Sunday, February 11, 2018

NYT Bait And Switch Editorial

                     
Image result for nyt logo
Editorial
1320 × 1056 - josephkanon.com
   Well talk about HYPOCRISY from the New York Times editorial board and I mean HYPOCRISY big time.
   This paper never attacks their buddies on the left side of the asile for debt spending but now they blame the GOP.
  The title of their lead OPED this morning "The Republicans have become the party of debt."
 It begins in attack mode "So much for all that sanctimony about fiscal responsibility. Forever and always, it can now be said that Republican lawmakers care about the federal deficit only when they want to use it to bash Democratic presidents.
 Correction it was the domestic spending from the Democrats (what the left wanted) as part of the 2 year budget.
 More lies "After embracing $1.5 trillion in debt by slashing taxes on corporations and wealthy families in December, the Republican leaders in Congress pushed through a two-year budget deal on Friday that will increase spending by nearly $400 billion. While a lot of that money will be spent on important priorities like disaster relief, infrastructure and education, a big chunk of it will go to an excessive and unnecessary military buildup. Contrast this with the parsimony Republican lawmakers displayed in 2011 when they refused to raise the federal debt limit until President Barack Obama agreed to deep cuts to government programs.“If you were against President Obama’s deficits, and now you’re for the Republican deficits, isn’t that the very definition of hypocrisy?” Senator Rand Paul said as he held up passage of the budget bill for a few hours — perhaps until he realized that the definition fit him, too, since he had voted for the tax cuts that will blow up the deficit.
 In purple bold type Umm no NYT you are the HYPERHYPERHYPERCRATS you assholes and you know it.
 More lies "Deficit spending can be an indispensable tool — to revive an ailing economy, invest in productive infrastructure, rebuild after natural disasters and pay for unavoidable wars. And it was vital for the government to run large deficits after the financial crisis, when the country was tumbling into the worst recession since the Depression.But the Republican leaders who opposed stimulus spending in 2011 and 2012, when many Americans were struggling to find jobs and the economy was in the doldrums, are now making the absurd argument that the government ought to do more to fuel the economy at a time when the unemployment rate is about half what it was back then and corporate profits have soared.
 First in the red bold type the economy went south because of the stimulus spending which down the road saw the emergence of the TEA PARTY movement in 2010.
Now the green bold type the GOP opposed the stimulus because all the $$ went to the jack booted left waste of $$$$.
  It goes on "Even with the economy growing at a decent clip, the government should raise spending on domestic programs that were slashed when Republicans demanded deep cuts. Nondefense spending relative to the economy is the lowest it has been since 1961 — 3.1 percent of gross domestic product, far below the long-term average of 3.8 percent, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
 Dilapidated roads, bridges, railways and water systems need to be upgraded and repaired.
 Hold on in gold bold type all that was supposedly taken care of with the SHOVEL READY JOBS  as Obama promised us. More bullshit lies.
  Puerto Rico, Texas and Florida still need help recovering from last year’s hurricanes and making themselves more resilient to future storms. Lawmakers also must spend more to end the opioid epidemic and increase access to substance abuse treatment. The budget bill only partly addresses many of these and other needs.
 More lies in green bold type.
  It goes on UH "But the deal Mr. Trump approved on Friday also includes a $165 billion increase in military spending over two years, more than the Trump administration had even requested. Military spending will jump to $716 billion in 2019, from $634 billion in 2017. In inflation-adjusted terms, that would put the Pentagon’s budget well above the Reagan buildup of the 1980s and nearly as high as in 2010 — the peak of military spending since World War II — when more than 200,000 troops were deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even before this latest increase, the Pentagon’s budget exceeded the combined military spending of the next eight biggest defense spenders globally — a list that includes Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and India.Some of the defense increases are understandable. The cost per active service member grew by 61 percent from 2001 to 2012, after adjusting for inflation, because of new and expanded benefits such as incentive bonuses, raises and increased health care expenses. But other increases arose from a dysfunctional budget process manipulated by a defense industry that woos Congress with unneeded or extravagant weapons. These include the F-35 fighter jet, missile defense programs that are plagued with problems, and a plan to modernize the nuclear arsenal over a period of 30 years at a cost of more than $1 trillion.Democrats went along with this budget. They’re the minority party and have limited leverage, and at the moment they are not deploying it very effectively, as has been demonstrated by their failure thus far to clarify their priorities or win protection from deportation for the Dreamers, young undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children.The true culprits are the House speaker, Paul Ryan, and the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell. Both are self-proclaimed deficit hawks. “In this generation, a defining responsibility of government is to steer our nation clear of a debt crisis while there is still time,” Mr. Ryan declared in 2012. But recent actions have revealed that the real game is to cut taxes on businesses and the wealthy, and use the resulting deficits as a pretext for cutting programs like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security that benefit the poor and the middle class.
 In purple bold type the military spending was needed because Obama Administration let it become a dilapidated military. I know the truth hurts Left wingers out there.
 It finally ends "President Trump has been a bystander in this whole process. He signed the bill, though it ignores many of the administration’s requests by, for example, increasing spending on the National Institutes of Health rather than cutting it.All told, the Republican tax cuts and the budget deal will nearly double the federal deficit to $1.19 trillion in 2019. While no credible analyst doubts that the federal government, which spends about $4 trillion a year, can make its debt payments, the growing deficit will make it harder for the government to respond to future recessions or to make responsible spending decisions. It’s a sure bet that, were the economy to tank, Mr. Ryan and his ilk would argue that the country couldn’t afford to increase government spending to get it going again because the deficit was already too large.
 Ending in red type because of the 2011-2012 Obama administration bullshit frivolous stimulus package and SHOVEL ready jobs excuse.



