Elections, Media, Politics

Hillary: ‘They Were Never Going To Let Me’ Win

That Hillary went into a seething tirade at her campaign watch party after learning she was losing isn’t exactly big news.

But the details concerning how all that went down on election night and what she said immediately upon learning it actually is news.

According to a new tell-all book, Hillary remarked cynically, “They were never going to let me be president.”

Of course, that begs the question who is ‘they’? Bill Clinton speculated that there was a conspiracy between the New York Times and Trump to secure his victory for the purpose of better headlines. Right.

Meanwhile, we’re aboard an alien spaceship in the Bermuda Triangle sipping mint juleps with Big Foot.

Moving right along.

Here’s more from Hotair…

One day, when Americans of stout heart rise up and declare themselves free of it, the 2016 election will be over, but … today is not that day, friends. While the minutiae and meaning of Donald Trump’s campaign continue to get dissected, the other campaign gets some attention in a new book from reporter Amy Chozick titled Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling.

The Daily Beast’s Gideon Resnick excerpts several passages from the book, none of which make Hillary Clinton sympathetic. For example, this recounting of her Election Night notification reminds everyone of both Hillary’s sense of entitlement and paranoia:

“Of all the Brooklyn aides, Jen Palmieri had the most pleasant bedside manner,” Chozick writes. “That made her the designated deliverer of bad news to Hillary. But not this time. She told Robby there was no way she was going to tell Hillary she couldn’t win. That’s when Robby, drained and deflated, watching the results with his team in a room down the hall from Hillary’s suite, labored into the hallway of the Peninsula to break the news. Hillary didn’t seem all that surprised. ‘I knew it. I knew this would happen to me….’ Hillary said, now within a couple of inches of his face. ‘They were never going to let me be president.’”


Media, Politics

Comey’s Book Proves Hillary Lied About Investigation

It seems like a century ago that Hillary Clinton was outed for the use of a personal email server after which the FBI’s investigation threatened to derail her nascent presidential ambitions.

Now fully three years later, James Comey’s new book is proving that Hillary was lying then, as we all knew she was.

Shortly after the investigation was made public, the NY Times ran a story about how the nature of the investigation was criminal.

Hillary exploded and the NYT issued a correction that the investigation simply concerned a ‘security referral’. But Comey’s book corrects the record: “By the time of the news story, we had a full criminal investigation open, focused on [Hillary’s] conduct.”

Game, set, match.

Here’s more from Redstate…

Bill and Hillary are both talented attorneys and know how to parse language with the best of them. They’re at their best when attempting to convince the public they’re innocent victims of a nefarious conservative plot to take them down.

A shining example comes out of James Comey’s book. Interestingly enough, the story appears in The New York Times, the same news organization that cowered in the face of Clinton campaign protests about a story they wrote in 2015:

James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, confirms in his new book that the bureau had already begun a criminal investigation focused on Hillary Clinton’s handling of her email in 2015 when her campaign and its allies excoriated journalists for reporting that such an inquiry was being contemplated.

The New York Times reported in July 2015 that two inspectors general had made a criminal referral to the Justice Department recommending an investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton had mishandled sensitive information by using a private email server as secretary of state. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, relying on a statement from President Obama’s Justice Department, complained vigorously to The Times, resulting in two corrections to the article.

The corrections said that the inspectors general had made a “security referral” rather than a “criminal referral” and that the referral did not request that Mrs. Clinton specifically be investigated. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign called the article an “erroneous story” with “egregious” errors that misled voters into thinking that she was at risk of being investigated by the F.B.I. for possible criminal violations when the referral was a more routine security matter not focused on her in particular. Critics of the news media, including the public editor of The Times, agreed.

Naturally, there is a “but” that follows:

But in “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership,” his memoir that is scheduled for release next week, Mr. Comey said the word-parsing by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the Justice Department was actually misleading because the F.B.I. was already conducting a criminal investigation focused on Mrs. Clinton by that point.

