Tag Archives: Fake News

Leaked tape shows how CNN coaches guests to benefit the Democrat party

Why do people think that CNN are biased leftist clowns?
Why do people think that CNN are biased leftist clowns?

One of the main things I’m trying to do with this blog is counter the lies that the mainstream media spreads. In this post, I wanted to share some leaked audio from yesterday showing how CNN coaches its guest into order to put on a show for their viewers that will persuade those viewers to vote Democrat. After that, I’ll go over peer-reviewed studies about left-wing bias in the media.

Here’s the new story from Daily Wire:

Fox News host Tucker Carlson released a bombshell tape on Wednesday night that showed CNN host Chris Cuomo coaching then-Trump attorney Michael Cohen on how to answer questions during interviews on CNN.

“Zucker and Cuomo … are frauds, just like the channel they work for,” Carlson began. “Despite its name, CNN is not a cable news network, it is a slickly produced propaganda loop. Every topic CNN covers has been chosen for its political effect. Every word its anchors speak has been curated to manipulate you. Nothing winds up on CNN by accident.”

“The whole thing is a scripted drama written for the benefit of the Democratic Party,” Carlson continued. “That’s not an overstatement; tonight we have proof. This is a conversation that took place in 2018 between CNN anchor Chris Cuomo and his friend, the disgraced felon lawyer Michael Cohen. The two spoke in person. Cohen wanted Cuomo to prepare him for an interview he’d been asked to do on CNN. As Michael Cohen put it, he wanted ‘Guidance, as a friend more than anything.’”

[…]“I think the way this conversation goes is almost exactly the way we’re having it right now, which is where I say, ‘this looks shady’ and you say, ‘it looks shady to you because you’re coming in with a specific intention,’” Carlson read from the script of what Cuomo told Cohen. “Again, Cuomo advised Cohen to attack the anchor.”

“Chris Cuomo began acting out both sides of the exchange—he acted out the news anchor’s question and then he acted Cohen’s scripted response to that question,” Carlson continued. “The conversation devolved into a kind of one-man play with Chris Cuomo as the performer and Michael Cohen as the audience.”

Let’s learn about media bias using these peer-reviewed studies.

Here’s a UCLA study on media bias.

Excerpt:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume” and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

From the Washington Examiner, a study of the political contributions made by the mainstream media.

Excerpt:

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.

And more from a study done by the radically leftist MSNBC.

Excerpt:

MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

Those are the facts.

So what?

The problem with biased reporting is that it creates a large block of low-information Democrat voters who vote on the basis of their feelings about the personality of the people running for election. They don’t know a thing about policies or demonstrated achievements. They’re voting based on how the media has trained them to feel about the personalities of the people running. They’re not hiring someone to do a job. They’re picking someone in order to feel good and signal their virtue to others.

Here is a funny exchange that my friend Laura had with a black friend:

Her: So you’re voting for Biden?
Him: Definitely
Her: What do you like about Biden?
Him: He was with Obama
Her: So?
Him: Obama’s black
Her: What is one policy issue you agree with Biden on?
Him: I don’t know. What’s one policy issue you agree with Trump on?
Her: Deregulating bureaucratic red tape causing the lowest unemployment rate among black Americans ever recorded.
Him: I didn’t know about that.
Her: This country is screwed

Mr. Low-information voter doesn’t know about numbers, like unemployment rates. Or about Trump being the most pro-life president ever according to pro-life groups. He doesn’t know a thing about fiscal policy, social policy, foreign policy, judges, etc. He doesn’t read books. He watches the news. Maybe he watches the Comedy Channel for news. But he’s going to vote anyway.

Just keep that in mind when you are watching the mainstream media news shows. A very good site to bookmark and read is Newsbusters, which documents mainstream media bias daily.

FBI notes reveal doubts about Steele dossier promoted by news media leftists

Left to right: Comey, Lynch, Clinton, McCabe
Left to right: Comey, Lynch, Clinton, McCabe

The mainstream media is being silent about revelations that the FBI had major doubts about the Steele dossier. So, let’s take a look at the newly-released FBI notes.

