Anyone at all familiar with Thomas Jefferson is well aware of our third president’s vital influence on the crafting of the American Constitution. While Jefferson is primarily known as the chief author of the Declaration of Independence and James Madison is primarily known as the early architect of what would become our Constitution and the prime mover behind the Bill of Rights, the two men were close friends, lived not very far apart in Virginia, and kept regular correspondence.
Jefferson and Madison were of like political minds, and during the Constitutional Convention, while Jefferson was across an ocean as U.S. Minister to France, the two men enjoyed an intense and productive correspondence about what the U.S. Constitution should look like.
My media hero of the week (more on this below), USA Today editor David Mastio, accurately sums up the rest of the story:
After the Constitution Convention was over, Jefferson had this other idea called a “Bill of Rights,” which you might have heard is a part of the Constitution. Jefferson sorta played a key role in all that First Amendment, Second Amendment stuff. If you don’t believe me, go ask the American Civil Liberties Union, which is big on rights like free speech and freedom of religion.
Saith the ACLU: “The American Bill of Rights, inspired by Jefferson and drafted by James Madison, was adopted, and in 1791 the Constitution’s first 10 amendments became the law of the land.”
The ACLU even quotes Jefferson’s argument: “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”
To get the basics of Jefferson’s role in the creation of the Bill of Rights, which are, as I mentioned, a pretty important part of the Constitution, all you have to do is read the Spark Notes version. Or you can get it in easy Q&A format from the U.S. Archives.
Not to take anything away from Mr. Mastio, who did a righteous thing defending Ben Carson, but none of this is a secret, or hidden history. It’s not even deep-dive history. Anyone who has picked up a biography of Jefferson or Madison is well aware of this.
Apparently, the following news outlets – CNN, Politico, and the Washington Post – have not picked up that biography, or they are intentionally smearing Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson… again.
During a Monday appearance on C-Span, Carson said, quite correctly, that he admired Jefferson primarily for his role in helping to craft the Constitution:
But I’m particularly impressed with Thomas Jefferson, who seemed to have very deep insight into the way that people would react and tried to craft our Constitution in a way that it would control people’s national tendencies and control the natural growth of the government.
The reaction from the DC Media on Twitter was not just instantaneously ignorant, it was fantastically ignorant. Within moments my Twitter stream was buried in smug reporters laughing and dehumanizing the black apostate conservative who doesn’t – har, har – know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Except, as Mr. Mastio points out, they are all wrong.
One-hundred percent wrong.
Rather than crack open a book or use that Google-thingy right in front of them, Politico, The Washington Post, and CNN actually went so far as to publish stories claiming Carson got it wrong.
Worse still, but to no one’s surprise, all three outlets have refused to properly correct their provable errors.
Politico’s Nolan McCaskill:
Carson says, wrongly, that Thomas Jefferson crafted the Constitution…
The problem: Jefferson crafted the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. In fact, Carson noted Jefferson’s absence in his book, “A More Perfect Union,” writing that he was “missing in action” during the birth of the Constitution as he served abroad as ambassador to France.
I’ve reached out to McCaskill to ask if he is going to correct his post. As of now, he has not responded. This is the same Politico that admitted to lying (only after being caught) about Carson’s West Point story.
CNN’s Gregory Krieg:
Carson flubs Thomas Jefferson’s role in the Constitution…
But as the Washington Post noted Monday morning, Jefferson was a no-show at the Constitutional Convention and was instead an ocean away in Paris as Minister to France, while his North American-based colleagues were crafting the foundational document.
I’ve reached out to Krieg to ask if he intends to correct his story. As of now, he has not yet responded. This is the same CNN that published racially-motivated serial lies about key elements in Carson’s biography.
Via Twitter, Mastio tells me CNN did update the piece. Nevertheless, the incorrect headline remains.
Washington Post’s Fred Barbash:
Ben Carson, author of book about the Constitution, incorrectly states that Thomas Jefferson crafted it…
That did not stop Carson from praising Jefferson in a C-Span interview Sunday as one of the most impressive of the Founding Fathers because he “tried to craft our Constitution in a way that it would control peoples’ natural tendencies and control the natural growth of the government.”
I’ve reached out to Barbask to ask if he intends to correct his story. As of now, he has not responded. This is the same Washington Post that lied about Carson comparing Syrian refugees to rabid dogs.