Saturday, February 10, 2018

NYT Our President Does Care About Women's Safety


                                                   



                                   



                                                             Editorial


 
   Where was the New York Times editorial board when Harvey Weinstein the famous left wing piece of shit Hollywood producer was sexually harassing women?
   Hypocrites now they go on about President Trump not caring about women's safety.
   Their bullshit piece from the other day entitled "What if Donald Trump cared about women's safety?"
  It begins "The White House ousted a top aide, Rob Porter, after it was reported that he had physically and verbally abused two ex-wives. President Trump was “very saddened” by the reports, a spokesman, Raj Shah, said at Thursday’s news briefing. Mr. Shah added that the White House does “take violence against women and these types of allegations very seriously.”Those are the sorts of sentiments you’d want to hear from the president and his staff after such revelations. Of course, it’d be easier to take them at face value if his chief of staff, John Kelly, hadn’t reportedly known about the allegations against Mr. Porter since the fall, and if Mr. Trump’s first wife hadn’t accused him of rape and if more than a dozen women hadn’t said he sexually molested, assaulted and harassed them. That’s not to mention his own taped admission of grabbing women by the genitals.It would be even easier to take seriously the official White House line about Mr. Porter if officials there had shown any appetite to fight violence against women. If they become interested in doing more than talk, here are some ideas Name a White House adviser on violence against women, a position created during the Obama administration that has gone unfilled for the past year. Likewise, the Trump administration has not appointed anyone to head the Department of Justice’s Office of Violence Against Women, nor to be the State Department’s ambassador at large for global women’s issues.
   Advocate full funding of the Violence Against Women Act
, which is the principal tool for focusing federal attention on domestic abuse. The law, passed in 1994, has directed billions of dollars toward policing and prosecuting offenders as well as providing legal and other services to victims. Cases of domestic violence in the United States have dropped precipitously as a result. And yet, since Mr. Trump was elected, its proponents have lived in constant fear of funding cuts. Beyond declaring it a funding priority, the Justice Department should be directed to make enforcing the law a priority, too.
 Push for more federal research dollars toward preventing domestic violence. Family abuse is a massive public health problem in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in four women and one in nine men are the victims of intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Yet significantly more research is needed on what drives batterers to abuse their partners and how best to prevent this particular form of domestic terror.
 Urge Congress to close loopholes in gun prohibitions for domestic abusers. Nearly half of women and girls killed in the United States are the victims of a current or former romantic partner, and in most cases, the weapon is a gun. Congress, in 1996, passed legislation to keep guns out of the hands of people who commit domestic violence, but over time, clear loopholes have emerged. Addressing those gaps could save thousands of lives every year. For example, a 20-year-old law prohibits those convicted in the assault of a spouse or a child from owning or buying guns. But it doesn’t apply to boyfriends, girlfriends, other family members or stalkers. That must change.
 Nyt trying to involve the gun issue in this is bullshit.
It finally ends "But first and foremost, the White House needs to find out, and tell the public, which administration officials knew about the allegations against Mr. Porter and when they learned that information. A president who really wants to signal that he is serious about respecting women would fire every official who protected or defended Mr. Porter after they learned of the abuse allegations.
 So NYT here's your lesson look in the mirror and go after sexual predators that are your politically correct allies before you look at our President


Sunday, February 4, 2018

NYT OPED Contributor Dead Wrong On Memo

Image result for nyt logo
OPED CONTRIBUTOR


  

         Now people who are running for a respective states Attorney General is getting involved in the MEMO business it seems by the Opinion/Editorial Contributor to the New York Times this morning entitled "The Memo Doesn’t Vindicate Trump. It’s More Proof of Obstruction." By Illinois Attorney General Democrat of course 