Here’s the latest from the Wall Street Journal:

A Senate committee released newly declassified documents that showed the Federal Bureau of Investigation was wary in early 2017 of a dossier compiled by ex-British spy Christopher Steele that helped stir a narrative, later debunked, that the Trump campaign had close ties to Russian intelligence.

The documents released Friday by the Senate Judiciary Committee included FBI notes from three days of interviews with a primary source of Mr. Steele who cast doubt on some of the dossier’s contents. FBI notes from the interview in early 2017 indicated that Mr. Steele’s source had told him information about Mr. Trump’s alleged sexual escapades was “rumor and speculation” that he was unable to confirm.

Also released were notes of a former high-level FBI agent, Peter Strzok, who wrote that Mr. Steele himself “may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his subsource network.’’

Reacting to a New York Times report in February 2017 that said the Trump campaign and people around the candidate had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence officials, Mr. Strzok wrote in the margins of a printed copy of the article that “we are unaware of any Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.”

Actually, Strozk wrote a lot more than that.

I found more FBI notes here:

Document number two, also withheld from public view until now, takes apart a New York Times article written by Michael Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti, and Matt Apuzzo.

Comments made by then-FBI agent Peter Strzok undercut a litany of claims made in the Times article, which was entitled: “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contact With Russian Intelligence.”

Claim in NYT article: “Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.”

Note by Strzok: “This statement is misleading and inaccurate as written. We have not seen evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians (both Governmental and non-Governmental)” and “There is no known intel affiliation, and little if any [government of Russia] affiliation[.] FBI investigation has shown past contact between [Trump campaign volunteer Carter] Page and the SVR [Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation], but not during his association with the Trump campaign.”

Claim in NYT article: “… one of the advisers picked up on the [intercepted] calls was Paul Manafort, who was Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman for several months …”

Note by Strzok: “We are unaware of any calls with any Russian government official in which Manafort was a party.”

Claim in NYT article: “The FBI has obtained banking and travel records …”

Note by Strzok: “We do not yet have detailed banking records.”

Claim in NYT article: “Officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, and how many of Trump’s advisers were talking to the Russians.”

Note by Strzok: “Again, we are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intel officials” and “Our coverage has not revealed contact between Russian intelligence officers and the Trump team.”

Claim in NYT article: “The FBI asked the NSA to collect as much information as possible about the Russian operatives on the phone calls …”

Note by Strzok: “If they did we are not aware of those communications.”

Claim in NYT article: “The FBI has closely examined at least four other people close to Mr. Trump … Carter Page … Roger Stone… and Mr. Flynn.”

Note by Strzok: “We have not investigated Roger Stone.”

Claim by NYT: “Senior FBI officials believe … Christopher Steele … has a credible track record.”

Note by Strzok: “Recent interviews and investigation, however, reveal Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of subsource network.”

Claim by NYT: “The FBI’s investigation into Mr. Manafort began last spring [2016].”

Note by Strzok: “This is inaccurate … our investigation of Manafort was opened in August 2016.”

Claim by NYT: “The bureau did not have enough evidence to obtain a warrant for a wiretap of Mr. Manafort’s communications, but it had the NSA closely scrutinize the communications of Ukrainian officials he had met.”

Note by Strzok: “This is inaccurate …”

Basically, everything the New York Times wrote was judged by Peter Strozk – the anti-Trump FBI adulterer – as inaccurate. Keep that in mind the next time you read something in the New York Times. It’s just fake news, from front to back, top to bottom. Every day. People read it for feelings – not for an accurate view of the world.

There is a nice re-cap of left-wing news sources trumpeting the Steel dossier as genuine in this Twitter thread. Make note of the names, and don’t trust these news sources in the future. CNN, MSNBC, Brian Stelter, Rachel Maddow, New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait, Catherine Rempell, Katy Tur, Mother Jones, David Corn, Newsweek, Slate, Rick Wilson, Joy Reid, Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, Charles Blow, Seth Abramson, Matthew Dowd, Kurt Eichenwald, The Daily Beast, The New Yorker, etc.

The Federalist had some details about the source for the Steele dossier.