When the entire media has risen up and proclaimed that This Is The Narrative, it cannot be easy for one of their own to say, “Actually, uhm, you’re 100% wrong.” The USA Today’s David Mastio deserves enormous credit for publishing the truth and doing so using the mockery deserved.
A man, who just two years ago was the poster boy for the far-Left media’s attacks against the U.S. government’s no-fly list for “unfairly” targeting Muslims, finds himself and several family members sitting in a Turkish prison – arrested earlier this month near the Turkey-Syria border as members of an ISIS cell.
It’s a long way from 2013 when Saadiq Long’s cause was being championed by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, Glenn Greenwald, and Mother Jones, and was being represented by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) terror front.
His story got considerable media attention when his CAIR media representatives here pushed the story that Long wanted to return to his native Oklahoma from his current home in Qatar to visit his ailing mother but couldn’t because he was on the TSA’s no-fly list. They said his case represented institutional “Islamophobia.”
Long’s cause got international attention when Glenn Greenwald published an article at The Guardian saying that Long was “effectively exiled from his own country.” Kevin Drum of Mother Jones branded it the “Kafkaesque World of the No-Fly List.” CAIR has 22 article entries related to Long’s case on its website.
After several months of wrangling between his CAIR attorneys and the Department of Homeland Security, Long was temporarily removed from the no-fly list and allowed to return to Oklahoma.
Once home, however, he was still subject to FBI surveillance according to claims he made during a press conference with his CAIR handlers.
After an incident with local police and the FBI, Long was apparently placed back on the no-fly list, preventing his return to Qatar.
That prompted even more outrage from the far-Left media and garnered him an appearance with his CAIR handler on Chris Hayes’ MSNBC show:
1:27 PM – 15 Feb 2013
US Air Force veteran, finally allowed to fly into US, is now banned from flying back home | Glenn…
Glenn Greenwald: Secret, unaccountable no-fly lists are one of many weapons the US government uses to extra-judicially punish American Muslims
U.S. and Turkish officials confirmed Long’s arrest to PJ Media, saying that he was arrested along with eight others operating along the Turkish-Syrian border. So far, no U.S. media outlet has reported on his arrest.
I have emailed Long’s CAIR handler, Adam Soltani, asking for comment. An email to his attorney Gadeir Abbas was returned as undeliverable.
This morning, leftist propaganda rags and conservative news blogs alike pounced on a story about Donald Trump’s ‘Plan For A Muslim Database‘ in America. I won’t even bother going into the specifics of the issue here, since several right-wing talk radio hosts have already completely dismantled the story. In essence, it was a load of shit, and anyone who believed the Jurassic media’s “reporting” on the matter, without bothering to independently confirm that it was actually true before jumping on the anti-Trump bandwagon, is a waste of fucking space.
Look, I get that there are a lot of people out there who don’t like Donald Trump. The guy isn’t at the top of my candidates’ list either, but that doesn’t excuse anyone from spreading provably false rumors about the man. Hell, it’s not like there aren’t plenty of legitimate reasons to disapprove of The Donald. I’ve named several of them myself in previous articles, yet I’ve also attempted to impress upon my readers that as bad as Trump may be in certain respects, he’s the next Ronald Reagan when compared to ANY Democrat candidate you could name, and if given the choice between siding with him or throwing in with the likes of ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times or The Washington Post, the contest is over before it begins. I’ll stand by Trump every single day and twice on Sundays.
Need I remind you that this same sort of phony, left-wing journalism reared its ugly head just two weeks ago? At that time it was Ben Carson who was targeted with accusations that he lied about being offered a scholarship to West Point during his ROTC days, and many in the so-called conservative press regurgitated the words of the Democrat-controlled MSM without hesitation. Of course, it didn’t take long for people who don’t have their heads crammed firmly up their own asses to destroy the credibility of the leftist pricks who’d made the story up out of whole cloth.
