, Fascist, racist, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobe, and whatever else through all those channels for a couple of decades. People get a bit tired of it. Boo hoo. One person has been prominently mirroring the rudeness for 4 years. Poor guy. However will you manage?

  9. Professor Turley doesn’t understand that those that support Trump support his policies and detest the policies of the left which are almost non existent. The main body of the left is full of lies. The main body of the right is truthful. The main body of the left is hateful while the main body of the right is forgiving.

    Look at it this way, the right is torn on abortion because they are concerned about life and the rights of all. I would guess that most support abortion to some extent though such a position comes with a bit of guilt for there is recognition of a life that will end. That is known as compassion. The left on the other hand can’t even get together to agree to a law to prevent almost full term babies from being killed. They can’t even get together on a law to stop letting newborns die on the table. The left has a morality problem along with a lack of principles.

    Peter will immediately differ, but everything he has stated to date shows what type of entity Peter is. He certainly isn’t compassionate to the nearly newborn child, his policies are dictated by the left and are not stable, he lies a lot and I would guess that if we look close we might find a hateful individual.

    1. allenAllen…is all over the place…and ends his screed with an attack on “Peter”…and what is that all about??

      chill out, buddy.

  10. “I could stand In the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”

    Now THAT is a base.

    1. if he popped the right scoundrel, and there’s a lot on Fifth avenue, I would have his back

      I would not normally make such a pronouncement, but I have been reading the stuff the radical left has been saying on twitter and they are primed and ready for political violence and civil war. They are advocating lawless violence. We should think hard about what it takes to survive and win in such situations.

      With a sufficiently bad black swan event that would disrupt say food supplies for a month, you might see this country plunge into a dramatic chaos such as normally only witnessed in turd world countries.

      For example, what can be seen around the world from such events, is that where there is a general breakdown of law and order, wise people organize immediately into neighborhood defense organizations. all politics is local. information about your neighbors and who your friends are on the group within walking distance is critical when things ‘jump off”

      si vis pacem…..

      1. Because she’s a fruitcake who offers no corroboration for her yarn pulling.

        1. How many claims are there of rape, sexual assault, or sexual harrassment now against Trump? I lost track at 19. Summer Zveros’s case should be nearing depositions which should be interesting. Discovery should include the lost “Apprentice” tapes which are alleged to contain video of him harrassing women (and spewing racial epithets).
          Defending Trump from all the things he says, does, and is said to have done has been reduced to, “the whole world is lying.”

          1. How many claims are there of…

            Are you now suggesting claims are proof? All those white folk in the Jim Crow era south appreciate your support.

              1. If there were far fewer claims against any Democrat you’d believe them. Oh wait, you do.

                Oh wait, prove that I’ve ever believed any claims against anyone without evidence.

                I’ll wait.

                  1. It’s your claim. You should know what hole you pulled it from.

                    The only conduct I care about regarding Trump is his fidelity to the oath of office. That goes the same for every other person elected to or serving in public office.

              2. Enigma – all allegations of criminal activity, against anyone, should be investigated.

                I am reminded of all the allegations that came out of the woodwork against Kavanaugh. They were all found either false, or there was no proof. For instance, one devolved from he led rape trains to, well, he was standing by the Solo cups. There were many that later admitted they lied, for instance the one concerning the boat.

                I was sickened to the lengths some people will go to when they suffer political poisoning. Multiples more hate Trump, than hate Republicans in a general sense enough to go after Kavanaugh.

                A woman claimed that on an unknown date, Trump raped her in a dressing room in a popular department store, known for its customer service, and helpful attendants, in the most densely populated city in our country. There were no witnesses of the act, and it seems strange that a man could go into a changing room at that particular store, or that a desperate fight could ensue that no one witnessed.

                As for what she told her friends, I have had women tell me completely false stories about men before. I was shocked to discover, irrefutably, that they had lied. More than one woman did this. Had I not found that out, I would have sworn on any witness stand about what she’d told me…but I would have been wrong. One of them made a habit out of getting their friends and coworkers to harass whomever she’d targeted at the time. Luckily, I never knew about that part. It was an abuse of the particular power a woman holds – to take advantage of protective instincts.

                1. Actually, most of the allegations against Kavanaugh weren’t fully investigated. Many of the witnesses weren’t interviewed. The FBI was directed as to the scope of the investigation. A failure to investigate is not the same thing as guilt. It can’t be used to proclaim innocence either.

                  1. The FBI investigated all credible allegations and found no corroborating evidence. They interviewed 40 people, and there was no evidence to support any of their claims. That is a very serious level of harassment. One example was Judy Munro-Leighton, who admitted she wrote an anonymous letter lying that Kavanaugh raped her. She’d never even met him, and said it was a ploy to get attention.

                    Trump does not control the FBI, obviously (see Russia hoax.)

                    Democrat politicians no longer talk about Kavanaugh, because it was a dead end. If there were credible allegations out there, you think it wouldn’t be in the news?

                    1. Ford claimed her friend Patrick Smyth was at the party where the alleged assault occurred. He has no idea what she’s talking about. She claimed that Leland Kyser was at the party. She said she does not know Kavanaugh, and has no idea what she’s talking about.

                      Ford changed the year that she said this took place, once it became clear that her original date was when Kavanaugh was away at college. She said she is certain it happened earlier, because she does not remember driving to the party, and after she got her license, she liked to drive. The possibility that Kavanaugh was even in the state evaporates if she got the date wrong, a date she changed based on not remembering driving to a party no one else remembers.

                      Our justice system requires that allegations be proven. The allegations were not proven. In fact, it was proven that a great many people actively lied to bring down Kavanaugh for political purposes, or to get attention. Red Solo cups are now infamous from this fiasco.

                      It is wrong to keep saying that Kavanaugh is a rapist. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg has stood up for him.

                      The political affiliation does not matter. It is nothing more than mob justice to take accusations as fact.

                    2. “Trump does not control the FBI” – Under most administrations that would be a true statement. But I digress.