Saturday, February 3, 2018

NYT Don't Change The Subject

Image result for nyt logo
Editorial


  Well hey New York Times now that your buddies on the left are in a world of shit due to the President releasing the memo they now want to change the political subject. An editorial in yesterdays NYT shows it "We’ve Got the Memo. Now What About Trump’s Tax Returns?"
  Let the spin begin "Seriously? That’s all they’ve got?
The four-page memo that promised to reveal the biggest political scandal in a generation has finally been released. For all the pregame hype, the memo looks less like the next Watergate and more like the next “unmasking”-gate, the 2017 pseudo-scandal that alleged — wrongly — that Obama administration officials had mishandled classified information. That dust-up was orchestrated, coincidentally, by Representative Devin Nunes, the California Republican who heads the House Intelligence Committee and whose staff prepared the document released on Friday.
The memo opens darkly, raising “concerns with the legitimacy and legality” of Justice Department and F.B.I. interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. What sort of illegality are they talking about? The memo doesn’t say.
 Blame the Republicans shit begins pregame hype my ass.
 It goes on "Its central assertion appears to be that investigators who sought and received a warrant from the intelligence court to surveil the Trump campaign adviser Carter Page misled the court by failing to reveal the biased evidence they were relying on. First, they included in their warrant application a dossier prepared by Christopher Steele, a former British spy, without telling the court that Mr. Steele’s research was partly funded by the Clinton campaign. Second, they did not reveal that Mr. Steele had told a Justice Department official that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”
The memo also notes that Andrew McCabe, the deputy director of the F.B.I. who stepped down this week, testified to the Intelligence Committee in December that investigators would not have sought the warrant without the information contained in the dossier.
 Yeah the bullshit Christopher Steele Hillary campaign? DNC paid dossier on Trump.
  Spin cycle continues "This is all potentially interesting information. How significant is it in context? For starters, what other evidence did the intelligence court rely on in finding probable cause to issue the warrant? The memo doesn’t say. What about the court’s rationale for issuing three separate extensions, each of which required investigators to present new evidence beyond the dossier? The memo doesn’t say. Was any significant piece of information in the dossier found to be inaccurate? The memo doesn’t say. Did the court assume bias on the part of Mr. Steele or the funders of his research, as courts regularly do when considering evidence supporting a request for a warrant? The memo doesn’t say.You know what would help to answer questions like these? Even more transparency. It would be useful, for instance, if we could see all of the supporting evidence in the warrant application — with necessary redactions, of course, to protect sources and methods. Also helpful would be the 10-page response memo prepared by Representative Adam Schiff, the committee’s ranking Democrat, who, unlike Mr. Nunes, has actually seen the intelligence underlying the application. (The response memo reportedly explains, among other things, that investigators did in fact tell the court that the dossier was politically motivated.)
 NYT you obviously didn't read the memo maybe the full of shit House Minority memo.
 It ends "Surely Mr. Nunes, House Speaker Paul Ryan and the other Republicans who, in the days leading up to the memo’s release, expressed a newfound enthusiasm for transparency in government would support releasing this information, wouldn’t they? Transparency in government is the lifeblood of a democracy, after all — the bulwark against abuses of power by public officials. As Mr. Ryan said on Tuesday in defending the House’s decision to release the memo, “Transparency can reign supreme.”
Since the Republicans are now on board with greater transparency, they will no doubt push President Trump to release his tax returns, as every other major-party presidential nominee has done for the past four decades, won’t they?
How about the White House visitor logs, which the Trump administration started hiding from the public last year? Or, say, the names of all foreign governments and officials who have stayed — at their own or at American taxpayers’ expense — at Mr. Trump’s Washington hotel, at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida or at his golf courses and his other businesses since he became president? Or the names of every foreign business with which the Trump Organization has a financial relationship, especially in countries where America has sensitive foreign policy interests, like China, India, Russia, Turkey or Saudi Arabia?
And, of course, Americans should have complete confidence now that congressional Republicans will demand complete transparency from all members of the president’s campaign, transition team and administration in describing their dealings with representatives of a foreign power that tried to swing our election — as well as from the special counsel who is investigating those efforts.
The party that demanded the release of Hillary Clinton’s emails as a central plank of the 2016 presidential campaign must support all of this and more, right?
  I love it now the NYT editorial board wants Trump to release his tax returns whats this got to to with the MEMO release?