Before long they’ll be going after some other top-tier GOP candidate like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, and certain right-leaning news outlets with political axes to grind will copy and paste these leftists’ headlines onto their websites, thus affording the swine a legitimacy they’ve never earned while effectively undermining the entire Republican primary field in the process. Apparently, several of my fellow conservative bloggers have forgotten the age-old adage: when you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
Suffice it to say that for every leftist-inspired, journalistic hit-job you embrace, you take one step closer to becoming one of the very neo-socialist media whores you claim to hate. Take it from someone who has made similar mistakes in the past and has lived to regret them, that road ends in shame. Yes, I too have re-posted articles on this very blog that turned out to be totally unfounded, for the simple reason that I WANTED TO BELIEVE THEY WERE TRUE. Granted, those few stories originated from hacks on the right side of the blogosphere, but that fact doesn’t make my actions any more righteous or admirable. I bought into the bullshit because I thought it served my political interests, but I was dead wrong!
Spreading false information in the name of an agenda is beneath me, just as it is beneath anyone out there who calls himself a conservative. It’s the truth we should be concerned with above all else, because if we can’t at least hold the high ground in that respect, how exactly are we any better than Hillary Clinton?
By Edward L. Daley
We may finally find out who the real “Jackie” is thanks to this lawsuit.
Via Houston Chronicle:
The fraternity that was the focus of a debunked Rolling Stone article about a gang rape filed a $25 million lawsuit against the magazine Monday, saying the piece made the frat and its members “the object of an avalanche of condemnation worldwide.”
The complaint, filed in Charlottesville Circuit Court, also names Sabrina Rubin Erdely as a defendant. It is the third filed in response to the November 2014 article entitled “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA.”
Three individual fraternity members and recent graduates are suing for at least $225,000 each, and a university associate dean who claims she was portrayed as the “chief villain” is suing the magazine for more than $7.5 million.
Never underestimate the capacity of the media to propagandize against Republicans.
That’s the theme of this morning’s overwrought news coverage on Dr. Ben Carson’s supposed “lie” regarding a “scholarship” to West Point. The story began with Politico, which ran with the audacious headline, “Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship.” Even I was taken in by the headline – after all, that’s a pretty bold claim!
Politico began thusly:
Ben Carson’s campaign on Friday admitted, in a response to an inquiry from POLITICO, that a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated: his application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
The key word here is “fabricated.” Did the Carson campaign admit any such thing? Absolutely not. The facts reported by Politico don’t even support this interpretation of the Carson campaign’s response. According to Politico, Carson said in his 1992 memoir Gifted Hands that he was offered a “full scholarship” to West Point after dining with General William Westmoreland in 1969. Here’s the relevant passage from Carson’s autobiography:
At the end of my twelfth grade I marched at the head of the Memorial Day parade. I felt so proud, my chest bursting with ribbons and braids of every kind. To make it more wonderful, We had important visitors that day. Two soldiers who had won the Congressional Medal of Honor in Viet Nam were present. More exciting to me, General William Westmoreland (very prominent in the Viet Nam war) attended with an impressive entourage. Afterward, Sgt. Hunt introduced me to General Westmoreland, and I had dinner with him and the Congressional Medal winners. Later I was offered a full scholarship to West Point. I didn’t refuse the scholarship outright, but I let them know that a military career wasn’t where I saw myself going.
That’s the entire relevant portion of Carson’s account. He reiterated that account last month in an interview with Charlie Rose, when he said, “I was offered a full scholarship at West Point, got to meet General Westmoreland and go to Congressional Medal of Honor dinners. But decided really my pathway would be medicine.”
Politico followed up on this story. They reported one additional pieces of information that seem to conflict with Carson’s story: Carson never applied to West Point, and was never extended admission.
But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied.
In fact, that’s exactly what Carson’s campaign manager said to Politico in an email:
Dr. Carson was the top ROTC student in the City of Detroit. In that role he was invited to meet General Westmoreland. He believes it was at a banquet. He can’t remember with specificity their brief conversation but it centered around Dr. Carson’s performance as ROTC City Executive Officer. He was introduced to folks from West Point by his ROTC Supervisors. They told him they could help him get an appointment based on his grades and performance in ROTC. He considered it but in the end did not seek admission.
But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”
That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange.
Now, some on the right are saying that Carson should be held to a higher standard here than other candidates because he’s running as an “outsider.” But this is a basic case of misinterpreting facts, not an outright lie. Carson served in ROTC. Prominent people wanted him to go to West Point. He wouldn’t have had to pay. He didn’t apply because he didn’t want to go. Those facts are not in dispute. It’s the specific wording over which media have decided to crucify him.