The Primary Subsource was in reality Steele’s sole source, a longtime Russian-speaking contractor for the former British spy’s company, Orbis Business Intelligence. In turn, the Primary Subsource had a group of friends in Russia. All of their names remain redacted. From the FBI interviews, it becomes clear that the Primary Subsource and his friends peddled warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed up as formal intelligence memos.

On Twitter, I found a thread that presented a case that the source of the dossier was a PRESS SECRETARY. Not an intelligence agent.  Not a “veteran spy”. A PRESS SECRETARY. I guess we’ll find out if this is correct soon.

Barack Obama used the FBI as a Democrat weapon against the Trump administration

Barack Obama and his corrupt ally in the FBI
Barack Obama and his corrupt ally in the FBI

Another Obama administration scandal came out last week. We already knew that the Obama administration used the IRS to suppress Americans they disagreed with. The Clinton campaign and the DNC helped fund the Russia dossier, that was used to get permission to spy on Trump’s campaign. The latest scandal goes right back to the White House and Barack Obama himself.

The New York Post reports:

It’s now clear the Obama-Comey FBI and Justice Department never had anything more substantial than the laughable fiction of the Steele dossier to justify the “counterintelligence” investigation of the Trump campaign. Yet incessant leaks from that supposedly confidential probe wound up consuming the Trump administration’s first months in office — followed by the Bob Mueller-led special-counsel investigation that proved nearly the “total witch hunt” that President Trump dubbed it.

Information released as the Justice Department dropped its charges against Gen. Mike Flynn shows that President Barack Obama, in his final days in office, played a key role in fanning the flames of phony scandal. Fully briefed on the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation, he knew the FBI had come up with nothing despite months of work starting in July 2016.

Yet on Jan. 5, 2017, Obama told top officials who’d be staying on in the new administration to keep the crucial facts from Team Trump.

It happened at an Oval Office meeting with Vice President Joe Biden, intel chiefs John Brennan and Jim Clapper and National Security Adviser Susan Rice, as well as FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.

The Obama administration leaked all sorts of unproven allegations to their lapdogs in the liberal media, all designed to destroy the credibility of the Trump administration:

[T]he Obama administration went on a full-scale leak offensive — handing The Washington Post, New York Times and others a nonstop torrent of “anonymous” allegations of Trumpite ties to Moscow. It suggested that the investigations were finding a ton of treasonous dirt on Team Trump — when in fact the investigators had come up dry.

Sadly, Comey’s FBI played along — sandbagging Flynn with the “friendly” interview that later became the pretext for the bogus charges dropped last week, as well as triggering the White House chaos that led to his ouster. This, when the FBI had already gone over the general with a fine-tooth comb, and concluded that, no, he’d done nothing like collude with the Russians.

Meanwhile, Comey himself gave Trump an intentionally misleading briefing on the Steele dossier. That was followed by leaks that suggested the dossier was the tip of an iceberg, rather than a pack of innuendo that hadn’t at all checked out under FBI scrutiny.

Fortunately, people are starting to realize that the mainstream news media is working for the Democrats and lying to the American people all the time.

Here’s an example of left-wing media bias from last week from the far-left CBS News:

Top government officials slammed CBS News’ “60 Minutes” after co-host Scott Pelley ran a segment on Sunday night that contained false and misleading claims on certain aspects of the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, which originated in Wuhan, China.

And also from last week, another example of left-wing media bias from the far-left NBC News:

NBC News’ “Meet The Press” admitted late on Sunday that their segment earlier in the day on remarks made by Attorney General William Barr last week was false after host Chuck Todd was called out publicly by a spokesperson for the Department of Justice.

It’s not so bad that the news media is almost entirely composed of Democrat activists. The problem is that they lie and lie and lie all the time. They can’t stop themselves from lying to their viewers.

If you’re watching news on television and it’s not Fox News, you’re being lied to. Period. Some people like to listen to lies, because it makes them feel that they are smart, and other Americans are stupid. Don’t be one of these self-deceiving people.

