
Rapper Talib Kweli: âNazi Germany Had a Wall Called the Berlin Wallâ

By Justin Caruso
Rapper Talib Kweli gave his fans an incredibly wrong history lesson Friday, saying that the Berlin Wall was created by Nazi Germany and was proof of how âwalls didnât work for Nazis.â
âSo, youâre unaware of the fact that nazi Germany had a wall called the Berlin Wall that was torn down in 1991 in order to foster humanity and diversity? Walls didnât work for Nazis so why build them here? Build bridges not walls Nazi lover,â Talib Kweli said in response to another social media user.

Of course, the Berlin Wall was erected not by Nazi Germany, but by socialist East Germany, which was under the occupation of the communist Soviet Union at the time.
Also, unlike President Donald Trumpâs proposed wall along the United States-Mexico border, the Berlin Wall was created to stop people from leaving East Germanyâs occupation to travel into free West Berlin.
Talib Kweliâs social media posts are not only fact-deficient, they are often hate-filled and vitriolic. In 2016, the âGet Byâ rapper attacked Breitbart Newsâ Jerome Hudson, repeatedly disparaging him with the racial slur âcoon.â

Twitter, despite their strict enforcement of rules when it comes to conservatives, took no action despite Kweli repeatedly racially abusing people on the platform over political disagreements.

SOCIALIST OCASIO-CORTEZ SUDDENLY CONCERNED ABOUT GOVâT SPENDING AMID BORDER WALL PUSH

Silent on giving $10 billion in aid to Mexico, Central America
DECEMBER 22, 2018
Despite pushing for a socialist âMedicare for allâ plan that countless experts argue would bankrupt the nation, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is now all of a sudden concerned about paying for things.
On Thursday, the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives approved $5.7 billion in fundingfor the wall between the U.S. and Mexico.
The measure has not yet been voted on in the Senate amid ongoing negotiations, and the partial government shut down on Saturday morning.
But in response to the $5.7 billion for the wall in the House bill, the New York socialist took to Twitter to claim âno oneâs asking the GOP how theyâre paying for it.â

âAnd just like that, GOP discovers $5.7 billion for a wall. $5.7 billionâŠÂ What if we instead added $5.7B in teacher pay? Or replacing water pipes? Or college tuition/prescription refill subsidies? Or green jobs? But notice how no oneâs asking the GOP how theyâre paying for it,â she wrote.
For starters, âno oneâ is asking how the GOP is âpaying for itâ because most people understand basic math and how the federal government works.
The federal government is funded by the taxpayers. When Congress passes a spending bill, it must allocate the necessary funding for the the following fiscal year to ensure all government can fully operate.
They didnât âdiscoverâ the money out of thin air, it has been there the entire time. The issue is that in Congress, a spending bill requires a supermajority, meaning 60 votes in the Senate.
No Democrats are agreeing to vote in favor of the House-passed package, so negotiations are ongoing about how much funding â which the government already has â will be allocated for âborder security.â
Aside from Ocasio-Cortez not even having a rudimentary understanding of how government works, which she will be part of in a week, many are wondering why sheâs not all of a sudden concerned about spending money.

All corrupt on the Western front? Der Spiegel latest to fall from media mountaintops

By Robert Bridge
Once again, a reporter has been accused of writing fake stories â over a span of years â reinforcing the suspicion that we are living in a post-truth world where words, to paraphrase Kipling, âare the most powerful drug.â
This week, Der Spiegel, the German news weekly, was forced to admit that one of its former star reporters, the award-winning Claas Relotius, âfalsified his articles on a grand scale.â
Indeed, it seems the disgraced journalist was motivated more by fiction writers John le Carre and Tom Clancy than by any media heavyweights, like Andrew Breitbart and Walter Cronkite.
Relotius, who just this month took home Germanyâs Reporterpreis (âReporter of the Yearâ) for his enthralling tale of a Syrian teenager, âmade up stories and invented protagonists,â Der Spiegel admitted.

There is a temptation to rationalize Relotiusâs multiple indiscretions, not to mention the failure of his fastidious employer to unearth them for so long, as an unavoidable part of the dog-eat-dog media jungle. After all, journalists are not robots â at least not yet â and we are all humans prone to poor judgment and mistakes, perhaps even highly unethical ones.
That explanation, however, falls short of explaining the internal forces battering away at the foundation of Western media, an institution built on the shifting sand of lies, disinformation and outright propaganda. And what is readily apparent to those outside of the Western media fortress is certainly even more apparent to those inside.
A good example is Russiagate. This elaborate myth, which has been peddled repeatedly and without an ounce of 100-percent real beef since the US election of 2016, goes like this: A group of Russian hackers, buying a few hundred social media memes for just rubles to the dollar, were able to do what all the Republican campaign strategists, and all the special interests groups, with all of their billions of dollars in their massive war chest, simply could not: keep Democratic voters at home on the couch come Election Day â a tactic now known as âvoter suppression operationsâ â thereby handing the White House to Donald Trump on a silver platter. Or shall we say âa Putin platterâ?

Donât believe me? Hereâs the opening line of a recent Washington Post article that should be rated âRâ for racist: âOne difference between Russian and Republican efforts to quash the black vote: The Russians are more sophisticated, insidious and slick,â wailed Joe Davidson, who apparently watched too many Hollywood films where the Russkies play all of the villains. âUnlike the Republican sledgehammers used to suppress votes and thwart electoratesâ decisions in various states, the Russians are sneaky, using social media come-ons that ostensibly had little to do with the 2016 vote.â
Meanwhile, Der Spiegel, despite being forced to come clean over the transgressions of Claas Relotius, will most likely never own up to its own factual shortcomings with regards to their dismal reporting on Russia.
For example, in an article published last year entitled âPutinâs work, Clintonâs contribution,â the German weekly lamented that âA superpower intervenes in the election campaign of another superpower: The Russian cyber-attack in the US is a scandal.â Just like their fallen star reporter, Der Spiegel regurgitated fiction masquerading as news.