This is a textbook example of a left-wing media hit. Politico would never editorialize about any Democrat who issued such a response to a factual inquiry in this manner. Politico won’t even conclude that Hillary Clinton lied about her attribution of the Benghazi attacks to a YouTube video despite email evidence that she knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack entirely unrelated to a YouTube video.
But for Ben Carson, they’ll make an exception.
UPDATE: Dave Weigel of The Washington Post rightly points out this from Carson’s Facebook page circa August:
I was the highest student ROTC member in Detroit and was thrilled to get an offer from West Point. But I knew medicine is what I wanted to do. So I applied to only one school. (it was all the money I had). I applied to Yale and thank God they accepted me. I often wonder what might have happened had they said no.
Weigel also points out that Carson said as much in his book – the same book Politico quoted to pretend that Carson lied.
So Politico lied again – Carson never even claimed to have applied to West Point.
The Carson campaign has denied the Politico headline, of course, because the headline is factually untrue. They told The Daily Caller, “The Politico story is an outright Lie… The campaign never ‘admitted to anything.’ This is what we have come to expect from Politico.”
“The campaign never ‘admitted to anything,’” a spokesman for Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson told The Daily Caller News Foundation in response to a hit by Politico claiming his campaign admitted to “fabricating” a key point about his West Point story.
“The Politico story is an outright Lie,” Doug Watts told TheDCNF.
Politico published a piece Friday claiming Carson’s campaign “admits fabricating” the fact that he applied and was admitted to West Point.
“Ben Carson’s campaign on Friday admitted, in a response to an inquiry from POLITICO, that a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated: his application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point,” Kyle Cheney writes in the lede.
The Carson campaign disputes Politico’s unsubstantiated claim he ever claimed to have applied to West Point or been admitted: “He never said he was admitted or even applied.”
“This is what we have come to expect from Politico.”
Here is the full statement Watts provided to TheDCNF:
“Dr Carson was the top ROTC student in the City of Detroit. In that role he was invited to meet General Westmoreland. He believes it was at a banquet. He can’t remember with specificity their brief conversation but it centered around Dr. Carson’s performance as ROTC City Executive Officer.
He was introduced to folks from West Point by his ROTC Supervisors. They told him they could help him get an appointment based on his grades and performance in ROTC. He considered it but in the end did not seek admission. There are “Service Connected” nominations for stellar High School ROTC appointments. Again he was the top ROTC student in Detroit. I would argue strongly that an Appointment is indeed an amazing full scholarship. Having ran several Congressional Offices I am very familiar with the Nomination process.
Again though his Senior Commander was in touch with West Point and told Dr. Carson he could get in, Dr Carson did not seek admission.
The Politico story is an outright Lie. Dr. Carson as the leading ROTC student in Detroit was told by his Commanders that he could get an Appointment to the Academy. He never said he was admitted or even applied.
The campaign never “admitted to anything”
This is what we have come to expect from Politico.”
Politico reporter Kyle Cheney, who has the byline on the Carson story, did not immediately respond to multiple requests for comment.
By now, many have seen the reports that the clock was not a clock as the media is reporting. The video here does a great job of explaining why this “project” may have been an intentional ploy for CAIR’s agenda (GatewayPundit exposed details on this back story). JihadWatch reports that the family is now claiming the boy was “severely traumatized” and hires lawyers (who most likely represent CAIR). When MRCTV interviewed student’s on a college campus and they were shown the actual picture of the “clock,” all agree that they thought it was a picture of a bomb and would notify authorities if they saw this “invention” in a public space.
The No Agenda radio show with Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak does a great analysis on their Sep. 22 show (audio clip here). Curry and Dvorak dissect the carefully parsed answer from Ahmed to the press when the question is posed regarding the conversation Ahmed had with his teacher. The answer is simply “No” – NO OPENESS on the topic allowed and no details given.