                      The FBI did not investigate “all credible allegations,” they didn’t even interview Kavanaugh and Ford. The White House set the paramaters, defining what were and weren’t “credible allegations.” Here’s one summary of the investigation. If you don’t like the source, there’s a ton of information available, all you have to do is open your eyes.


                    3. Enigma – CNN is partisan, for one, and it did not contain any list of directives given to the FBI. Instead, it was complaints that the White House might have restricted the FBI.

                      They did. To credible allegations. Then they told the FBI it could interview anyone they wanted, credible or not.

                      You should note that at the time of the article, CNN was concerned that the Swetnick allegation was not deemed credible.

                      Swetnick changed her story from Kavanaugh ran rape trains at multiple parties that girls inexplicably kept attending to…she saw him standing by the Solo cups to…Swetnick loved to engage in group sex and never met him.

                      If you recall, there have been discussions on how the mainstream media edits information it provides to its viewers. From the CNN article, viewers would be outraged that Swetnick was not deemed credible. From the facts, it was laughable to ever think Swetnick was credible.

                      It turned out that Ramirez told her friends that she actually wasn’t sure that it was Kavanaugh who allegedly exposed himself to her, at all.


                      “The White House has given the FBI clearance to interview anyone it wants to by Friday in its investigation of sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

                      The new guidance, described to The Associated Press by a person familiar with it, was issued to the FBI over the weekend in response to Democratic and news media pushback that the scope of the probe was too narrow.”

                      Why was there a time limit? Because as scores of false, retracted allegations proved, people motivated by politics or attention would fabricate stories forever.

                      It is telling that asking for the limit to be to credible allegations was slammed as a sham by partisan Democrats.

                      Did you notice that this was tossed onto the mountain of allegations that were made, dominated the news, and then promptly forgotten? They are throwing anything they can at the wall, and when it doesn’t stick, they forget about it.

                      Trump being a Nazi is out, obviously, as he wouldn’t want his own family dead. Russia is out. Kavanaugh being a rapist running rape trains is out. Trump would definitely start nuclear war with North Korea is out. Trump’s son being autistic is out. Trump being controlled by China is out. Trump having dementia and his doctor lying about it is out, as is the one about heart disease. That’s just a few highlights.

                      This is really getting old.

                      If you still think credible accusations were ignored by an FBI controlled by Trump, then you need to listen to more mainstream media. It’s out. They’ve already moved on several accusations ago.

                  2. Enigma – so I can better understand where you are coming from, what credible allegation against Kavanaugh do you believe was not investigated by either Congress or the FBI?

                    1. Enigma – Ramirez’s friends told investigators said she told them that she actually wasn’t sure at all if it was Kavanaugh.

                      Do you have a credible allegation that was not investigated by either the FBI or Congress?

          2. I take it you’re the sort who takes supermarket tabloids at face value.

            1. Most of the claims even made it to Fox News. Every legitimate newspaper in America has reported some of them. Test me in this, name a newspaper or network ypu have faith in and I’ll produce a report.

              1. I’d be curious to hear you name a newspaper or network you have faith in…. serious question.

                1. Serious answer. – There isn’t a newspaper or network I have 100% faith in. For newspapers, I generally think the Wall Street Journal is factually accurate but their editorial section and opinion page goes berserk from time to time. Some of the Fox News shows although right leaning are informational. I like Chris Wallace, the Journal Eritorial Report, Shephard Smith. Hannity and Tucker Carlson are all about serving their base without consideration of facts. I disliked some of the MSNBC shown, the late Ed Shultz was not much different than a left wing Hannity in my opinion, I found him unwatchable. I think the New York Times and Washington Post are generally reliable but their opinion page can go off the rails. What I don’t di is fail to consider information because of the source. That’s an excuse to deny a whoe lot of truth.

                  1. Chris Wallace is a Democrat.

                    “think the New York Times and Washington Post are generally reliable but their opinion page can go off the rails.”

                    Unfortunately the NYTimes opinion page seems to occupy much of the front page and political section.

                    1. Conservatives have hated the N Y Times and Washington Post since Watergate. In fact, Fox News was founded largely because those two newspapers blew the lid off Watergate.

                      There was a strong feeling among former Nixon staffers that if conservatives could control the message, they might avoid another Watergate.

                      One could argue that without rightwing media, a political amateur like Trump could never have gotten the Republican nomination. Trump would have been eliminated early on after making ‘jokes’ about Megyn Kelly’s periods.

                    2. Conservatives probably haven’t liked the NYTimes since Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer Prize piece for the NYTimes that made Stalin’s Russia look like a wonderful place because Walter Duranty was a fraud as was the NYTImes which is still unwilling to give up that Pulitzer.

                      This is when the left loved Russia and the Stalinists despite the millions being killed. Even after the Stalin Papers were revealed the left continued to be soft on Russia who was our enemy. They derided Reagan for trying to defet the Soviets without war. They said that could never happen. Then when Reagan (who was called stupid by the left) won and the Soviet Union fell the left tried to say that Russia was falling anyhow. The left lies through its teeth.

                      Today it is the left that is warlike trying to prove they have balls when they don’t. They also have less common sense than balls. Suddenly they don’t want an American President to even talk to the Russians even though Hillary presented Putin with a plastic reset button. She looked like a fool and her followers drooling after her looked like worse fools.

                      Fox News was not founded because of Watergate and let us not forget the Republicans told Nixon to resign though he carried less guilt than the Democrats that followed him. Democrats deny and couldn’t give a dam- about the nation or the people.

                      Today we are seeing corruption all around centered on Hillary and known to Obama. That is something you choose to forget despite the fact that you have been wrong virtually every step of the way. It wasn’t the right wing media that created Trump. It was the people reacting to a left wing that is atrocious and lies all the time just like you do. Trump won because the people believed him and whether or not one likes his policies one recognizes that Trump carried out more of his promises than any other recent President.

                      Today the NYTimes seems to be supported by Trump and I wonder how it will survive when Trump leaves the scene. We can note that the Times has been preparing itself for what is being released now and will be released in the future. The editors recognize that their pages on the Russia hoax represented all the news that was not fit to print.

