Alec Baldwin Declares Lindsey Graham ‘Trump’s Fluffer’

NEW YORK, NY - JUNE 25: Robert De Niro, Alec Baldwin and Jane Krakowski attend "Spike's One Night Only: Alec Baldwin" at The Apollo Theater on June 25, 2017 in New York City. (Photo by Mike Coppola/Getty Images for Spike)

By Justin Caruso

Hollywood actor and Saturday Night Live faux-President Trump Alec Baldwin smeared Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), calling him President Donald Trump’s “fluffer” in a social media post Wednesday.

“How is it that God -fearing Americans from South Carolina believe that @LindseyGrahamSC , who is nothing more than Trump’s fluffer, passes as worthy of a seat in the US Senate?” Alec Baldwin said.

CAP

According to Dictionary.com. “A fluffer is — or at least is said to be — someone on a pornographic film set that keeps a male performer’s penis erect in between scenes.”

Sen. Graham was the target of much scorn Wednesday after he defended President Trump from allegations of collusion with Russia.

“I appreciate very much what Mr. Mueller did for the country. I have read most of the report. For me, it is over,” Graham said.

The South Carolina Republican also read aloud texts from former FBI agent Peter Strzok that showed hatred for the president, including one text where Strzok called Trump a “fucking idiot.”

MSNBC personality Nicolle Wallace accused Graham of being a “human shield for Donald Trump and it would appear, William Barr.”

Hollywood stars and establishment media pundits used homophobic slurs against Lindsey Graham after his performance during the Brett Kavanaugh hearing as well.

Rosie O’Donnell called him a “closeted idiot” and Kathy Griffin referred to him as “Miss.”

“Look at Miss Lindsey Graham trying to be all tough! What?Does Putin have a picture of Lindsay fucking a donkey? #KanavaughHearings,” Griffin said.

CAP

MUELLER DIDN’T FIND BARR’S MEMO INACCURATE, BUT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT MSM COVERAGE

Mueller Didn't Find Barr's Memo Inaccurate, But Was Concerned About MSM Coverage

Worried that legacy media would misinterpret the investigation

Infowars.com – MAY 1, 2019

Special counsel Robert Mueller didn’t find Attorney General William Barr’s memo summarizing his report inaccurate, but was worried about mainstream media coverage misinterpreting the investigation, according to federal officials.

The mainstream media jumped on a recently released letter Mueller sent to Barr in late March in which Mueller claimed the memo didn’t “fully capture the context, nature, and substance.”

According to the letter:

“There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

On its own, this paints AG Barr in a bad light; however, the Washington Post had this to say deep within an article on the subject:

A day after Mueller sent his letter to Barr, the two men spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.

In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that media coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials. Mueller did not express similar concerns about the public discussion of the investigation of Russia’s election interference, the officials said. Barr has testified previously he did not know whether Mueller supported his conclusion on obstruction.

When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.

Consequently, critics have suggested that Mueller has ironically fueled media misinterpretation by not initially pointing this out in the letter.

“Did Mueller write this letter knowing it would be leaked to the public? It certainly has a different tone than the phone conversation,” PJ Media pointed out.

(CENSORSHIP) – Poynter Wants 515 Outlets Blacklisted, Including Breitbart Leaves Out All Corporate Media Behind Dangerous Hoaxes… …Vast Majority of Blacklist Compiled by One Assistant Prof

Screen Shot 2019-05-01 at 10.13.07 AM

By John Nolte

Poynter Institute claims on its About page that “it champions freedom of expression.” And yet, on another page, Poynter published a list of 515 media sites, including Breitbart News, that it wants blacklisted and shut down.

Poynter calls this list an “index of unreliable news sites” and is openly calling for advertisers to stop sponsoring these sites, to pull their sponsorship, to put these sites out of business.

If that’s not a blacklist, tell me what is [emphasis added]:

Advertisers don’t want to support publishers that might tar their brand with hate speech, falsehoods or some kinds of political messaging — but too often, they have little choice in the matter.

Most ad-tech dashboards make it hard for businesses to prevent their ads from appearing on (and funding) disreputable sites. Marketers can create blacklists, but many of those lists have been out-of-date or incomplete.

Aside from journalists, researchers and news consumers, we hope that the UnNews index will be useful for advertisers that want to stop funding misinformation.

This is straight-up McCarthyism. This is nothing less than the return of the 1950s’ blacklisting crusade against those who hold inappropriate, unacceptable, and unapproved opinions.

And what’s more, the lion’s share of the list cites a single source — “OpenSources,” a list curated by a single Assistant Professor from Merrimack College, Melissa Zimdars (pictured). She is the author of academic papers such as “Watching Our Weights: The Consequences and Contradictions of Televising Fatness in the ‘Obesity Epidemic’” and “Having It Both Ways: ‘Two and a Half Men,’ ‘Entourage’ and the Televising of Juvenile Postfeminist Masculinity.”