Well maybe the tight lipped response was due to the fact that there was no “PROJECT” – thus no need for the suitcase clock to be discussed with the teacher. The Mayor of Irving, TX (a town not far from the Garland, TX shooting) presents some interesting insights in the audio from the Sep 24 show clip below. One insight seems to be that Ahmed probably never had the conversation he claims to have had in showing off his “invention” to the teacher, but rather the teacher simply found the suitcase and reacted to the suitcase, and did not know who the suitcase belonged to thus was NOT reacting to Ahmed (which again, may explain why the answer to the media’s question was “NO”). Listen to the full clip (directly at YouTube link here), or below:
Highlights of the above segment as follows:
1:00 minute marker: Garland, TX is near by Irving, TX, and CAIR is attempting to set up Islam tribunal courts, thus the Mayor is helping to enforce a measure to protect the constitution and U.S. law.
6:00 minute marker: The clock stunt was planned with CAIR for “civilization jihad”… possibly in response to the U.S. law being prepared in Irving, TX. Recall that the father of the Muslim kid has a past history with pushing Islam.
8:30 minute marker: Irving Mayor talking about the other side of the story that is not being reported by media… the family is ignoring any requests to cooperate. The breakdown of the High School… less than 10% of the demographics is white, thus racism is not a factor. The Muslim Clock kid was NON-Cooperative with police. The teacher did not know who the device belonged to… she was reacting to the device… not the student.
10:55 minute marker: Irving Mayor discusses that the kid is a constant “no-show” at scheduled meetings. The same time Ahmed was supposed to meet with the police chief and mayor… Ahmed was having a press conference instead with the CAIR representatives close at hand.
12:00 minute marker: Irving Mayor confirms that the timing of Obama’s pro-Muslim clock kid tweet is odd… in which Obama once again jumps to conclusions before facts are released.
For anyone that missed the Bill Maher clip mentioned in the audio, the full clip can be seen here.
Bob Owens exposes the latest attempt to dismiss the positive results of concealed carry
Despite being contradicted by previous research and the regularly documented instances we and other sites publish of concealed carriers thwarting crime, a Texas academic is attempting to claim that concealed carriers are not reducing crime, which the media is happy to echo.
Supporters insist that allowing people to legally carry concealed handguns reduces crime, but that has not been the result in at least four states that have tried it, including Texas, according to a newly published academic study led by a Texas A&M researcher.
The study published in the Journal of Criminology looked at the connection between crime rates and concealed handgun permits for each county in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida and Texas.
Researchers used two sources of data from 1998 to 2010: concealed handgun license information and arrest data from Uniform Crime Reports, which the FBI compiles nationwide to gauge arrests for serious crimes including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft and arson.
Overall, they found no connection between allowing concealed weapons and crime rates, which are trending downward nationwide.
“The idea that concealed handguns lead to less crime is at the center of much firearms legislation, but the science behind that conclusion has been murky,” said study lead Charles D. Phillips, an emeritus regents professor at the Texas A&M Health Science Center School of Public Health, in a statement. “The results have been so inconclusive that the National Academy of Sciences in 2004 called for a new approaches to studying the issue, which is what we’ve done with this research.”
Oh boy, did you catch the glaring problem with the study? He did not compare the number of CHL permits to violent crime rates, or the number of self-defense uses by those CHL holders? Oh no. He compares the number of CHLs to arrest rates?
Phillips based his study on two data points: the number of concealed carry permits in a given county, and the number of arrests.
He found “no connection” because no connection does or should exist. Concealed carriers do not arrest people, and therefore Phillips’s “study” would seem to be nothing more or less than a formal fallacy.
Again, the Cult of Gun Control lies, because they have to
This story has been so annoying I’ve been mostly ignoring it, and while I’m generally not about conspiracy theories, this is… kinda weird.
So Ahmed has been invited to the White House and become an intern for Twitter because the media says evil racist cops and teachers arrested him for innocently bringing an invention, a clock, to his classroom. It’s Islamophobia!!!
But wait… what if… he didn’t actually build any clock?!
I’m an electronics geek. I was interested in the clock! I wanted to figure out what he had come up with.
I found the highest resolution photograph of the clock I could. Instantly, I was disappointed. Somewhere in all of this – there has indeed been a hoax. Ahmed Mohamed didn’t invent his own alarm clock. He didn’t even build a clock. Now, before I go on and get accused of attacking a 14 year old kid who’s already been through enough, let me explain my purpose. I don’t want to just dissect the clock. I want to dissect our reaction as a society to the situation. Part of that is the knee-jerk responses we’re all so quick to make without facts. So, before you scroll down and leave me angry comments, please continue to the end (or not – prove my point, and miss the point, entirely!)