“Though The Times may have thought those clarifications were necessary, their original story was much closer to the mark,” Mr. Comey wrote. “It was true that the transmission to the F.B.I. from the inspector general did not use the word ‘criminal,’ but by the time of the news story, we had a full criminal investigation open, focused on the secretary’s conduct.”


Culture, Issues, Media

Easter: Google Snubs Christians for 18th Year in a Row

For the 18th year in a row, the execs at Google who are totally in favor of diversity and fairness have snubbed one-third of the planet.

When Ramadan, Kwanzaa and other equally obscure holidays in the West come around, Google jumps to celebrate.

But when it’s time for Easter — that event celebrated for 2,000-plus years which completely changed the globe forever — Google is curiously silent.

No special ‘doodle’ with something as inoffensive as painted eggs bothered to post up on the site.

As the phrase goes: your actions speak so loudly, we can’t hear a word you’re saying.

Here’s more from PJ Media…

For the 18th year in a row, Google refused to honor the Christian holiday of Easter with a celebratory “doodle” on its website, despite commemorating similar Hindu and Jewish festivals and dedicating an entire page to the Muslim festival of Ramadan.

Christians and conservatives on Twitter noted that Google did not put up a doodle to commemorate the holiday on Sunday.

“Why has Google not honored that obscure event known as Easter?” Townhall senior columnist Kurt Schlichter asked in a Twitter poll. A full 72 percent of over 7,000 votes chose “They hate Christians.”


Issues, Media

NPR Doesn’t Know What Easter Commemorates

Try to hold on to your Easter eggs. NPR (aka National Progressive Radio) — which is funded by your tax dollars — apparently doesn’t know the reason for the most celebrated holiday in the world, second only to Christmas.

That’s right. According to a column on NPR, Easter is “the day celebrating the idea that Jesus did not die and go to hell or purgatory or anywhere like that, but rather arose into heaven.”

They are so many things historically and theologically wrong with that statement it’s laughable.

The problem is it actually passed editorial standard and was posted on the NPR site.

Even the Washington Post acknowledged NPR is begging to be attacked by Christians for bias.

Here’s more from PJ Media…

Do we only publicly fund entities that don’t like Christians (looking at you, Planned Parenthood)?

This may seem like I’m being a hypersensitive Christian here but even The Washington Post said this error “practically begged Christians to renew charges that the media is biased against them.”

Feeling the need to Eastersplain to their postmodern, “no objective truth” fans, someone wrote an article for the NPR website that described Easter as “the day celebrating the idea that Jesus did not die and go to hell or purgatory or anywhere like that, but rather arose into heaven.”

Yeah, no.

Obviously, what is being described is the Ascension, which comes after Easter (May 13th in the Roman Rite this year).

They also got the “hell” part wrong too. As the Post article points out, we Roman Catholics and many other Christian denominations do say “he descended into hell,” as part of the Apostle’s Creed (which say when praying the Rosary).


Media, Politics

CNN’s Continues Airport Monopoly As It Veers Left

A quick run through any US airport will yield an observation familiar to any frequent traveler: the ubiquity of CNN on televisions throughout.

Is it just that airport executives all happen to be leftists or is something else going on?

The answer is very simple: CNN is paying huge chunks of cash to airports to get exclusive rights to play their increasingly leftist drivel in the terminals of the land.

So, because of the power of the big media dollar, 300 million travelers are subjected to CNN’s anti-Trump, anti-Republican, anti-conservative agenda with no choice at all except to try and tune it all out.

Good luck with that.

Here’s more from Fox News…

CNN’s ubiquitous presence in airports — where it broadcasts from thousands of screens to a captive audience of millions — is facing new scrutiny after the cable network’s hard left turn.

The CNN Airport network dates back to when CNN was known for straightforward news programming — and has been a fixture at airports since before competitors MSNBC and Fox News even existed. But critics are now asking if busy travelers should be subjected to CNN’s increasingly ideological programming — at gates, bars, food courts and baggage claims — which can include on-screen chyrons or subtitles that gleefully mock President Trump. Many travelers have even taken to Twitter and started online petitions to urge airports to change the channel.