CNN and MSNBC cut off Democrat governors praising Trump’s handling of virus crisis

Did you see Trump’s briefing on Monday night about the Wuhan virus? He was able to show a timeline of his responses to the virus, as well as clips of various Democrat governors praising his handling of the crisis. He also had tons of good news to report, and re-affirmed his intention to re-open the country at the beginning of May. But CNN and MSNBC were not pleased.

Here’s the 4-minute video that Trump showed that got him into trouble with the Democrat journalists:

The Daily Wire explains:

President Donald Trump played a video during the White House Coronavirus Press Briefing on Monday that showed the media’s initial response to the coronavirus outbreak and highlighted his response to the outbreak and showed Democratic governors around the country praising the Trump administration for the work they did.

[…]The video highlighted the following comments from governors across the country. Here are a few of the examples included in the video:

  • New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D): “His team is on it. They’ve been responsive late at night, early in the morning and they’ve thus far been doing everything they can do and I want to say thank you and I want to say that I appreciate it.
  • California Governor Gavin Newsom (D): “He returns calls. He reaches out, he’s been proactive. We could that Mercy ship down here in Los Angeles, that was directly because he sent it down here. 2,000 medical units came to the state of California, these FMS, these field medical stations, and that’s been very, very helpful.
  • Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R): “The president has been outstanding through all this, the vice president has been outstanding, members of the Coronavirus Task Force, very responsive.”
  • New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy (D): “We had asked if we could have, if New Jersey could access to a piece of the beds that are on the USNS Comfort and the president came back, called me, assured me a few minutes before I walked in here to say that they would grant that to New Jersey. So that’s big step for us in addition to all the other capacity. I thank the president and vice president who were on the call.”

CNN cut away from the press conference shortly after the video started playing and MSNBC followed suit several moments later.

And here’s what CNN had on before cutting away, when Trump was explaining all the things that everyone (nurses, doctors, Army Corps of Engineers, etc.) were doing to solve the actual problem:

You won’t be able to get an accurate view of the world if you watch CNN and MSNBC. They can’t tell you anything that makes Trump look competent. They can only tell you things that make Trump look incompetent. And they’ll even lie, in order to do the latter.

I noticed that the mainstream media is bashing Trump for not taking the virus seriously, but the fact is that he took action to ban incoming flights from China at the end of January. Dr. Fauci didn’t even think there was a problem as late as the end of Fenbruary – which is not an insult at all, because that’s how things looked based on what we knew at that time.

The Daily Wire explains:

Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who has served under three Republican and three Democrat presidents, apparently did not realize the threat of coronavirus as he said on February 29 that the virus did not pose a significant threat to Americans.

Fauci was asked on NBC News, “Dr. Fauci, it’s Saturday morning in America. People are waking up right now with real concerns about this; they want to go to malls and movies, maybe the gym as well. Should we be changing our habits, and if so, how?”

Fauci responded, “No. Right now, at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you’re doing on a day-by-day basis. Right now the risk is still low, but this could change; I’ve said that many times, even on this program. You’ve gotta watch out because although the risk is low now, you don’t need to change anything that you’re doing. When you start to see community spread, this could change and force you to become much more attentive to doing things that would protect you from spread.”

Far-left “journalists” are trying to make it look like Trump doesn’t listen to Dr. Fauci or the other scientific experts, but Dr. Fauci says that’s not true:

I think it’s important for everyone to understand that the mainstream media is in league with the Democrat party, and they are constantly lying and distorting the truth in order to get their boy Joe Biden into the White House in November. (And they don’t care that he’s been credibly accused of sexual assault, any more than they care about the credible allegations of rape against their boy Bill Clinton).

It’s almost time for the campaign to start. Get yourself lawn sign, make a donation, volunteer your time, share stories on social media, etc. Whatever it takes to stop these secular leftist fascists.

 

Are gay activists telling the truth about violence against transgender people?

Thinking about transgenderism
Thinking about transgenderism

I’ve been interviewing people to see how their views on moral issues are formed, especially the Christians. I noticed that most people don’t have time to consult evidence when forming their opinions. Whether they have a progressive worldview or the conservative view, it’s just easier to form that view based on wanting to feel good and be like instead of based on evidence.