For starters, one glance at the printed circuit board in the photo, and I knew we were looking at mid-to-late 1970s vintage electronics. Surely you’ve seen a modern circuit board, with metallic traces leading all over to the various components like an electronic spider’s web. You’ll notice right away the highly accurate spacing, straightness of the lines, consistency of the patterns. That’s because we design things on computers nowadays, and computers assist in routing these lines. Take a look at the board in Ahmed’s clock. It almost looks hand-drawn, right? That’s because it probably was. Computer aided design was in its infancy in the 70s. This is how simple, low cost items (like an alarm clock) were designed. Today, even a budding beginner is going to get some computer aided assistance – in fact they’ll probably start there, learning by simulating designs before building them.
Now, the blogger continues to show that basically what Ahmed did is buy an old clock, rip out it’s insides, stuff it into another box, and take off to school.
So I turned to eBay, searching for vintage alarm clocks. It only took a minute to locate Ahmed’s clock. See this eBay listing, up at the time of this writing. Amhed’s clock was invented, and built, by Micronta, a Radio Shack subsidary. Catalog number 63 756.
The shape and design is a dead give away. The large screen. The buttons on the front laid out horizontally would have been on a separate board – a large snooze button, four control buttons, and two switches to turn the alarm on and off, and choose two brightness levels. A second board inside would have contained the actual “brains” of the unit. The clock features a 9v battery back-up, and a switch on the rear allows the owner to choose between 12 and 24 hour time. (Features like a battery back-up, and a 24 hour time selection seems awful superfluous for a hobby project, don’t you think?) Oh, and about that “M” logo on the circuit board mentioned above? Micronta.
Sooooo… what happened here? The blogger draws some conclusions:
So there you have it folks, Ahmed Mohamad did not invent, nor build a clock. He took apart an existing clock, and transplanted the guts into a pencil box, and claimed it was his own creation. It all seems really fishy to me.
If we accept the story about “inventing” an alarm clock is made up, as I think I’ve made a pretty good case for, it’s fair to wonder what other parts of the story might be made up, not reported factually by the media, or at least, exaggerated.
I refer back again to this YouTube video interview with Ahmed. He explains that he closed up the box with a piece of cord because he didn’t want it to look suspicious. I’m curious, why would “looking suspicious” have even crossed his mind before this whole event unfolded, if he was truly showing off a hobby project, something so innocuous as an alarm clock. Why did he choose a pencil box, one that looks like a miniature briefcase no less, as an enclosure for a clock? It’s awful hard to see the clock with the case closed. On the other hand, with the case open, it’s awful dangerous to have an exposed power transformer sitting near the snooze button (unless, perhaps his invention was to stop serial-snooze-button pressers by giving them a dangerous electrical shock!)
Now I think it’s a real leap in logic to believe this was all an elaborate CAIR planned hoax. They would have done it better if it was. What it seems like is this dumb kid did this as a joke, got caught, and it was taken WAYY too far, and the easiest way to get out of it was to claim racism, or Islamophobia.
And the proof of this, is that he really didn’t invent the clock.
UPDATE!!! Here’s a video for those of you who don’t like to read long stuff:
1. CNN’s format was awful. The entire effort was intended to instigate fights between and among the candidates. They wanted a brawl. The early part of the debate was the worst – right out of the box, piling on Donald Trump. Like Trump or not, this is a Republican debate. As I’ve been saying for a while, when will the RNC stop turning over the GOP debates to the media? I find these debate formats demeaning of the candidates and not particularly informative.
2. Twice now Ted Cruz was treated as a third-tier candidate. He received very little time and was rarely called on. Moreover, when he tried to speak as a”skeptic” during the discussion about global warming – where Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie apparently accepted the supposed”science” of global warming – Jake Tapper rudely cut him off. When Cruz had about 60 uninterrupted seconds or so to address the Iran deal debacle, he was superb. Same with the Supreme Court. There appears to be a pattern in these debate to marginalize him. Unfortunately, given the nature of these debates, he needs to become a bit more aggressive in pushing his way into the discussions.
3. Tapper repeatedly sought a fight between Jeb Bush and Trump, which is why they wound up using more time than most of the other candidates. Did we learn anything from most of it? No.