What is Zimdars’s methodology? Can’t say, exactly, as the OpenSources official site is totally blank. About two years ago, she gave an interview where she said that one of her criteria for blacklisting a site is “hate” — that is, she still believes the far-left SPLC is a credible organization whose “hate” labels should get you kicked out of public discourse.

Those of you who suddenly approve of blacklisting will argue, “Hey, this is how democracy works! A private company has the right to do or not do business with whoever they want!”

Well, how the hell do you think the 1950s’ blacklist worked? That was nothing more than private companies (movie studios, advertising sponsors) and private individuals (studio heads, producers) deciding all on their own whom they did and did not want to do business with.

Nevertheless, we rightly look back on this dark era with disgust, as an un-American era where people were persecuted and silenced (by private corporations and private individuals) for holding ideas and opinions the powerful establishment did not want shared or discussed.

And now, the 1950s’ blacklist has returned with a vengeance because the establishment media are fighting for advertising dollars and have lost their moral authority and ability to influence public opinion due to outlets like this one and the Media Research Center, Pajamas Media, Washington Examiner, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, Red State, Project Veritas, Newsmax, Zero Hedge, LifeSite, Judicial Watch, Frontpage, The Washington Free Beacon, The Daily Caller, and the Drudge Report — all of which are on Poynter’s blacklist — exposing their lies and biases, and…

Just as the blacklisters did during the McCarthy era, they are trying to silence us by targeting our advertising sponsors.

Sure, just as some of those people targeted in the 1950s were actual communists looking to do our country harm, there are some legitimate bad faith players on Poynter’s blacklist. But here’s where Poynter’s blacklist gets especially sinister…

There is no one on Poynter’s list of “unreliable news outlets” responsible for spreading the biggest, most irresponsible and dangerous lies of the last half-decade — lies that have caused race riots and destroyed innocent lives.

In other words, the outlets Poynter does not want blacklisted are every bit as revealing as those Poynter does want blacklisted.

There is simply no question that for over five years, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, ABC, CBS, PBS, NBC, MSNBC, Politico, BuzzFeed, etc., have relentlessly and deliberately misled the American people on the biggest stories of the day…

  • The Trayvon Martin Hoax

  • The Hands Up, Don’t Shoot Hoax

  • Donald Trump Can’t Win

  • The Russia Collusion Hoax

  • The Brett Kavanaugh Serial Rapist Hoax

  • The Covington High School Boys Hoax

And yet, every outlet I listed above that are part of Poynter’s blacklist either got these stories 100 percent correct, as Breitbart News did, or was at least skeptical of them.

But we are the ones these so-called “champions of free expression” are openly calling to be blacklisted, not those who have relentlessly and deliberately lied to the public for more than a half-decade.

Which proves this is not a blacklist targeting the unreliable, but a blacklist targeting those who hold ideas the un-American Poynter finds inappropriate and unacceptable.

How else to explain why Poynter wants the Media Research Center blacklisted for bias but not Media Matters?

The Poynter Institute is nothing less than a non-profit version of Joseph McCarthy, Father Coughlin, and Big Brother.

CBS News, NYT Reporter Suggest U.S. Scrap Free Speech In Favor Of New Zealand-Style Censorship

Chris Menahan
InformationLiberation
Apr. 30, 2019
https://twitter.com/zyntrax/status/1122955568921100288

Both the CBS News host and NYT reporter Cecilia Kang said the US should look to countries like Australia, New Zealand, Germany and India — which do not have free speech — as models for suppressing free speech on the internet.

Here’s the full segment:
As I reported in November 2018, the New York Times editorial board wrote a propaganda piece comparing right-wingers to jihadists and demanded authoritarian censorship of the internet to stop the spread of “toxic ideas.”

The New York Times last year hired virulent anti-white racist Sarah Jeong in August 2018 as their lead technology writer and made her a member of their editorial board.

CAP
Jeong’s Twitter feed featured her attacking “dumbass f**king white people” for “marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

She also said she gets a sick “joy” out of “being cruel to old white men” and wondered if white people’s light skin is a sign they’re “only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”

The New York Times said they were aware of her anti-white tweets when they hired her and argued her tweets were justified because some trolls called her mean names on the internet.

While journos love to act as though they’re crusaders for free speech and a free press, as we saw over the weekend during the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, they’re actually the biggest crusaders against free speech and the free press in America and throughout the West.

Bernie Sanders: Joe Biden Supported Iraq War, NAFTA and TPP — I Opposed Them

By Jeff Poor

Monday on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, reacted to former Vice President Joe Biden’s candidacy for the 2020 Democratic nod, as well.

