Month: August 2019

Why Did Texas Democrat Joaquin Castro Tweet Out a List of Trump Donors?

What could he possibly have intended by this:

Screen Shot 2019-08-07 at 9.55.19 AM.png

Screen Shot 2019-08-07 at 9.55.07 AM.png

What other reason could he have for tweeting this out other than that he wants his followers to know exactly who to target?

Is it a stretch to say some Antifa nut might see this list and come after some of the people on it? Do you believe Castro didn’t entertain this possibility when he tweeted his list?

Castro knew exactly what he was doing.

This is a hit list, straight up.

At the very least it’s an attempt to publicly shame these people by revealing their names, which Castro hopes will cause discomfort in their social lives and thereby intimidate them into staying on the sidelines.

Thanks to Bolsheviks like Joaquin Castro and the “mainstream” media, much of this country has turned into a hostile environment for Trump supporters. It’s not safe out there for us.

How difficult is it to imagine Antifa thugs gathering in a mob outside these Trump donors’ houses to intimidate them, like Antifa recently did to Sen. Mitch McConnell and last year did to Tucker Carlson?

Thugs like Castro want Trump supporters to say, “It’s just not worth it. I’ll stay out of it. I fear for the safety of my family.”

Of course, Castro has defended himself by claiming it’s not his “intent” to see Trump donors harassed and threatened in real life:

But what other reason could there be for him publishing this list?

Props to the MSNBC anchor for attempting to hold Castro accountable here:

MSNBC: “These people are undoubtedly are already being harassed online, or face to face in some cases, they could be. What do you say to these people who say, ‘I made a campaign donation and now I’m gonna be harassed, I’m gonna have people protesting outside my business, or even my home. What do you say to them? Do you want them to repent for their support for Donald Trump, or what do you want from them?”

CASTRO: “Well the first thing is I don’t want anyone to be harassed or targeted–“

MSNBC: “But they will be, because you put their names in public.”

CASTRO: “Well that was not my intention–“

MSNBC: “But that’s what will happen.”

But Castro closes by saying, “What I would like is for [Trump donors] to think twice about supporting a guy [Trump] who is fueling hate in this country.”

Sure.

Anything is justified if it’s meant to “fight racism.”

See what they’re doing? If you’re labeled a racist, it means you have no rights. You’re fair game. No one will defend you. No one will want to associate with you.

Call someone a racist and they automatically become sub-human.

The term “Racist” in 2019 America has come to mean basically the same thing as “colored” in the Jim Crow South, “Juden” in Nazi Germany and “enemy of the proletariat” in the Soviet Union.

They want to dehumanize you so they can persecute you. It’s that simple. This is not exactly a new playbook.

Here’s the crazy, shrieking psycho Rashida Tlaib (D) agreeing with Castro:

Screen Shot 2019-08-07 at 10.06.02 AM.png

This lady really scares me now that she’s in a position of power. If you haven’t yet seen it I strongly recommend you check out link above her tweet of the recently unearthed video of her shrieking like a banshee as she’s forcibly removed from a Trump campaign event in 2016, presumably for disrupting it. This insane woman is now a Member of Congress, and she’s using her power to come after you.

“The public needs to know who funds racism.”

So that ‘the public’ can do what, exactly?

They never elaborate on that part, but we all know what they mean.

Just because they’re not explicitly calling for violence against Trump donors doesn’t mean they’re not encouraging it.

Burn the racists at stake!

Third-world politics have arrived, America.

***
Mike Cernovich believes Joaquin Castro committed a hate crime:

The Democratic Party has been engaged in one giant hate crime against white people for basically the past three years, so yeah Castro probably used race as part of his criteria for which names he chose to publicize.

The Media is Completely Out of Control

In the wake of the mass shootings in Texas and Ohio this past weekend, the media’s rush to politicize them and blame them on President Trump went to appalling lengths. They are now just straight-up lying directly to our faces. They’re making stuff up out of thin air in order to generate outrage and provoke hatred.

And they’re telling the most vicious lies imaginable, too. Blood libel territory.

If you thought the worst the media could do was accusing Trump of treason and selling the country out to Russia, you’d be wrong.

No matter how bad the media’s lying gets, it can always get worse.

MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski said on Morning Joe that President Trump wants mass shootings to happen:

She said it’s fair to “deduce” that Trump actually wants these shootings to happen.

MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace wanted to join in on the fun. To give a little background, Wallace is an astonishingly angry and hateful woman with a history of saying terrible things. Last year she said claimed that during the 2016 primary campaign she advised Jeb Bush to punch Donald Trump in the face. She also said she wanted to wring the neck of former White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders:

And this woman is supposedly a “Republican strategist.” (Not anymore, of course. But it goes to show you the type of “conservatives” who were leading the GOP prior to 2016. Don’t ever try to tell me the Uniparty isn’t a real thing.)

This week Wallace said Trump is “talking about exterminating Latinos”:

The media is completely out of control. Rich liberal white women, in their boundless desire to virtue signal, are completely out of control.

This is a problem getting worse at an exponential rate. The media has gone from accusing the President of treason–bad enough as it is–to accusing him of wanting mass shootings to happen and wanting to “exterminate Latinos” in just a few short years.

Stop watching “the news.”

Do not enable this vile mass-brainwashing operation.

I know a lot of people think that while the media is clearly biased, it’s still important to watch the news to “stay informed.” But this is an outdated way of thinking.

Perhaps in the past it was important to watch the news to stay informed.

But the “news” isn’t even the news anymore. It is 24/7 lies and propaganda.

You are better off consuming no TV news whatsoever.

Please, do your country a favor and stop giving the media viewers. They are, without a doubt, the enemy of the American people.

At the very least, they can’t fill your head with lies if you’re not watching. Best case scenario, enough people stop watching and cause them to go bankrupt.

Bring Back the Mental Asylums

In the wake of every mass shooting, the media blames guns and demands gun control, without fail. But the second Amendment has been around since 1789 and we only started seeing these mass shootings in the past 20 years, so obviously something has changed. Mass shootings are a product of modern America.

For my part, I think mass shootings are caused by a confluence of factors:

  1. Fatherless households: I haven’t been able to determine whether or not the two mass shooters this weekend grew up in fatherless households, but all signs point to this being the case. After all, it’s a common trait shared with their predecessors. The Charleston shooter did not have a father in his life. The Sandy Hook shooter’s parents were divorced. The Parkland shooter’s father was absent from his life. The vast majority of modern mass shooters grew up in fatherless homes. According to Warren Farrell, author of “The Boy Crisis,” 82% of modern mass shooters grew up in unstable homes. It is an indisputable and well-documented fact that growing up without a father is horrible for children. This does not mean everyone who grows up without a father is doomed to be a killer or a criminal, of course, but it does make such outcomes far more likely.
  2. Media incentivization: as sick as it sounds, the way news channels obsessively cover mass shootings and publicize photos of the shooters, this actually compels future shooters to action. Because of media coverage, mass shootings have become almost a sick, twisted tradition in our society. They’re seen as aspirational rituals by other the sick outcasts. It’s impossible for normal people like us to understand why someone would ever watch media coverage of a mass shooting and think to himself, “I want to do the next one,” but that’s what’s happening. For this problem there is no obvious solution. It’s impossible to expect news outlets to simply stop covering mass shootings, but at least they should do everything they can to focus on the victims and the heroes, and give as little attention to the shooter as possible. On this site, I have a policy of refusing to post their pictures or mention their names under any circumstances.
  3. Declining belief in God and Hell: it’s simply a fact that if people don’t believe in God, and therefore Hell, they are more likely to commit acts of evil. Shooters go on their killing sprees and then usually turn the gun on themselves, and they believe that’s the end of it all. They don’t believe they’re going to wake up on the other side to an eternity of fire and suffering. People who are truly, genuinely afraid of eternal hellfire are far less likely to be bad people.
  4. Psychiatric drugs: I wrote a long article about it on the old site in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, but the gist of it was that the majority of these modern mass shooters have been on psychiatric drugs–a far greater percentage than the public at large. Now, it’s still up for debate whether the mind-numbing psychiatric drugs helped push the shooter over the edge (by putting the shooter in an altered state) or whether it’s simply because mass shootings are carried out by the mentally ill, and the mentally ill are much more likely to be on psychiatric drugs. But we’ve all seen the commercials for these mind-altering drugs and we’ve all heard the scary side effects that the Big Pharma companies that make the drugs are forced to disclose: according to Vox, there are more than 200 medications produced by Big Pharma that include depression and risk of suicide as side-effects. Also listed on the warning labels of many psychiatric drugs: “homicidal ideation” and aggression. Big Pharma literally admits that their drugs can increase the chance of someone getting violent and/or killing themselves. So I absolutely, 100%, without a doubt believe that these drugs can and do play a role in pushing already at-risk individuals over the edge. Of course they’ll say the side effects are “rare” but then so are these mass shootings. It only takes one person in a nation of 320 million.