Here’s some evidence from Quillette about one issue where views are often formed from feelings and peer-approval, instead of reason and evidence:

The claim that there’s an “epidemic” of fatal anti-transgender violence in the United States has been made widely in recent years. A Google search for the phrase “epidemic of anti-trans violence” turns up pieces from the New York Times, NBC National News, ABC National News, and the Human Rights Campaign, a leading LGBT lobby group—among 2,500,000 other results. The HRC’s primary on-point article was headlined ‘A National Epidemic: Fatal Anti-Transgender Violence,’ while the Times led with ‘Eighteen Transgender Killings This Year Raise Fears of an Epidemic.’ Transgender Day of Remembrance has been celebrated since the late 1990s to honor those “members of the transgender community whose lives were lost in acts of anti-transgender violence,” and the American Medical Association has stated on record that fatal attacks on transgender people—particularly minority trans women—constitute a large part of an “epidemic of violence” against the trans community.

What’s interesting is that even the far-left Human Rights Campaign, which leads the fight to suppress free speech critical of the gay agenda, admits that the numbers are tiny:

The Human Rights Campaign maintains a year-by-year database containing every known case of a transgender individual being killed by violent means, and gives this number as 29 in 2017, 26 in 2018, and 22 in 2019. Not only do these figures not reflect a year-by-year increase in attacks on trans persons—they are remarkably consistent, and may be trending slightly downwards—they also indicate that the trans murder rate is significantly lower than the murder rate for Americans overall.

Let’s crunch the numbers. Taking the HRC’s highest recent estimate of trans fatalities (29) as representative, and assuming the transgender population to be 0.6 per cent of the U.S. population—although some trans activists argue the true figure is as high as 3 per cent, which would make the murder rate even lower—the total number of murders in a hypothetical all-trans USA would be roughly 4,800 per year (4,833). In other words, if you multiply the population of the US (327,167,434) by 0.6 per cent you get a current transgender population estimate of 1,963,004.6, and if you divide that figure by 29 (the number of murders) you get 67,690—one murder per 67,690 trans citizens. That works out as a projected annual total of 4,833 murders (327,167,434/67,690) in an all-trans America, with an annual murder rate of 1.48 per 100,000 Americans. That’s about one-fourth of the actual current murder rate: there were 16,214 recorded homicides in the United States in 2018 (five per 100,000) and 17,294 in 2017. While LGBT advocates may be correct that there is some under-reporting of the transgender murder rate because not all trans individuals are “out,” the fact is that the murder rate for trans people would have to increase by 300-400 per cent to match the murder rate for the general population.

Well, to be fair, even one person being murdered is too much, but most of these victims were not killed because of any kind of discrimination or “hate”:

Not only is there no “epidemic” of murders of transgender individuals, it’s also not true that most trans murders are motivated by “hate.” The first case I reviewed while researching this article, that of Claire Legato, involved a trans woman killed while attempting to break up a physical dispute over a financial debt between her own mother and a close family friend. This was not atypical. The conservative writer Chad Greene, himself a member of the LGBT community, recently reviewed a sample of 118 of the cases of anti-trans homicide compiled by the Human Rights Campaign. His conclusion: exactly four of the perpetrators were clearly motivated by “anti-trans bias,” animus, or hatred. In contrast, 37 of the murders were due to domestic violence, and 24 involved sex workers and were largely the result of the dangerous working conditions associated with illegal sex work.

[…]In addition to not being hate crimes, the majority of transgender murders are intra-racial. According to Greene, whose conclusions align with my own analysis, 34 of the 37 identified murderers of black trans persons killed between 2015 and 2019 (89.5 per cent) are themselves black.

I think these numbers are useful to have at hand, should someone try to convince you to accept their view by claiming that not accepting their view has led to “a national epidemic” of violence. I’m against trying to convince people by bullying them with victimhood in any case. If you have a rational case that some view is morally right or wrong, then make your case. I am always very interested to see how secular leftists try to argue for a moral standard that is binding on those who disagree with them, when they believe the universe is a random accident with no plan or purpose.