Sanders pointed out the contrasts between him and Biden on trade and foreign policy.

“Well, look, I’m running against, I think, 19 other people,” Sanders said. “So I’m concerned about everybody. But I think when people take a look at my record versus Vice President Biden’s record, I helped lead the fight against NAFTA. He voted for NAFTA. I helped lead the fight against PNTR with China. He voted for it.”

“I strongly opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” he continued. “He supported it. I voted against the war in Iraq. He voted for it.  So I think what I hope, Anderson, what this campaign is about — and I have to tell you, I like Joe Biden. Joe is a friend of mine. But I think what we need to do with all of the candidates, have an issue-oriented campaign, not personal attacks, but talk about what we have done in our political lives, what we want to do as president, and how we’re going to transform our economy so that it works for all of us and not just the 1 percent.”

MUST-WATCH: UNINFORMED LIBERALS GET TRIGGERED BY FACTS

Must-Watch: Uninformed Liberals Get Triggered By Facts

Unhinged liberals scream and shout at female reporter while regurgitating MSM lies

 | Infowars.com – APRIL 30, 2019

Infowars reporter Millie Weaver attempts to interview attendees of a Biden 2020 rally held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania only to get bombarded by extremely hateful liberals filled with misinformation spread by the mainstream media about President Trump, Infowars and Alex Jones.

CAP

CNN’S CHRIS CUOMO SAYS ANTIFA IS A “GOOD CAUSE”

CNN's Chris Cuomo Says Antifa is a "Good Cause"

“They want social justice”

 | Infowars.com – APRIL 30, 2019

CNN’s Chris Cuomo says Antifa, the group that routinely uses political violence to advance its agenda (otherwise known as terrorism) does so for a “good cause”.

The context of the conversation was the claim that Trump called Charlottesville neo-nazis “very fine fine,” something which provably didn’t happen.

“You talk about Antifa – I’ve watched them in the streets protesting in different situations – there are certainly aspects of them that are true to a cause – that is a good cause – they want social justice,” said Cuomo.

A good cause? Really?

In just the last 24 hours alone, two stories emerged proving yet again that Antifa is a violent domestic terror group.

A Muslim convert who was radicalized by Antifa-style left-wing rhetoric planned to bomb a right-wing rally and cause “as many casualties as possible” by building a nail bomb which could “penetrate the human body and puncture internal organs”.

26-year-old US Army veteran Mark Domingo also contemplated a Las Vegas massacre-style attack on Santa Monica Pier at the height of summer.

In addition, an FBI report which was released to the San Diego Union-Tribune described how left-wing Antifa activists schemed with a drug cartel associate to stage an “armed rebellion” at the US/Mexican border.

The Department of Homeland Security in New Jersey officially listed Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization last year.

This is not the first time Cuomo has praised Antifa. He seems to be content with dying on the hill of supporting a group of masked thugs which routinely attacks innocent people, including in one instance for the ‘crime’ of carrying an American flag.

Good luck with that, Chris.

 

Eric Swalwell Pushes ‘Assault Weapons’ Buyback After Synagogue Shooting

Eric Swalwell

By AWR HAWKINS

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) reiterated his “assault weapons” buyback push on Sunday following the attack on the Congregation Chabad in Poway.

The synagogue was attacked Saturday morning. Breitbart News reported that the attacker arrived at approximately 11:20 am, opening fire shortly thereafter. Three persons were wounded and one was killed.

he attacker then fled the scene while a good guy with a gun ran behind him, shooting at, but missing, the suspect.

CNN reports that the Chabad in Poway attacker used an “AR-type assault weapon.”

Swalwell responded by tweeting:

Screen Shot 2019-04-29 at 10.30.59 AM

Here is another way to look at this:

  • Aurora — Gun-Free Zone

  • Orlando — Gun-Free Zone

  • Parkland — Gun-Free Zone

  • Sandy Hook — Gun-Free Zone

  • Umpqua CC — Gun-Free Zone

  • Waffle House — Gun-Free Zone

  • San Bernadino — Gun-Free Zone

  • Tree of Life Synagogue — Gun-Free on the day the attack occurred.

And in a gun-free zone, it does not matter what type of weapon the attacker uses because he is the only one with a gun. Therefore, he has time on his side. The Parkland attacker had time to pause and reload five times while the Sandy Hook attacker had over nine minutes without armed resistance.

Also missing from Swalwell’s list of shootings and types of weapons used is any acknowledgement that California already has an “assault weapons” ban.

Regardless of these things, Swalwell is full steam ahead on his push to do a mandated buyback of “assault weapons,” with jail-time as a consequence for those who do not comply.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