Only focusing on guns while ignoring these major contributors to mass shootings is at best foolish and irresponsible, at worst deliberate evil. Because if the wannabe gun controllers are focused on exploiting these shootings only as excuses to disarm the public and increase censorship of their political enemies, then not only are they showing no interest in solving the problem, they’re contributing to it.

If someone claims to want to stop mass shootings but refuses to discuss anything other than gun control, you really do have to question their motives.

Do they want to stop the mass shootings, or do they just want gun control?

It seems as if the media is mainly interested in mass shootings as a way to achieve its end-goal of gun control, and this is truly evil.

But while we can debate until we’re blue in the face exactly what about modern America is causing these young men to carry out horrific atrocities with growing regularity, the bottom line is that we have some very sick people out there–ticking time-bombs that represent a mortal threat to the rest of us, both to our lives and our peace of mind.

We need to lock them away.

I don’t care about “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” We need to bring back the mental asylums. We need to take these crazies off the streets.

The whole point of prison is that there are people out there who cannot be allowed to be free and living among the rest of us.

But past criminality should not be the only reason to lock someone away. Some people haven’t committed any crimes–yet–and yet still shouldn’t be allowed to be free.

There are some people who are mentally unfit for society.

It’s still early, but already stories have come out confirming that the El Paso shooter was  described as a “loner” and “troubled.” In other words, his rampage probably did not come as a huge shock to the people that knew him personally.

This is how it usually goes, too. Whenever these shootings happen, everything we learn about the shooter makes it abundantly clear that he should have been locked away. He had no business living among us.

With the Virginia Tech shooter from 2007, there were warning lights flashing for a long time before he carried out his atrocity:

“Born in South Korea, [the future Virginia Tech shooter] was eight years old when he immigrated to the United States with his family. He became a U.S. permanent resident as a South Korean national. In middle school, he was diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder with selective mutism, as well as major depressive disorder. After his diagnosis, he began receiving treatment and continued to receive therapy and special education support until his junior year of high school. During [his] last two years at Virginia Tech, several instances of his abnormal behavior, as well as plays and other writings he submitted containing references to violence, caused concern among teachers and classmates.

Certain members of [the future shooter’s] family who had remained in South Korea had concerns about his behavior during his early childhood. [His] relatives thought that he was selectively mute or mentally ill. According to [his] uncle, [he] “didn’t say much and did not mix with other children.” [The future shooter’s] maternal great-aunt described [him] as “cold” and a cause of family concern from as young as eight years old. According to his great-aunt, who met him twice, [he] was extremely shy and “just would not talk at all.” He was otherwise considered “well-behaved,” readily obeying verbal commands and cues. The great-aunt said she knew something was wrong after the family’s departure for the United States because she heard frequent updates about [the future shooter’s] older sister but little news about [the future shooter himself]. During an ABC News Nightline interview on August 30, 2007, [his] grandfather reported his concerns about his behavior during childhood. According to [the future shooter’s] grandfather, [he] never made eye contact, never called him grandfather, and never moved to embrace him.

During the spring of [the future shooter’s] eighth-grade year in 1999, the Columbine High School massacre made international news and [the future shooter] was transfixed by it. “I remember sitting in Spanish class with him, right next to him, and there being something written on his binder to the effect of, you know, ‘ ‘F’ you all, I hope you all burn in hell,’ which I would assume meant us, the students,” said Ben Baldwin, a classmate of [the future shooter]. [The shooter also wrote in a school assignment about wanting to “repeat Columbine”. The school contacted [his] sister, who reported the incident to their parents. [The future shooter] was sent to a psychiatrist.”

Not only does this make it clear he was always a very fucked up individual, it also underscores my point about media coverage of mass shootings encouraging future mass shootings. The media coverage is like a siren call to other monsters out there, hypnotizing them to mimic what they’re watching on TV. Media coverage has turned mass shootings into opportunities for anonymous losers to make our busy country pay attention to them. Perhaps they feel like carrying out a mass shooting is a way to not feel worthless and insignificant anymore.

The Parkland shooter’s violent tendencies were well-known to both school authorities and police. He had a history of doing bad and disturbing things. His mother knew first-hand he was a violent psychopath. Just last month it was revealed that when he was a student at Stoneman Douglas High School, the future killer was searched for weapons every day when he arrived. He was even banned from bringing a backpack to school because he wrote the word “KILL” in his notebook! It’s well-documented that everyone who knew him knew he could one day do something horrific.