Media Research Center Vice President Dan Gainor told Fox News that CNN has become more partisan than MSNBC since Trump moved into the White House and travelers should have the option of not watching the network.

“How are airports justifying the idea of bombarding captive viewers with content many of them oppose? Sadly, almost any outlet is fairer now than CNN,” Gainor said.

But CNN isn’t actually forced on travelers because airports are looking to disseminate liberal doctrine. It’s forced on travelers because of money.


Media, Politics

YouTube Bans Videos Advertising Guns

First it was Facebook, now it’s Youtube getting in on the anti-gun craze that’s sweeping the nation.

Youtube announced this week a new policy that any videos promoting the sale of guns or a tutorial on how gun parts can be made at home will be banned.

But the problem is there’s a whole bunch of grey area.

What about videos already posted? And what about videos that mention guns available for sale but not explicitly promoted with a link?

This is yet another knee-jerk by the leftmedia in hopes that good feelings with save us all from bad people.

What it’s actually doing is creating some great opportunities for competitors like Vimeo.

Here’s more from Hotair…

It’s not clear to me precisely what is and isn’t banned under the new guidelines. But that’s the point, right? The more ambiguous the new rules are, the easier it is to justify banning gun channels arbitrarily.

If I’m reading this correctly, simple demonstration videos showing how a particular gun operates aren’t banned *unless* they’re being used to promote sales. If you want to upload a video showing off your AR-15, you can — I think. If the gun’s manufacturer wants to upload a similar video with a link to where you can purchase it, nope. Banned. If the manufacturer wants to upload the same video without any link or express notice that they have that gun for sale? Unclear.

Likewise, I think it’s okay to upload a video showing how to install a commercially available gun accessory. What’s not okay are videos showing you how to manufacture that accessory yourself. No machining tutorials, no 3-D printed guns, no lessons on how to make your own bump stock — nothing that would give a crazy person ideas on how to modify his weapon to make it more lethal. In fact, even if your bump stock was purchased commercially, you can’t upload an installation video for it. There’s been a special anti-bump-stock rule in effect on YouTube since the Vegas massacre.


Culture, Media

Report: Matt Damon Leaving America Because Of Trump

Page Six is reporting that finally one Hollywood celeb has the gumption to back up his promise to leave the country after the election of the most recently vilified Republican president.

Celebs like Alec Baldwin, Lena Dunham, and Barbra Streisand have all promised to emigrate in the past. But Matt Damon is actually pulling the trigger.

The report cites the purchase of a home in Australia where he’ll move his wife and four kids so they can live a “safe life” free from that madman, Donald Trump.

We might have recommended Canada which would more likely have been his particular flavor of socialism. Nevertheless, good riddance.

Here’s more from Redstate…

It finally happened — after years of Hollywood celebrities vowing that the horrors they expected to endure during the tenure of a Republican president would force them to flee America, one of them is finally doing it.

According to Page Six, Matt Damon will be moving his family to Australia, “in part because the liberal star’s fed up with President Trump.”

Damon, 47, reportedly has purchased a property in Byron Bay, New South Wales, according to Sydney’s Sunday Telegraph. The home’s next door to a place owned by Chris Hemsworth — with whom Damon recently appeared in “Thor: Ragnarok.”

A source exclusively tells Page Six: “Matt’s telling friends and colleagues in Hollywood that he’s moving the family to Australia” because the activist actor disagrees with Trump’s policies. The president’s frequently butted heads with liberal Hollywood A-listers including Meryl Streep. The source added, “Matt’s saying the move will not impact his work — as he will travel to wherever his projects are shooting. He’s also telling friends he wants to have a safe place to raise his kids.” Damon has four children with wife Luciana Barroso.


Media, Politics

The Left: Calling Maxine Waters ‘Low IQ’ Is Racist

Yes, we know. It’s probably a little inconsiderate to insinuate someone is dumb. And maybe it’s a little beneath a president to belittle a congresswoman.

But apparently, it’s also racist.

That is if the charge is being leveled against someone with more melanin than the average person.