                    3. In fact, Fox News was founded largely because those two newspapers blew the lid off Watergate.

                      Fox News was founded 22 years after Richard Nixon resigned and neither paper ‘blew the lid off’ Watergate. Woodward and Bernstein were scrounging material from federal investigators (some of which may have been a crime to disclose). Neither the U.S. Attorney’s office in the District of Columbia, the Criminal Division, the FBI, or the special prosecutors office had any need of the services of the Grahams or the Sulzbergers. The Graham minions were parasitic off of government officials, not the other way around.

                    4. WIKIPEDIA BIO: ROGER AILES

                      Oddly Roger Ails went from being a Producer for “The Mike Douglas Show to being Nixon’s Communications Director. Ailes then worked for Reagan and other Republicans before founding Fox News (with Murdoch’s money).

                      Ailes’s career in television began in Cleveland and Philadelphia, where he started as Production Assistant (1961), Producer (1965), and Executive Producer (1967–68) for KYW-TV,[6] for a then-locally produced talk-variety show, The Mike Douglas Show. He continued as Executive Producer for the show when it was syndicated nationally, and in 1967 and 1968 he won Emmy Awards for it.[6]

                      In 1967, Ailes had a spirited discussion about television in politics with one of the show’s guests, Richard Nixon, who took the view that television was a gimmick.[7] Later, Nixon called on Ailes to serve as his Executive Producer for television. Nixon’s successful presidential campaign was Ailes’s first venture into the political spotlight.[8] His pioneering work in framing national campaign issues, capitalizing on the race-based Southern Strategy and making the stiff Nixon more likable and accessible to voters was later chronicled in The Selling of the President 1968 by Joe McGinniss.[8]

                      In 1984, Ailes worked on the campaign to reelect Ronald Reagan. In 1987 and 1988, Ailes was credited (along with Lee Atwater) with guiding George H. W. Bush to victory in the Republican primaries and the victory over Michael Dukakis.[9]

                      Ailes was credited with the “Orchestra Pit Theory” regarding sensationalist political coverage in the news media, which originated with his quip: If you have two guys on a stage and one guy says, “I have a solution to the Middle East problem,” and the other guy falls in the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?[10]

                      Ailes’ last campaign was the unsuccessful effort of Richard Thornburgh for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania in November 1991.[11] He announced his withdrawal from political consulting in 1991.

                      Edited from: Roger Ailes, Wikipedia


                      Tabby, to answer your question, 22 years lapsed between Watergate and the founding of Fox News because that’s how long it took get a news network launched.

                      Bear in mind that in 1974, when Nixon left office, starting a major television network was a tremendous undertaking. It would have been like creating a movie studio from scratch. Only the very richest had the means to do that.

                      But by the 1990’s cable television had changed the entire landscape of television. Luckily for Ailes, Rupert Murdoch shared his dream of conservative news media. And financial instruments like High Yield Bonds had ‘democratized money’. Buccaneers could now compete with the old money establishment.

                    5. I note Peter how you copied from Wikipedia without ever explaining your point with regard to what I said. Where does it talk about the phony Pulitzer Prize by Duranty or any of the other lies. Where does it talk about the softness leftists showed towards Stalin? Where does it talk about the leftist view of Reagan who ended the cold war without a shot being fired. It did none of those things because you were simply pretending to be smart, but you demonstrated you aren’t.

                      As far as your comment to DSS at the end: “22 years lapsed between Watergate and the founding of Fox News because that’s how long it took get a news network launched.”

                      That is an answer that demonstrates a person without a head. Ted Truner was the innovator and he created CNN much more quickly and the TBS about 6 years later. Nothing you say should ever be considered true.

                    6. Hill – you claimed that Watergate caused the creation of Fox News. As proof, you listed connections that Ailes had to prominent Republicans, including Nixon and Reagan. That shows his Republican beliefs, but it in no way makes the connection that it was Watergate itself that led to Fox News rather than, as Ailes himself indicated, the unchallenged bias in Left leaning mainstream media, nor why it took over 20 years.

                    7. “Hill – you claimed”

                      Karen, logic is not Hill’s strong suit. Neither is history or politics but before he is able to make a good on any subject he has to learn the rudiments of logic.

              2. Enigma – of course the claims made it to Fox news. They covered the allegations from the start, as well as any information on their unravelling. It covered the directives given to the FBI, the arguments against it, the FBI given free rein, and the time constraint. It covered Ford’s testimony, with some remarking they felt she was compelling. It discussed strengths and weaknesses in her testimony, such as the fact that she changed the year that it happened, and that her only reason for that change was that she did not remember driving there. It covered that the witnesses she named, her own friends, did not know what she was talking about. Her fear of flying as a result of the alleged assault was questioned, as her former boyfriend stated that they flew all around the world, and her favorite thing to do was fly to really remote locations in small planes.

                There is no doubt that a great many claims were made. Many were retracted. There was no evidence that the remaining occurred.

                You do not punish someone because of unsubstantiated allegations. Otherwise, that weaponizes it, which is inherently unjust.

                Do you want a fair and just system, or just mob rule?

                1. Do you want a fair and just system, or just mob rule?

                  He want’s cheesy talking points for these discussions. So we get to hear about a mess of women who retailed Trump-the-masher stories to the papers in the midst of a dirty election campaign, stories which are almost inherently unverifiable.

                  As for Christine Blasey Fraud, pro-tip: if you want a detached observer to believe you, it’s best to have evidence you’ve actually met the person you’re accusing.

                2. I thought you were claiming the FBI fully investigated all claims? They didn’t, they only followed up on those the White House deemed worthy. They didn’t interview Kavanaugh which meant he wasn’t asked about his apparent shall we say misstatements before Congress. They didn’t interview Ford. Whatever you think of his guilt or innocence. You could at least admit the investigation wasn’t thorough.

                  1. “You could at least admit the investigation wasn’t thorough.”