And sure enough, he did.

Nothing was done to prevent it. They knew he was a ticking time-bomb, but authorities didn’t intervene.

What could they have done, though? Put him in jail? Sure, but until he shot up his school he hadn’t done anything to warrant locking him up and throwing away the key.

So there really wasn’t any good solution to the problem. They essentially had no choice but to wait until he did the unthinkable.

Time and time again, we see the same story of the troubled-youth-turned-mass-killer play out.

Bringing back the policy of involuntary commitment to a mental asylum would help to fix that.

Right now, the choice is either jail or freedom, but what about the people who are clearly dangerous and shouldn’t be free but haven’t yet done anything to warrant putting them in jail? It’s a blind spot in our society.

That’s where the mental asylums come in. We throw them into mental institutions.

The insane have no place on our streets.

In order to assuage legitimate fears that the involuntary commitment policies would not be abused, policymakers must come up with ways to make it a legitimate process. For minors, you’d have to get the approval of school officials and local law enforcement, as well as psychiatric evaluators. It would require agreement by a number of professionals and authorities to put somebody away, and certainly the power to commit somebody could not belong to anyone in Washington.

For people who are over 18 and/or out of the school system, you’d have to devise some other way of judging them psychologically unfit for society. This would probably be done through a combination of local law enforcement, employers, family and acquaintances.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: though mass shootings get national news coverage, we must never lose sight of the fact that they are local problems and thus require local solutions. See something, say something.

Again, as we saw above, you can see these shootings coming from a mile away. People who knew the shooters will tell you it was only a matter of time.

But to anyone still asking how we can find an efficient and non-abusable way to bring back the policy of involuntary commitment of the insane, I say, “We will do it the same way societies have done it all throughout history.”

The history of mental asylums goes back centuries. Here’s a brief excerpt from the Wikipedia page describing mental asylums dating back to the 9th century in places like Egypt, Britain and Spain:

“In the Islamic world, the Bimaristans were described by European travellers, who wrote about their wonder at the care and kindness shown to lunatics. In 872, Ahmad ibn Tulun built a hospital in Cairo that provided care to the insane, which included music therapy. . . 

In Europe during the medieval era, the small subsection of the population of those considered mad were housed in institutional settings were held in a variety of settings. Porter gives examples of such locales where some of the insane were cared for, such as in monasteries. A few towns had towers where madmen were kept (called Narrentürme in German, or “fools’ towers”). The ancient Parisian hospital Hôtel-Dieu also had a small number of cells set aside for lunatics, whilst the town of Elbing boasted a madhouse, the Tollhaus, attached to the Teutonic Knights’ hospital. Dave Sheppard‘s Development of Mental Health Law and Practice begins in 1285 with a case that linked “the instigation of the devil” with being “frantic and mad”.

In Spain, other such institutions for the insane were established after the Christian Reconquista; facilities included hospitals in Valencia (1407), Zaragoza (1425), Seville (1436), Barcelona (1481) and Toledo (1483). In London, England, the Priory of Saint Mary of Bethlehem, which later became known more notoriously as Bedlam, was founded in 1247. At the start of the 15th century, it housed six insane men. The former lunatic asylum, Het Dolhuys, established in the 16th century in Haarlem, the Netherlands, has been adapted as a museum of psychiatry, with an overview of treatments from the origins of the building up to the 1990s.”

In fact, virtually every society in history until us has had mental asylums. By the end of the 19th century, they were commonplace in America and Europe:

“In the United States, the erection of state asylums began with the first law for the creation of one in New York, passed in 1842. The Utica State Hospital was opened approximately in 1850. The creation of this hospital, as of many others, was largely the work of Dorothea Lynde Dix, whose philanthropic efforts extended over many states, and in Europe as far as Constantinople. Many state hospitals in the United States were built in the 1850s and 1860s on the Kirkbride Plan, an architectural style meant to have curative effect.

By the end of the 19th century, national systems of regulated asylums for the mentally ill had been established in most industrialized countries. At the turn of the century, Britain and France combined had only a few hundred people in asylums, but by the end of the century this number had risen to the hundreds of thousands. The United States housed 150,000 patients in mental hospitals by 1904. Germany housed more than 400 public and private sector asylums. These asylums were critical to the evolution of psychiatry as they provided places of practice throughout the world.”