That’s right.

If you point out that a black person isn’t among the sharpest knives in the drawer, you’re a racist. But wait.

If that’s true, why oh why weren’t the lefties crying foul when Ben Carson was assailed during the primary campaign or perhaps Justice Clarence Thomas when he was repeatedly and viciously attacked?

So, let’s get this straight: if you offer negative remarks about any liberal minority member, you’re a racist.

Otherwise, carry on.

Here’s more from Redstate…

Over the weekend, Donald Trump held a rally for GOP Congressional candidate Rick Saccone in Moon Township in southwestern Pennsylvania. It was vintage Trump. Whether that is good or bad depends on who you are. In addition to not making friends in the press (I don’t know anything about Chuck Todd’s parentage and I think he looks more like a stunned mullet than sleepy, but Maggie Haberman was thought to be a flunky by the Clinton campaign), President Trump took a shot at California Congresswoman Maxine Waters:

“We have to defeat Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters, a very low I.Q. individual. You ever see her? You ever seen her? You ever see her? ‘We will impeach him! We will impeach the president!’ But he hasn’t done anything wrong. It doesn’t matter, we will impeach him! She’s a low I.Q. individual. You can’t help it. She really is.”


Issues, Media

WaPo: Thankful for Right to Abort Down Syndrome Babies

Remember the scandal late last year in Iceland when the official government’s declaration was that they had virtually eradicated Downs Syndrome…via abortion?

It rightly earned the vitriol of the pro-life world which pointed out the obvious: abortion doesn’t solve a genetic abnormality; it just ends human lives.

But clearly the Washington Post didn’t get that memo.

A columnist penned a piece this month celebrating the rationale for aborting Downs babies because, essentially, they’ll lead lesser lives than the rest of us and what lives they do lead will burden the rest of us.

Got that?

Your life is only as valuable as its offer of utility to the rest of the world.

Here’s more from Hotair…

Imagine feeling this way and having so little shame about it that you’d ask a major newspaper to publicize your point of view.

And now imagine that the paper prints it, reasoning that an opinion shared so widely must be “reasonable” and defensible by definition.

The worst part here is her patronizing praise of mothers who carry their children with Down’s to term. How admirable you are to bear the burden of this defective.

I respect — I admire — families that knowingly welcome a baby with Down syndrome into their lives. Certainly, to be a parent is to take the risks that accompany parenting; you love your child for who she is, not what you want her to be.

But accepting that essential truth is different from compelling a woman to give birth to a child whose intellectual capacity will be impaired, whose life choices will be limited, whose health may be compromised. Most children with Down syndrome have mild to moderate cognitive impairment, meaning an IQ between 55 and 70 (mild) or between 35 and 55 (moderate). This means limited capacity for independent living and financial security; Down syndrome is life-altering for the entire family.

I’m going to be blunt here: That was not the child I wanted. That was not the choice I would have made. You can call me selfish, or worse, but I am in good company. The evidence is clear that most women confronted with the same unhappy alternative would make the same decision.



Ex-Times Editor Carries an Obama Doll in Her Purse

If ever you’ve been tempted to second-guess the fact that the American mainstream media is dyed in the wool, socialist, never fear.

They’ll always, eventually remind us why it’s true.

Comes then Jill Abramson, former editor for New York Times, who wrote an opinion piece in the equally leftist UK rag, The Guardian, in which she revealed that she soothes her rattled nerves in the Trump era by grabbing hold of the Obama doll she carries in her purse.

She explained, “I pull him out every now and then to remind myself that the United States had a progressive, African-American president.”


Here’s more from Page Six…

Former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson revealed, in an opinion piece this week about the 2020 election, a bizarre superstition.

For the Guardian, Abramson — who famously has a Times-inspired tattoo — wrote, “It’s easy to look at what’s happening in Washington, DC, and despair. That’s why I carry a little plastic Obama doll in my purse. I pull him out every now and then to remind myself that the United States had a progressive, African-American president until very recently. Some people find this strange, but you have to take comfort where you can find it in Donald Trump’s America.”