                    I am Black and live in a Black neighborhood in a housing project in a city that is 60% African American with lots of housing project crime.

                    I never see you in my neighborhood offering to mentor black kids. I never see Black “activists” like you knocking on our doors, going from house to house, offering your time to tutor black kids, help black mothers with child-rearing tasks, offering classes, workshops, forums in our parks and open areas to teach, encourage, offer hope or help chase away the black drug dealers and black criminals preying on our families.

                    Youre a con. Youre a manipulator. Like Al Sharpton and BLM, you stoke the media headlines to gain attention for yourself, but you do not show up, you do no have any of your skin in the game, you are everything you accuse Whites of being: a fraud, a hypocrite, a sham

                    Admit it. Youre not Black like me. You do not speak for Blacks at all, con artist

                    1. Someone – With all due respect. You have no idea what I do, nor are you in a position to dictate what constitutes as service and who is black or not. I have no idea what set you off. Again, with all due respect. Kiss my ass.

                    2. Anonymous – I hear your frustration about activists giving lip service, but no boots on the ground, to help problems. Politicians come every election cycle, promise solutions, but nothing changes. But we don’t know anything about Enigma, or what he does or does not do in the community. Unless he’s a catphish, he’s black, no matter what his politics or beliefs are.

                      I’m on the outside on this issue, and I know I’m sticking my neck out here. I quarrel with Enigma over issues and politics sometimes, but never doubted his sincerity. Why question the legitimacy of really being black, or authentic, based on politics?

                      If you are engaged in any or all of the ways to give back that you listed, then you’re making the world a better place, and God bless you. The world needs more helpers. I hope that organic gardening classes make their way in, too. Too much processed food in the diet of the poor, and the skill to grow what you eat in a container garden or community garden is not often seen in the city.

                  2. Such BS by Enigma. No investigation can possibly go after every kook’s belief when the evidence points in the opposite direction. This hearing and the opportunity to be heard favored Ford’s version to such an extent that she wasn’t adequately or timely investigated.

                    There is no question of Kavanaugh’s innocence except in the minds of deviant and sick people.

                  3. enigma – Kavanaugh had been interviewed by the FBI several times before. It was clear that Ford was lying. When they actually started investigating, witnesses fell apart at the seams.

                  4. Enigma –

                    I said, “The FBI investigated all credible allegations and found no corroborating evidence.” It was my understanding that they did not interview Ford because she already testified for hours before Congress, and they had her information already.

                    What credible allegation against Kavanaugh do you believe was not followed up by either the FBI or Congress? I have heard the allegation before that allegations were not investigated, but no one has ever told me of a specific credible allegation that was ignored. So I do not understand the position. It would be helpful if you could give an example.

                    1. We do not know if Kavanaugh assaulted Ford and probably never will. That therefore was not sufficient grounds for denying him a seat on the SC, although there is no official standard for rejection or approval. We do know Ford had nothing to gain by her allegation and by virtue of her naming others, including kavanaugh’s wingman – probably a hostile witness to her if he testified – demonstrated a lack of guile on her part. That others may not remember an incident of no particular signifgance to them personally proves nothing.

                      What was disqualfying in my opinion was his unhinged testimony before the senate, including obvious lies regarding his past. The record, as well as the testimony of others indicated he was a lush who almost certainly lost consciousness on occassion to the point of likely not remembering if he assaulted Ford or anyone else.

                    2. Anon – I agree with you that there were insufficient grounds to withhold the SC seat from Kavanaugh. I disagree that Ford had nothing to gain. Numerous women made false accusations against Kavanaugh during this process. An example was Swetnick. They gained attention, and a type of stolen valor of victimhood.

                      I do not know if anyone assaulted Ford. She gave good testimony. On the other hand, after claiming that she had a phobia of flying because of Kavanaugh, her ex said that they used to fly all over the world in small aircraft with no problem. She changed the year after discovering that Kavanaugh would have been away at college. She based this change on nothing other than she said she did not remember driving there, and after she got her license, she liked to drive. She used a little girl voice in some parts of her testimony, and a stronger voice in others, which was troubling. Her own friends whom she said were there did not know what she was talking about.

                      A case like this is impossible to defend against for anyone who does not happen to have their engagement calendar from a couple of decades ago. Even then, it is impossible to prove a negative. Since she did not have a date, or witnesses who remembered, how could anyone say they did not do this?

                      Rape is a deadly serious crime. Rapists are criminals who belong behind bars. I visited a girl in the hospital who had been kidnapped and gang raped, and if I hadn’t been directed to her room, I would have walked right past her. Her brain injury wiped out her memory of the entire day, which means she could be standing next to one of the men who raped her and have no idea. The anxiety that this caused must have been unbearable. So when a woman tries to “steal the valor” of a rape victim, it is disgusting. Swetnick falls into this category.

                      I do not know if Ford was assaulted, and got mixed up, or what happened. The flying phobia disproven is very concerning. In any case, a woman cannot have it both ways. She cannot decide not to report an assault at the time, when there is evidence, and then demand decades later to be believed based on nothing more than her word. Sometimes such allegations may be true, and sometimes not, but they are nearly impossible to prove. Juanita Broaddrick faced similar problems. In her favor, she was witnessed with a bitten lip after her meeting with Clinton, and she can be placed at that event, on that exact date and time. No one saw Bill bite her, and the physical evidence is long gone. That affected her case, as did her early denials. She has to deal with that now. In Ford’s case, she had no corroborating evidence, and changed her story. There is nothing anyone can do about that.

                      Kavanaugh’s testimony was in line with a man whose confirmation was disrupted by numerous allegations of sexual assault, most of which were disproven. The others had no evidence. This man faced death threats, and the threats of rape against his own wife. Why? For politics. I would expect a man to be emotional at that point. He did not threaten anyone, which would constitute unhinged.

                      Most people drank alcohol in college. You guess that he had blackouts, but do not know. People who drink in college are not automatically rapists.