So how will we do it? The same way we did it for centuries.

Of course, as we know, public opinion turned against the mental institutions in the past 50 years or so. This was a result of bleeding heart liberals denouncing the policy of involuntary commitment as “inhumane” and decrying the admittedly poor treatment of patients inside many mental asylums. They won the argument and we started emptying out and closing down the mental asylums in the 1960s.

The Bezos Post recently reported that the number of Americans in mental institutions has decreased by 94% since its peak in 1955:

“At their highest peak in 1955, state mental hospitals held 558,922 patients. Today, they hold about 35,000 patients, and that number continues to fall.”

But perhaps the single biggest reason behind the deinstitutionalization movement was the advent of psychiatric drugs beginning in the 1950s and 1960s: it was believed–and it is still believed today–that we no longer need mental asylums because these Magic Pills can cure people of their mental illnesses:

The modern deinstitutionalisation movement was made possible by the discovery of psychiatric drugs in the mid-20th century, which could manage psychotic episodes and reduced the need for patients to be confined and restrained. Another major impetus was a series of socio-political movements that campaigned for patient freedom. Lastly, there were financial imperatives, with many governments also viewing it as a way to save costs.”

But it’s not true that psychiatric drugs have alleviated the need for mental asylums. The whole deinstitutionalization was based on a myth.

Drugs have not cured mental illness.

Nor will they ever.

In fact, the rate of mental illness in modern America is on the rise despite the prevalence of these drugs which are said to cure mental illness. Instead of the mental asylums, our mentally ill simply end up in jail. We have 10x as many mentally ill people in our prisons as we do in our psychiatric hospitals.

And as we went over earlier, the drug companies themselves admit that their drugs can cause increased risk of suicide and even homicidal impulses.

So we closed down the mental asylums because we believed the Magic Pills our beloved Big Pharma companies invented cured mental illness, but not only do these supposed Magic Pills not cure mental illness, they may actually make it worse.

The supposed “solution” to mental health issues ended up contributing to the problem.

Mental asylums aren’t perfect. I’m not arguing that.

But they’re better than what we’re currently doing. We have no place to put people who are insane other than prison.

It’s far more humane to commit someone to a mental asylum than it is to simply let them wander the streets until they commit a crime and then let them rot in prison.

Again, there are no easy or perfect solutions to the problem of mental illness. We’re never going to find a perfect solution. That’s not what I’m offering here.

It’s a hard pill to swallow but there are some–I’d even say many–problems we will never find a perfect solution to. Mental illness is one of them.

But we can at least do better than we’re currently doing.

It’s time to admit we were wrong to close down the mental asylums. They certainly had their flaws but they’re better than the alternative, which is allowing sick individuals to live freely among us while descending deeper and deeper into madness until one day they go over the edge and slaughter a bunch of innocent bystanders–all because we simply don’t have a proper place to put them.

We tried it the bleeding hearts’ way. It hasn’t worked.

Our ancestors had it right: the best possible thing to do with the mentally insane is to institutionalize them so they can’t harm the rest of us. It’s what people did for centuries and it’s what we need to start doing again.

Better Think Twice Before You Wear that MAGA Hat in Public

The owner of a New York City art gallery was assaulted by a “group of teens” (I put “teens” in quotes because there were no further details given on the attackers) for wearing a MAGA hat:

But please, let’s not focus on Trump supporters getting what’s coming to them.

Let’s focus on the real problem which is that Blue Checkmark Journalists just aren’t safe anymore in Trump’s America.

Blue Checkmark Liberals, like CNN’s Brian Stelter, are the real victims here, because Twump’s whetowic makes him feewl wess thafe, even though he spends most of his time sitting in an office and tweeting all day:

Sure, Jon Turan was physically beaten because of his political views, but Brian Stelter has to withstand the occasional Mean Tweet from the President!

I for one am glad our Soldiers of Truth in the media have their priorities in line.

Who cares if Trump supporters have become second-class citizens subject to violent intimidation in public? What really matters is that fat, rich Uniparty propagandists are never exposed to any criticism whatsoever.

Can You Guess the Mystery Country Where 6 in 10 say “Migrants Are a Burden”?

Is it the US, with its Evil Nazi Dictator in the White House and its Institutionalized Racism™?

Wrong.

Is it the evil white colonialists of Britain?

Nope.

Give up?

The answer is. . .

Mexico!