Saturday, January 27, 2018

NYT You All Fear The Truth This Is Why They Are The Fake News

Image result for nyt logo
Editorial

    

                     

  Well I'm back missed doing my blog since my last post well the fake news bullshit still continues to deny the FACT that Donald Trump is PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
 An interesting editorial this mornings New York Times "Why does President Trump Fear The Truth?"
 It begins "For a man who insists he has done nothing wrong, President Trump sure acts as if he has something big to hide. President Trump‘s attempt to fire the special counsel, Robert Mueller, last June which he backed off only when the White House counsel, Donald McGahn, threatened to resign over it – is only the latest in a long string of firings and lies that establish an undeniable pattern:
The president of the United States has tried repeatedly to shut down an investigation into whether his campaign coordinated with Russian officials to help him win the 2016 election. (this will be highlighted in green)  Let’s review:
 In January 2017, Mr. Trump asked James Comey, the F.B.I. director at the time, who was leading the Russia investigation, to pledge loyalty to him and to state publicly that Mr. Trump himself was not being investigated. Mr. Comey demurred on both counts.

In February, Mr. Trump fired his national security adviser, Michael Flynn, after public reports that he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his communications with Russian officials. (The White House had in fact been alerted to Mr. Flynn’s lies, and his vulnerability to blackmail, more than two weeks earlier.)
The next day, after an Oval Office meeting with Mr. Comey and other officials, Mr. Trump cleared the room and urged Mr. Comey to drop the investigation into Mr. Flynn.
In March, Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, recused himself from any investigations related to the 2016 campaign, after it was reported that he had failed to disclose his own contacts with Russians during the campaign. Mr. Trump tried to block the recusal, believing that Mr. Sessions should protect him from the Russia investigation. When Mr. Sessions recused himself anyway, Mr. Trump was furious.
Later that month, Mr. Trump asked top intelligence officials to intervene and persuade Mr. Comey to drop the Russian investigation. He also asked them to publicly deny that there was evidence of collusion between his campaign and the Russians.
In May, Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey. The White House first claimed that Mr. Comey had been fired for mishandling the F.B.I.’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server. But two days later, Mr. Trump admitted on national television that he had fired Mr. Comey in order to stop the Russia investigation.
In June, we know now, Mr. Trump tried to fire Mr. Mueller, who had been appointed to take over the investigation only weeks earlier. Mr. Trump has denied that he ever made such an attempt.

 I find it funny how this so called independent counsel Robert Mueller who by the way is best buddies with now former FBI director James Comey has yet to look into the real reason for an independent counsel look into HILLARY CLINTON'S Russia connections.
  It goes on "Mr. Trump may call this behavior “fighting back,” but the federal criminal code would almost surely call it obstructing justice — an offense that has led to the resignation of one president and the impeachment of another.
Maybe that’s why, on Friday morning, Mr. Trump took a different tack, dismissing the reports that he tried to fire Mr. Mueller as “fake news” — meaning, real news that makes him look bad. But even Sean Hannity, who would plunk down cash for the Brooklyn Bridge if Mr. Trump tried to sell it to him, eventually had to admit it was true. Other defenders of the president have argued it was no big deal. Hey, this happened seven months ago, and he didn’t even follow through!
But he did follow through with firing Mr. Comey. If there were any remaining doubt that he did so for an innocent reason, Thursday’s news snuffed it out. Mr. Trump’s claim that he wanted Mr. Mueller gone because of his supposed “conflicts of interest,” which included a claimed dispute long ago over fees at one of Mr. Trump’s golf clubs, is not worth taking seriously.
At least three important questions remain. First, why is this incident coming to light only now? Mr. Trump’s desire to get rid of the special counsel was reported months ago, as was his advisers’ efforts to talk him down from such a catastrophic move, but both the president and the White House have consistently denied taking any steps in that direction. Last August, Mr. Trump was asked by reporters whether he had considered firing Mr. Mueller. “I haven’t given it any thought,” he said.
Perhaps people close to the president are trying to ensure that when he testifies before Mr. Mueller, as he has said he would “love to” do, he doesn’t insist on his alternative facts and put himself at risk of a perjury charge. Or perhaps, as the investigation closes in on the White House, there is a growing fear that the president is liable to act rashly, especially as he is being goaded daily by congressional Republicans and the right-wing media machine. If this latest revelation serves only to provide Mr. Mueller with greater job protection, that’s a good thing.
Second, why the repeated lies by Mr. Trump and his associates about the contacts with Russian officials? Maybe they truly believed they did nothing illegal during the campaign and transition, but thought it would be embarrassing for the contacts to become public in light of the intelligence community’s finding that Russia attempted to interfere in the election. For this White House, though, mere public embarrassment has never seemed a source of chagrin.
This leads to the third and most pressing question of all: If Mr. Trump and his associates are truly innocent of any wrongdoing, what are they so afraid of?
 The NYT and their dumb assed allies in the rest of the fake liberal bullshit Trump hating news outlets will do anything to get rid of our President