                      The fact that so many disproven allegations piled on after Ford’s testimony should concern anyone. Rape trains? Really? Another one, this time a man, lying about a friend being raped on a boat and then admitting it was not true. And another one, Judy Munro-Leighton, who claimed Kavanaugh and his friend raped her, but then said she’d never met them. “I was angry and I sent it (the letter).”

                      Why do they do this? For attention or to stop a Republican from getting to the SCOTUS.

                      The weaponization of the rape accusation, like in To Kill a Mockingbird.

                    3. Karen, I said kavanaugh should have been denied a SC based on his unhiged and lying testimony before the court.

                      You fail to show what Ford gained from testifying – she was reluctant, but exposed – you fail to explain why she would list K’s wingman as a witness, and don’t mention that there are witnesses to her recounting the incident years before she could have possibly imagined K being nominated.

            2. Tabby, David Pecker, one of Trump’s key donors, was owner of the National Enquirer. Remember? Pecker made sure the Enquirer was kind to Trump and ‘disapproving’ of Hillary. Pecker’s connections to Trump became the subject of revelations by Michael Cohen. When last heard from, Pecker was trying to sell The Enquirer.

          3. Enigma has difficulty separating fact from fiction.

            To Enigma Trump is guilty of racism for something that may or may not have occurred 2 decades before he was born. That doesn’t make Enigma seem like a credible guy.

            1. And Allan weighs in with more insults…

              About Trump and racism, according to Scaramucci:

              “Scaramucci on Trump: ‘Very clear that it’s impossible for him to win'”



              “The red line was the racism—full-blown racism. He can say that he’s not a racist, and I agree with him, okay?” Scaramucci told Vanity Fair’s William Cohan.

              He continued: “He’s actually worse than a racist. He is so narcissistic, he doesn’t see people as people. He sees them as objects in his field of vision.”

              1. Should we laugh when you insist that Enigma is totally truthful?

                “To Enigma Trump is guilty of racism for something that may or may not have occurred 2 decades before he was born. That doesn’t make Enigma seem like a credible guy.”

                You don’t think this demonstrates a difficulty in differentiating fact from fiction? Please tell us how this type of comment makes sense.

                What I love about your comment is its naive reliance on people that one day hate someone only to find out that the person is a prince when he says something negative about Trump. That doesn’t say very much about you or the people you rely on. It does say something about the intellectual dishonesty that is inherrent in your position.

  11. Hey Mr. 1st amendment Turley, so President Trump chooses to shame a supporter that had infringed a protester’s right of free speech and in your zeal to condemn the president, you completely whiff on the actions of one of his supporters. Hypocrite much?

  12. so he told someone to exercise. that’s good advice. we should all exercise

    you’re grasping here

          1. no Nuthatch but you have been obsessed about DJT’s body on this blog for a few years now but that’s your particular problem not mine

            i prefer to think of MELANIA if I want to think of White House physical role models! Whew what a heavenly body.

              1. i prefer natural but i am really talking about the overall form and total package. DYNAMITE!

          2. The question of why Trump never wears shorts is best left to greater minds, like Natacha’s.

              1. Cindy Bragg says: August 16, 2019 at 2:46 PM
                “Natacha seems to have gotten the truncated end of the intelligence stick.”

                Says Cindy Bragg — the one who would know.

                And Cindy Bragg is “gracious” too. /sarc

            1. Reportedly, he has fat, pasty white legs. Hasn’t been using the fake tanner down there. More fodder for mocking, plus shorts make his broad rear look even larger, so even in the dead of summer, no shorts.

              No, I am not obsessed with Agent Orange or his physique, but he has coarsened our discourse by resorting to insults about people’s appearance, so it’s fair game to point out the obvious.

            1. Anonymous……….I am 73 and cannot go one day without wearing my favorite khaki shorts………rain or shine, snow or ice, hell or highwater, I’m in my khaki shorts.
              Texans love their shorts whether they have attractive legs or not.(I certainly don’t anymore)..however, when you travel to Dallas, be advised that their restaurants still enforce 1940’s style dress codes. Forget gun laws…Dallas dress codes are the toughest in the country!
              We were visiting family one time in central dallas area…Went into a Mexican restaurant where I was abruptly stopped at the door. I was wearing my khaki shorts. I pleaded my case to the Host. ” I have no other clothes with me.”
              It was decided that I could enter the restaurant as long as I promised NOT to walk into the bar area!! I don’t know what kind of debauchery they thought a menopausal retired school teacher was going to unleash in their bar area, but I complied . LOL

              1. Cindy Bragg – speaking from experience, you can get into a lot more hanky-panky in a skirt than shorts. Just sayin’. 😉

                  1. Cindy Bragg – did you ever see the eating scene in Tom Jones? Mexican Plate special, my eye. 🙂

            2. Anonymous – This is Arizona. I went two concerts this week. All the men over 60, including myself, were wearing shorts.

      1. JFK modelled a good use of leisure time with the boating and all that. good example. the problem now is that most Americans work too much and can’t find a solid amount of leisure time.

      2. Trump is hated, not beloved. Like his p.cker, he hasn’t seen positive ratings for 20 years.

        1. Just listen to the crowds. He has tremendous support that you can continue to berate. You can call them deplorables, but they are the working people of the nation, the families and they don’t ask much from the government like the left side of the aisle does. They believe in law and order and don’t berate the police. The believe in our nation and aren’t selling it out like the globalists or leftist leaders have.

          We don’t want you in our group. You are too hateful and you seem too violent.

          1. Like Allan’s rant, Trump sells hate of fellows Americans and fear. Fortunately most Americans aren’t buying it and never have.

            1. You have your hate and fear backwards anonymous. You can watch thousands of kids be killed in the Democratic inner cities, but not a word from you until its political. Not the sign of a nice person.

              Forgetting the abolishment of abortion since there are multiple persons involved, but you can’t protect the life of the nearly born or one already born but not wanted. Not the sign of a nice person.

              That you can support lies and refuse to recognize truths like jobs and a better economy is not a sign of a nice person.

              Continuoously attacking personalities without any solutions or attempts to make things better is not the sign of a nice person.