“More than 6 in 10 Mexicans say migrants are a burden on their country because they take jobs and benefits that should belong to Mexicans. A 55 percent majority supports deporting migrants who travel through Mexico to reach the United States.

Those findings defy the perception that Mexico—a country that has sent millions of its own migrants to the United States, sending billions of dollars in remittances—is sympathetic to the surge of Central Americans. Instead, the data suggests Mexicans have turned against the migrants transiting through their own country, expressing antipathy that would be familiar to many supporters of President Trump north of the border.”

Who knew Mexicans were so Racist™?

More:

“What should Mexico do with the Central American migrants who cross our country trying to reach the United States?   Offer them residence in Mexico, give them temporary asylum while the United States decides if they will accept them or not, or deport them to their countries of origin?

The answers: Offer them residence in Mexico 7%, Give them temporary asylum 33%, Deport them to their countries of origin 55%.

So a majority wants to deport them, 33% only want temporary asylum, with only 7% favoring permanent residence.”

Apparently, Mexicans are getting a sick of all the Central Americans coming up through their country in massive caravans trying to get into the US.

If the Media Treated Wild Allegations About Obama the Same Way they Treat Wild Allegations About Trump. . .

. . . then the general public would believe Obama is a crack-smoking gay man.

Recently, New York Magazine ran a long, in-depth and lurid story by a woman named E. Jean Carroll who claimed President Trump forcibly raped her in the mid 1990s:

“The moment the dressing-room door is closed, he lunges at me, pushes me against the wall, hitting my head quite badly, and puts his mouth against my lips. I am so shocked I shove him back and start laughing again. He seizes both my arms and pushes me up against the wall a second time, and, as I become aware of how large he is, he holds me against the wall with his shoulder and jams his hand under my coat dress and pulls down my tights.

I am astonished by what I’m about to write: I keep laughing. The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt, tie, suit jacket, overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me. It turns into a colossal struggle. I am wearing a pair of sturdy black patent-leather four-inch Barneys high heels, which puts my height around six-one, and I try to stomp his foot. I try to push him off with my one free hand — for some reason, I keep holding my purse with the other — and I finally get a knee up high enough to push him out and off and I turn, open the door, and run out of the dressing room.”

Other prominent media outlets picked up the story and ran with it, including New Yorker, New York Times, Vanity Fair, CBS News and Vox.

CNN even brought this lady on to speak with Anderson Cooper, hoping that she would at long last give them the story they had been so desperately seeking to bring down Donald Trump’s Presidency. But things went off the rails quickly:

“Carroll began by saying that she didn’t feel like a victim, arguing that she hadn’t been “thrown on the ground and ravished.”

“The word ‘rape’ carries so many sexual connotations,” Carroll explained. “This was not sexual. It just … it hurt … it just was …”

Cooper interrupted then, saying, “I think most people think of rape as a … it is a violent assault, it is not sexual.”

Carroll, nodding her head, fired back, “I think most people think of rape as being sexy. Think of the fantasies.”

Anderson Cooper quickly realized the woman was a nutcase and cut to commercials. You can watch the bizarre scene for yourself:

Cooper knew within 30 seconds that the whole thing was a debacle.

CNN also spent months engaged in wild speculation about Trump’s alleged affair with pornstar Stormy Daniels, and that somehow Trump’s alleged payment of “hush money” to Daniels constituted some sort of high crime that could eventually lead to his impeachment. We all remember this well:

“Last August, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to a variety of offenses, including campaign contribution violations. He told a federal court in New York that he had arranged payments to Daniels (whose real name is Stephanie Clifford) and former Playboy model Karen McDougal at Trump’s direction. In November, he also pleaded guilty to lying to Congress.

In their sentencing memorandum, prosecutors drew attention to the payments, leading observers to speculate that they would try to indict the president on campaign finance violations.

Michael Avenatti, Daniels’s attorney at the time, told NPR in August: “Donald Trump is either going to resign. He’s going to be removed from office by impeachment, or I’m going to beat him in 2020.”

However, in January 2018, Stormy Daniels herself publicly admitted that she had never had a sexual affair with Trump:

“Stormy Daniels released a new statement, in which she shockingly denies ever having a sexual affair with Donald Trump even though she gave an on the record interview already claiming that she did.