4. Going in, I believe the establishment media were poised to declare Carly Fiorina a victor over Trump and most of the field as she has become one of the establishment favorites. The indications were everywhere. In fact, most of the same voices and writers who opposed Trump and before him Cruz are singing her praises today. They are no longer concerned about lack of governing background of an outsider or flip-flopping, etc. I remember in the 2010 GOP Senate primary race in California she staked out the moderate Republican position against State Representative Chuck DeVore. She didn’t sound like a traditional, Reagan conservative back then. And her response to the birthright citizenship questions were wrong and jumbled. In fact, Trump has a superior understanding of the issue. Rand Paul reluctantly had to agreed. And in that Senate campaign, Fiorina mocked Barbara Boxer’s looks (understandable), a fact ignored by Tapper last night. Why? The audio is public. Finally, her record as a corporate CEO is mixed. But do not expect it to be scrutinized by her cheerleaders in and out of the media. But the Democrats won’t ignore it. Let me be clear: I have nothing against Fiorina, but there’s reason to be at least a little skeptical.
See this: https://www.conservativereview.com/Commentary/2015/08/Does-Carly-Have-the-Record-to-Throw-These-Punches
(You can search the record further yourself, do not expect the media to do it for you.)
5. I thought Chris Christie did pretty well. He’s a good debater. But the problem is that his record belies much of his more recent conservative rhetoric and positions. Mike Huckabee always scores some solid points but, again, his record is shoddy (e.g., he supported virtually every GOP establishment candidate in recent Senate primary races). I remain perplexed as to why John Kasich belatedly jumped into the race. He has become more liberal than GOP primary voters and there were already a number of establishment candidates in the race. I like Ben Carson very much; however, his position on the minimum wage was not particularly strong. And his delivery is, sadly, problematic. There’s a middle ground between loudly provocative and speaking in such quiet tones. That said, I personally like him very much. Rand Paul did much better this time around in staking out his more libertarian views. But, again, his attack-dog tactics against Trump don’t help him. Scott Walker is a solid conservative with a record to prove it. He did better in this debate but he doesn’t shine in these debate formats. Jeb Bush did better in this debate as well, but he is still under-performing. In fact, many in the establishment media who were touting Bush are today cheerleaders for Fiorina. Had Bush scored well they’d be touting him. Finally, Trump came under an early withering assault, which was the game plan of both CNN and several of the other candidates. For the most part, he withstood the attacks. I may be in the minority but I thought he bested Fiorina on their back-and-forth about business acumen and birthright citizenship. In any event, he did no harm.
More tonight on my radio program.
H/T Right Scoop
Gee who would have thunk?
Via The American Mirror:
Jorge Ramos, the amnesty activist moonlighting as a Univision and Fusion journalist, revealed in June that his daughter is an employee of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
In a statement on the Fusion website, Ramos wrote:
As journalists the most important thing we have is our credibility and integrity. We maintain that, in part, through transparency with our audience, our colleagues and our critics. That is why I am disclosing that my daughter, Paola, has accepted a position working with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
A little more background on the Univision and Ramos bias, Univision doesn’t even bother to pretend Ramos is a fair journalist, they admit he’s pushing a political agenda.
As Univision News President Isaac Lee explained to a journalism forum at the University of Texas at Austin earlier this year, the journalism Ramos practices is focused on promoting a very particular agenda.
As is evident from Lee’s remarks, Ramos’ agenda is not focused on what’s best for the population of the country as a whole, but rather the interests of Univision’s audience, an audience that most certainly includes a sizeable portion of unauthorized immigrants to the United States, with whose amnesty agenda Ramos closely identifies.
“Univision’s audience knows that Jorge is representing them,” Lee said of how Ramos understands his role as the country’s leading Spanish-language journalist. “He is not asking the questions to be celebrated as a fair and balanced journalist. He’s asking the questions to represent them. He’s going to ask the person whatever is necessary to push the agenda for a more fair society, for a more inclusive society and for the Hispanic community to be better.”
The credibility and impartiality of Univision’s coverage of U.S. electoral politics has already been undermined by the network’s executive chairman, Haim Saban, pledging his “full might” to the mission of putting Hillary Clinton in the White House. That credibility has been further eroded by the network’s partnership with the Clinton Foundation.