              Don’t complain about the response like you usually do. Attack and then cry when you get a response is not a nice thing either.

        2. “Trump … hasn’t seen positive ratings for 20 years.”

          “As of March 9, Trump and Obama are deadlocked at 44% at the same points in their presidencies. After almost an entire year of tracking at times well below Obama, Trump finally caught up to him on December 22, when they both polled at the same number, 44%. Since public perception of the two presidents matched up in late December, Trump and Obama have been trading leads. Obama’s biggest lead over Trump in that period was 6 points (50 – 44) on January 31; Trump’s widest lead was 7 points (50 – 43) on February 27. Their polling numbers have been within a point of each other multiple times since first syncing.”

            1. “1. Rasmussen Reports polls are consistently friendlier to Trump (and were more unfavorable to Obama) than most polls.”

              Remember Trump won! That tells us all. …And who is the Washington post?

              1. Trump lost the vote, by a lot. You posted information on his popularity with voters, not the EC. If you think he’ll win by pulling another royal flush in the EC, you’re a fool.

                1. We can’t even be sure of the vote because of cheaters like you and you won’t permit ID to verify who is voting even though that is how most places deal with the voting privilege. You need Id to charge a $5 item at Walmart but that is not necessary according to you when a person votes.

                  1. Allan – Judicial Watch is getting the voter rolls cleaned up in a couple of states, including CA. That should help some.

                    1. Dream on Paul. I get that your cult leader, who will say anything to advance his ego gratification, claims he actually won the vote – just like his inaugral crowd was the largest – but I don’t get adults like you being suckered by his BS. His own committee, put together by conspiracy mongerers, folded with nothing! NOTHING! on voter fraud. Numerous studies show the same. Who.s going to risk $10k in fines and 5 years in jail per incident to vote illegally.

                      Wake up Paul.

                    2. Anon1 – if you consider the massive election fraud in CA, the 2.6 million votes changed for Hillary (bottom line estimate) by Google, it is quite possible he did win the popular vote. However, he did win the Electoral College vote, which, for those who are paying attention, is the vote that really counts.

                    3. Take off the tin foil hat Paul. Only you apparently know of massive voter fraud in California and the Google accusation is without any evidence except his computer modeling IF Google manipulated search rankings and by an academic with an ongoing feud with Google dating to 2010. You’re dreaming. Wake up. Trump is hated by Americans and recognized as a low life huckster

                2. The “royal flush” analogy has popped up 5-6 times over the past month or so.
                  Supposedly by different posting comments.
                  Is David Brock running short on new material to feed his trolls?

                  1. The “royal flush” analogy has popped up 5-6 times over the past month or so.

                    I like it. Clinton, and by extension Obama, along with the entire progressive movement got royally flushed in 2016. AG Barr, Horowitz and Durham will unclog what’s left in that Democrat sewer pipe.

                    1. The odds of getting a royal flush in draw poker are over a half million-to-one. I’ll put down a buck and see if those repeating that Brock meme are willing to put their money were their mouths are ( or mouth, if Brock is using same the same troll posting under multiple names).

                    2. Anonymous – I think the long odds on election night before the first polls closed was 98-1 for Hillary. Periodically, I go back and watch the election night coverage, watching as they all absolutely refuse to call Florida for Trump. Finally, they just give up and they all do it and the roof caves in on them. Then the #Resistance starts.

                    3. Olly and Mr. Schulte,
                      I would love to play poker with the Brock trolls who play odds like that.

                  2. I have several times brought attention to the royal flush like circumstances necessary for Trump to lose by 3 million votes while winning the EC by 77000 combined votes across 3 swing states. Thanks for the flattery of thinking I get paid to kick your a.a, but I do it strictly for the pleasure.

                    1. From reading the comments, it looks like anon1 may have thought that she “kicked ass” as JanF., too.
                      I don’t know if she still posts as JanF. or other names when she does her pretend ass- kicking, but she might want to read up on how campaigns are conducted, and how presidents are elected.
                      If those advising the eventual Democratic nominee are even close to be as stupid as this anon1 JanF. or whoever she is, Trump can win with just a high card.

              2. …And who is the Washington Post?

                Amazon’s CEO Owns a Terror-Linked Paper

                The Washington Post’s ties to Islamic terrorists are a national security risk.

                August 16, 2019

                Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

                Millions of Americans brought Alexa into their homes only to learn, belatedly, that not only software, but human beings, were listening in on them. Amazon employees and contractors from Costa Rica to India were caught reviewing thousands of recordings, of casual requests, private conversations and intimate moments, and sharing clips that they thought were funny in chat sessions with each other.

                The Amazon product is always listening and maintains recordings of your conversations indefinitely.

                But now there’s something bigger at stake than privacy violations. Amazon expects a $10 billion cloud contract for the military. The $10 billion contract was a sweetheart deal for a politically influential company that seemed unstoppable until President Trump suddenly slammed the brakes on JEDI.

                The deal had always been dubious and many critics had questioned how or why a single company could expect to have a monopoly on the JEDI cloud for the United States military. Amazon’s cloud business is huge, but the Capital One breach of 100 million credit card applications by a former Amazon employee highlighted the company’s security and workforce issues. Capital One kept its data in the cloud through AWS or Amazon Web Services and the hacker was a former AWS employee with specialized knowledge.

                In the Obama era, Amazon had received a $600 million cloud contract that covers all 17 intelligence agencies. The secret deal was met with protests especially since Amazon’s wasn’t even the lowest bid.

                Just as with JEDI, all the national security eggs were being put into one very fragile basket.

                Amazon’s federal cloud contracts took off in the Obama era. Many of the biggest contracts are classified making it difficult to measure how much taxpayer money is being sucked into the Bezos business. But Amazon is winning contracts in the usual Washington D.C. way, by spending millions a year on lobbying.

                The dot com titan began lobbying the Pentagon in 2016. That was the year Amazon’s lobbying expenditures hit a whopping $11 million, up from $1.62 million during the Bush administration. Amazon’s PAC, which the company strongly encourages employees to donate to, accounted for $515,200 in donations to members of Congress.