Did they or didn’t they?! Stormy Daniels, 38, is now denying that she had sex with the current Commander-in-Chief, Donald Trump, 71, in 2006 and conducted an 11-month affair with him, even though she gave a detailed interview to InTouch magazine, in which she detailed their alleged affair. The former porn star issued a new statement, obtained by TMZ on Jan. 30 in which she claims that she and Trump have both denied the alleged affair multiple times. She also alleges that she is not changing her story because she received $130,000 in compensation. “I am not denying this affair because I was paid ‘hush money’ as has been reported in overseas owned tabloids,” the statement reads. “I am denying this affair because it never happened.”

Huh? I thought this alleged affair was going to bring down the President? CNN spent months on end giving Stormy Daniels’ claims extensive coverage, basically making the story the centerpiece of their programming for a prolonged period.

And don’t even get me started about the whole “Russian collusion” business. It was outlandish and unbelievable from the start, and it originated from the Clinton Campaign itself, yet the entire media establishment treated it as if it was the most legitimate news story ever for over two years.

There have been other wild claims made against Donald Trump over the past few years, all of which have fallen apart, but the common theme is that the supposedly respectable, professional media outlets have taken them all seriously and presented them to viewers as if they were probably true.

In their eyes, it’s a win-win for them: if the wild claims somehow turn out to be true, then they bring down their most hated enemy, Donald Trump. If the wild claims turn out to be nonsense, then they quickly move on and pretend they never covered the story, never suffering any consequences for their recklessness, with the silver lining being that many Americans will have at least heard of the #FakeNews allegations and believe them to be true.

The media frequently runs false accusations about Trump that quickly fall apart, and they do this because they know more people will see the blaring headlines than will see the quiet retractions. This is how they fill people’s heads with lies–lies they want people to believe.

I call this practice “‘If true’ journalism,” whereby the media repeats baseless yet explosive claims about Trump and attempts to cover its collective ass by adding in the little caveat “if true” after the claims. They can repeat any sensational claim about Trump and then deny that they were pushing lies by pointing out the “if true” caveat they included.

Putting “if true” behind every outrageous allegation about Trump makes it so the media can’t be accused of spreading lies, even though no self-respecting journalist would ever run an “if true” story.

Thus, we have millions of brainwashed Americans who falsely believe that Trump has done all of this stuff simply because they Saw It On The News.

But what if the media treated Barack Obama this way? What if, instead of ignoring all the outlandish and explosive claims made about and against him, thus relegating them to only gain any traction at tabloids like National Enquirer and The Globe, the media took every one of them seriously and gave them extensive air time? Remember, CNN was fixated on the Stormy Daniels story for months and the Russian collusion hoax for years.

Well, then, as I said above, people would believe Obama is a crack-smoking homosexual.

Larry Sinclair is a gay man from Chicago who in 2008 came forward with numerous  allegations about Obama’s supposed gay past in Chicago prior to being elected to the Senate in 2004. He also said Obama used crack-cocaine in his presence.

Sinclair gave an hour-long press conference on the matter:

Now, I don’t expect you all to watch the full hour-long video. But if you just watch Sinclair for a few minutes, despite the fact that he admits early on he’s a convicted felon, you should at least be able to agree that he comes off as more believable than obvious nutcases like E. Jean Carroll, who CNN felt deserved a platform on their network to share her claims about Trump.

Sinclair, like Carroll, wrote a book about his allegations. Sinclair’s book about Obama was entitled “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder?” It’s available on Amazon still to this day.

But unlike Carroll, Larry Sinclair was not given any coverage from the supposed “mainstream” media. He was ignored, brushed aside and quickly forgotten.

And Sinclair wasn’t the only one to claim Obama was gay:

“A prominent member of Chicago’s homosexual community claims Barack Obama’s participation in the “gay” bar and bathhouse scene was so well known that many who were aware of his lifestyle were shocked when he ran for president and finally won the White House.

“It was preposterous to the people I knew then to think Obama was going to keep his gay life secret,” said Kevin DuJan, who was a gossip columnist in Chicago for various blogs when Obama was living in the city as a community organizer and later a state senator.

“Nobody who knew Obama in the gay bar scene thought he could possibly be president,” said DuJan.

DuJan, founder and editor of the Hillary Clinton-supporting website HillBuzz.org, told WND he has first-hand information from two different sources that “Obama was personally involved in the gay bar scene.”

“If you just hang out at these bars, the older guys who have been frequenting these gay bars for 25 years will tell you these stories,” DuJan said. “Obama used to go to the gay bars during the week, most often on Wednesday, and they said he was very much into older white guys.” Obama, DuJan said, is “not heterosexual and he’s not bisexual. He’s homosexual.”

Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who worked with the National Security Agency from 1984 to 1988 as a Navy intelligence analyst, confirmed DuJan’s claims.

“It is common knowledge in the Chicago gay community that Obama actively visited the gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago while he was an Illinois state senator,” Madsen told WND.

DuJan said that during Obama’s first presidential campaign, “there was fear in the gay community” about talking openly about Obama being homosexual, particularly after the murder in December 2007 of Donald Young, the openly gay choir director at Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, who was known to be a close friend of Obama.”

If the media had applied the same standard to these claims about Obama as it does to wild allegations about Trump, then Larry Sinclair, Kevin DuJan and Wayne Madsen would have become household names back in the late 2000s.

If the media treated all the claims about Obama like they treat the claims about Trump, Americans would believe Obama is gay.

Not only that, but they would believe Michelle Obama was born a man because Joan Rivers said so in 2014:

“You can count on Joan Rivers to say something controversial, even when asked about a good deed.

The comedian called President Obama gay and the First Lady a “tranny” during an on-the-street interview filmed earlier this week.

The 81-year-old was asked about officiating an impromptu gay wedding at her New York City book signing Monday, followed by a question about whether she thinks the U.S. will first see a gay president or woman president. “We already have it with Obama, so let’s just calm down,” the TV host responded.

Before walking away from the reporter, Rivers said “You know Michelle is a tranny.” When asked to confirm her eyebrow-raising statement, she said, “A transgender. We all know. It’s okay.”

There’s video of Rivers saying this, although it wasn’t easy to find on YouTube for some reason:

Now why didn’t the major mainstream media outlets give Joan Rivers an abundance of airtime and coverage to discuss her shocking claims?

Part of it is that the media simply had no interest in doing so, but an equally important part of it is that Joan Rivers was dead just two months after making this shocking remark! She died during a routine endoscopy surgery, after which her family sued the hospital for medical malpractice:

“The family of Joan Rivers has settled a medical malpractice suit against the New York City clinic where the comedian died.

“In accepting this settlement, I am able to put the legal aspects of my mother’s death behind me and ensure that those culpable for her death have accepted responsibility for their actions quickly and without equivocation,” said her daughter Melissa Rivers in a statement on Thursday.

Joan Rivers died Sept. 4, 2014, at age 81. The comedian’s death came days after she stopped breathing after undergoing a routine endoscopy at Yorkville Endoscopy in Manhattan.

Melissa Rivers filed the suit in 2015 in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, alleging that the doctors performed unauthorized medical procedures, as they were caught taking a selfie with the Fashion Police star while she was under anesthesia. 

Melissa Rivers’ attorneys Ben Rubinowitz and Jeff Bloom did not disclose the amount of the settlement, but said they wanted to “make certain that the focus of this horrific incident remains on improved patient care and the legacy of Joan Rivers,” according to the Associated Press.

The lawsuit alleged that doctors at the clinic mishandled Rivers’ procedure by performing a laryngoscopy on her vocal cords without consent, instead of an endoscopy. According to the AP, the suit claimed that when an anesthesiologist expressed concern over what the procedure would do to her ability to breathe, she was told that she was being “paranoid.” 

The official cause of Joan Rivers’ death was that she died because the doctors had cut off the oxygen supply to her brain. So much for being “paranoid.”

An accident during a routine surgery not long after Rivers said on-camera that Obama is gay and Michelle is a tranny?

It shouldn’t be a surprise that many people started asking questions about whether her death–which her doctor has even said was “100% preventable“–had anything to do with her remarks about the Obamas.

So why didn’t Joan Rivers Truthers get primetime slots on CNN to discuss the matter? Why was Anderson Cooper not taking seriously the claims that the Obamas had Joan Rivers killed for exposing the truth about them?

It’s a rhetorical question. We all know the answer. The media was determined to make Barack Obama President and had his back the whole time.

Now, am I saying all this stuff about the Obamas is true? No, that’s not my point here. I don’t know whether any of it is true or not.

My point is to illustrate the staggering degree to which Democrats are shielded by the press contrasted to the way Trump is automatically presumed guilty of just about any allegation against him no matter how outlandish and unfounded.

Millions of Americans believe Trump is a Russia-colluding rapist simply because the media wants them to believe it. Conversely, very few Americans believe that Obama is a gay man and Michelle Obama is a transgender because the media does not want them to believe so.