                Amazon was the fourth biggest contributor to Senator Mark Warner. And when President Trump put Amazon’s JEDI deal on hold, Warner was among the first to protest the move. In his letter, Warner urged the Secretary of Defense to “resist political pressures” that might scuttle $10 billion for Amazon.

                Senator Warner, who was applying political pressure to the Secretary of Defense, to protect a contract that would benefit his contributors, appeared to be unaware of the irony of his message.

                But Amazon’s lobbying millions were only the tip of the iceberg of its dubious political influence.

                Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is not only the richest person in the world, with an estimated $156 billion, but is a heavyweight political donor who has outspent other S&P 500 CEOs by a factor of 10. Bezos was the 12th biggest political donor of the 2018 cycle, coming in behind Bloomberg and Soros.

                And, even more importantly, Bezos owns the Washington Post. The powerful political tabloid sets the agenda in the government city, but it’s also raising questions about whether Amazon is a security risk for reasons that go far beyond the flaws in AWS or whatever influence it might have used to grab JEDI.

                In its story on the JEDI contract, the Washington Post claimed that, “Trump on several occasions has spoken out against Amazon and its chief executive, Jeff Bezos. And he has attacked the Bezos-owned Washington Post for its coverage of him by conflating it with Amazon’s interests.”

                Then the Washington Post went on to complain that, “The president has called the news organization the ‘Amazon Washington Post,’ while accusing it of publishing ‘fake news’ and being a ‘lobbyist newspaper’ for the company.” A rumor that the Washington Post helpfully put to bed by doing just that.

                But the real problem with the intersection between the Washington Post and Amazon isn’t its left-wing politics: it’s Jamal Khashoggi. A year after Amazon began lobbying the Pentagon, the Washington Post began publishing propaganda screeds in support of the Muslim Brotherhood, shaped by the Qatar Foundation, under the name of Jamal Khashoggi.

                The Washington Post was aware that Khashoggi, an old friend of Osama bin Laden and longtime supporter of Islamic terrorism, was operating under Qatari influence. It was also aware that Qatar was the region’s biggest backer of Sunni Islamic terrorism and regime change influence operations. Its publication of Qatari propaganda under Khashoggi’s name and its subsequent insistence on transforming him into a martyr as part of the Qatari influence operation against Saudi Arabia, was an active attempt to influence United States foreign policy on behalf of an enemy government.

                It’s behavior properly associated with registered foreign agents. Not an American media outlet.

                A company that appears to be operating as an unregistered foreign agent for an enemy government cannot then turn around and have its owner’s company be trusted with the military’s JEDI cloud.

                Why the Washington Post chose to participate in the Qatari influence operation is an open question. Until it’s resolved, allowing another company controlled by its owner to have sole dominion over the military cloud, as it already possesses over our intelligence cloud, is an unacceptable security risk.

                The issue at stake is about more than whether Amazon or Microsoft get a $10 billion contract.

                Our national security has already been badly compromised by the radical employees of contractors, Edward Snowden and Reality Winner. Snowden and Winner both compromised national security through the auspices of The Intercept, a site funded by Franco-Iranian dot com billionaire Pierre Omidyar. The Intercept has also been a notorious vehicle for Qatari influence operations.

                Putting the military cloud in the hands of a compromised company could be truly devastating.

                The Washington Post has an unfortunate history of acting as an advocate for Qatar and for Islamic terrorists in general. It has run countless pieces in support of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood has multiple terrorist affiliates and is dedicated to subverting our political system.

                The Post was criticized for running an op-ed by Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, the leader of Yemen’s Houthi terrorists, who are backed by Iran, who have attacked Americans, and who chant, “Death to America”.

                Earlier it had been condemned for publishing an op-ed from Ahrar al-Sham, an Islamic guerrilla group that had worked with Al Qaeda. One of the founding members of the armed jihadist group went on to head the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. Even Secretary of State John Kerry had condemned it, saying, “From Orlando to San Bernardino to the Philippines and Bali, we’ve seen pictures and we’ve heard testimony of shocking crimes committed by al-Qaida, by Boko Haram, by Jaysh al-Islam, by Ahrar al-Sham, by al-Shabaab, Daesh, other groups against innocent civilians, against journalists, and against teachers.”

                But the Washington Post didn’t just offer op-ed space to brutal terrorists, it whitewashed them.

                It ran a glowing profile of Salah Badi, a Libyan Islamist terrorist who had been sanctioned by the Treasury Department and the UN Security Council for rocket attacks that had killed civilians.

                The Washington Post described the brutal Islamist killer as “one of Tripoli’s defenders”.

                Even when it came to ISIS, the Washington Post ran an article headlined, “ISIS kidnapped my best friend. But when I met its fighters, I couldn’t hate them.”

                The Post ran an article touting Ismail Royer, who had been caught with weapons on September 2001, and had been convicted as part of the Virginia Jihad Network.

                Last year, even the Taliban praised the Washington Post for giving the terror group credibility.

                The Washington Post provides terrorists with a forum, whitewashes them and maintains an inappropriate relationship with state sponsors of Islamic terror. A company that shares a common leader with an organization with troubling terror ties should not control the military’s JEDI cloud.

                The risks to our national security and the lives of our soldiers would be incalculable.

                While American soldiers battle the Taliban in Afghanistan, the military’s JEDI cloud should not belong to a company that shares a leader with a paper that was praised by the Taliban.

                While American sailors battle the Houthis in Yemen, the JEDI cloud should not be exposed to a company that shares a leader with an organization that provided the Houthis with a forum.

                While American pilots go after Al Qaeda, ISIS and its allies in Syria, they should not be relying on JEDI cloud that shares a leader with an outlet that opened its doors to Al Qaeda’s allies.

                Amazon’s JEDI bid is a threat to national security as long as its CEO is involved with a propaganda outlet for foreign terrorist groups and foreign governments that are waging a war against the United States.


          1. Allan – what do you think his poll numbers would be if the press liked him?

  13. Dear Leader is perfect in every way, incapable of error, impervious to criticism. May he reign forever and ever.

      1. i don’t think you can escape it Cindy, though in a few years you’ll be trying to.

        1. Anon1……I feel sorry for people like you who are fixed on one setting of the dial…You are not curious enough to find out facts for yourself….and when you try, you use one method and that’s it. No critical thinking at all. No room for expanded evaluation.
          I know Trump is flawed. I know Trump can be sophmoric. I know he is not a polished communicator……but he is a REAL person. not a political puppet who accepts and mimics the political correctness that is destroying our cultural fabric.
          Give me a flawed unapologetic straight talker any day over someone the Dems would accept, like a grown man beaten emotionally into submission for daring to say “All Lives Matter”. What a bunch of losers. Y’all really are pathetic.

          1. Cindy, if you judge Trump to be a “straight talker” and “real”, I can only assume you are incredibly stupid or just surrounded by some really bad people.

            It’s an established fact that he is the opposite of a “straight talker” and a “real” con man.

            You’ll bail on him soon enough. Get ready now.

            1. Donald Trump is a classic salesman. His product is the United States. And because you idiots are so fixated on the salesman, you are rejecting all the great features and benefits of this country. So much so that you would cheer it’s failure to prove your point. You’re a pathetic and useless lot.

                1. on1an, like I said, fixated. You bought Obama’s Yugo because you liked the salesman. I’ll take Trump’s Cadillac because I like that ride.

                  1. Olly, your Cadillac was bought by a soon expiring sugar high from a tax cut that your kids will have to pay for, while the driver has surrendered our political, moral, and economic leadership of the western world and the respect of the entire world. Congratulations and I hope that this one time you bought the extended warranty.

                    1. While your busted down Yugo is rusting in your front yard, my Cadillac is repaired and once again on demand everywhere.

                      I hope that this one time you bought the extended warranty.

                      I and every other patriotic citizen are the extended warranty. That’s obviously something you have never understood.

                    2. Read a newspaper Olly. Even before last weeks market rumblings and growing trepidation about a cooling worldwide economy partly caused by Trump’s trade wars, no reputable economists saw the economy doing better than 2% growth this year and cooling more next year. The tax cut sugar high is all over except for paying for it ($1 trillion to the debt) and we’ve already shot the Fed’s bullets. Despite his rich guy stimulus, nothing Trump has accomplished economically has lived up to his promise (3% growth was going to be easy) nor has he done any better than Obama even with his stimulus.

                      Patriots? That’s what you call guys cheering on a traitor who takes the side of Putin against his own government and Lil Kim against the parents of an American student he had tortured and murdered.

                      I don’t think so Olly.

                    3. Anon is only able to look at one thing at a time. The overall economic activity in the world has fallen and that includes Germany and China. That has an impact on the US as does our present trade war with China which is causing a significant impact on the US but might be having a devastating impact on China. Anon would prefer the easy way and would love to jump in a pot of water that is gradually boiled. Trump is getting us out of that mess created by Anon’s hero’s. It may cost a point or two in our growth but at least we won’t be boiled to death. I don’t think we will see a recession from present events but China might have to face a big one something their economy is not used to.

                1. Anon1 states that no reputable economist is forecasting more than 2% gdp growth for 2019.
                  The consensus among economist is actually for 2.3%-2.4% 2019 gdp growth.
                  No reputable person would post what anon1 posted.
                  From some other comments, it looks like that fool posting as anon1 has spread his BS around under different names here.

                  1. Cindy, just read what Anon has said over the months and then read what has actually occurred. He has been almost completely wrong.

                    Economic growth will fall in the US because economic growth has fallen globally, most importantly in China and Germany. We are doing much better than these economies but the trade war where China is supported by our Democratic Party looks like they will wait until the next Presidential election hoping economics will change the party in power. Perhaps Biden will get in and they can make under the table deals with his family like was done before. The Democrats don’t care if the citizens of the US will be hurt and the MSM is clearly on the side of China…er I mean the Democrats. China and Russia today are more linked than before so it looks like the Dems might also be favoring the Rusians.

                    One cannot predict what will happen but I do not think we will enter a recession for the next 12 month period. All Americans should be hoping that a better trade deal can be made with China so our IP isn’t stolen and thereby jobs lost to the Chinese. We should be all hoping for a successful US but that doesn’t seem to be the warped mindset of the left that thinks the US is the cause of all the world’s problems

                  2. “Overview

                    U.S. GDP growth will slow to 2.1% in 2019 from 3% in 2018. It will be 2% in 2020 and 1.8% in 2021. That’s according to the most recent forecast released at the Federal Open Market Committee meeting on June 19, 2019. The projected slowdown in 2019 and beyond is a side effect of the trade war, a key component of Trump’s economic policies.

                    The unemployment rate will average 3.6% in 2019. It will increase slightly to 3.7% in 2020 and 3.8% in 2021. That’s lower than the Fed’s 6.7% target. But former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen noted a lot of workers are part-time and would prefer full-time work. Also, most job growth is in low-paying retail and food service industries. Some people have been out of work for so long that they’ll never be able to return to the high-paying jobs they used to have. Structural unemployment has increased…..”


                    1. ” Some people have been out of work for so long that they’ll never be able to return to the high-paying jobs ”

                      Right and those people have Obama to thank for their predicament. Right now the President at the cost of growth, in contrast to immediate satisfaction desired by the left, is looking at the bigger picture and trying to make a deal with China so that in the future our high tech jobs and other jobs aren’t stolen by the Chinese inflicting more pain on the American public.

                      Anon and people like him that require immediate gratification will cause future generations to be impoverished. The left is rooting for China and Russia so it can get back into power.

                    2. Wait! I thought this would all be “easy”. Too bad Trump bugged out of the TPP which is cooking along without us – it’s largest member – and was designed as an economic counterweight to China.

                    3. “Trump bugged out of the TPP …”

                      Here is a man who talks but doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Comments are closed.