However, there is no need to limit ourselves to just media-generated Russian fairytales. The Western media has contrived other sensational stories, with its own cast of dubious characters, and with far greater consequences.
Consider the reporting in the Western media prior to the 2003 Iraq War, when most journalists were behaving as cheerleaders for military invasion as opposed to conscientious objectors, or at least objective observers. In fact, two reporters with the New York Times, Michael Gordon and Judith Miller, arguably gave the Bush administration and a hardcore group of neocons inside Washington, which had been pushing for a war against Saddam Hussein for many years, the barest justification it required for military action.
Just six months before the bombs started dropping on Baghdad, Gordon and Miller penned a front-page article in the Times that opened with this stunning claim: âIraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today.â
The article in Americaâs âpaper of recordâ then proceeded to build the case for military action against Iraq by quoting an assortment of anonymous senior administration officials, anonymous Iraqi defectors, and anonymous chemical weapons experts. In fact, much of the story was based on comments provided by one âAhmed al-Shemri,â a pseudonym for someone purported to have been connected to Husseinâs chemical-weapons program. The authors quoted the mystery man as saying:Â âAll of Iraq is one large storage facility.â
Gordon and Miller also claimed their source had said that âhe had been told that Iraq was still storing some 12,500 gallons of anthrax.â Several months later, just weeks before the US invasion of Iraq commenced, US Secretary of State Colin Powell invited the UN General Assembly to imagine what a âteaspoon of dry anthraxâ could do if unleashed on the public.
Powell, who later said the testimony would be a permanent âblotâ on his record, even shook a tiny faux sample of the deadly biological agent in the Assembly for maximum theatrical effect.
Shortly after the release of the Times piece, top Bush officials appeared on television and alluded to Millerâs story in support of military action. Meanwhile, UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq never found chemical weapons or the materials needed to build atomic weapons. In other words, the $1-trillion-dollar war against Iraq, which led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, was a completely senseless act of aggression against a sovereign state, which the US media helped perpetrate.
Aside from the question of whether readers really put much faith in these fantastic media stories, complete with pseudonymous characters and impossible to prove claims; there remains another question. Does the Western media itself believe its own stories? Â The answer seems to be no, at least not always.
With regards to the Russiagate story, for example, an investigative journalism outfit, Project Veritas, caught a few Western journalists off-guard about their true feelings in relation to the claims against Russia, and their feelings in general about the state of the media.
âI love the news business, but Iâm very cynical about it â and at the same time so are most of my colleagues,â CNN Supervising Producer John Bonifield admitted, unaware he was being secretly filmed.
When pushed to explain why CNN was beating the anti-Russia drum on a daily basis, things became clearer: âBecause itâs ratings,â Bonifield said. âOur ratings are incredible right now.â
In the same media sting operation, Van Jones, a prominent CNN political commentator who has pushed the anti-Russia position numerous times on-air, completely changed his tune when caught off-air and off-guard. âThe Russia thing is just a big nothing burger,â he remarked.
This brings us back to the story of the fallen Der Spiegel journalist. It seems that a deep cynicism has taken hold in at least some parts of the Western media establishment. Journalists seem increasingly willing to produce extremely tenuous, fact-challenged stories, many of which are barely held together by a rickety composite of anonymous entities.
And why not? If their own media bosses are permitting gross fabrications on a number of major issues, not least of all related to Russia, and further afield in Syria, why should the journalists be forced to play by the rules?
Under such oppressive conditions, where the media appears to be merely the mouthpiece of the governmentâs position on a number of issues, those working inside this apparatus will eventually come around to the conclusion that truth is not the main priority. The main priority is hoodwinking the public into believing something even when the facts â or lack of them â point to other conclusions.
Thus, it is no surprise when we find Western reporters imitating the greatest fiction writers, because in reality that is what they have already become.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
CHUCK SCHUMER SAYS REPUBLICANS MUST âABANDONâ WALL IN ORDER TO REOPEN GOVERNMENT

Henry Rodgers | Capitol Hill Reporter
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Republicans need to âabandonâ border wall funding if they want the government to reopen, just less than 24 hours into the partial shutdown.
Schumer, who has strongly opposed funding President Donald Trumpâs border wall, saidthis on the Senate floor Saturday afternoon as the federal government is officially in a partial shutdown after Senate Republicans failed to receive enough votes to pass a short-term spending bill Friday that included funding for a border wall.
WATCH:
The New York senator also said Democrats are âopen to discussing any proposal as long as they do not include anything for the wall,â showing Democrats are not willing to compromise on border wall funding.

Before the partial shutdown, Schumer said there was no way the wall was being funded on numerous occasions.
âI want to be crystal clear â there will be no additional appropriations to pay for the border wall,â Schumer said on the Senate floor on Dec. 13. âItâs done.â (RELATED: Chuck Schumer Makes It âCrystal Clearâ He Wants No Additional Funding For Border Wall)
The two parties will now have to figure out an agreement, and the senators must be present for a vote on the Senate floor to send a bill to the president to sign and end the partial government shutdown.
THE NEW YORK TIMES WAS AGAINST WAR IN SYRIA BEFORE IT WAS FOR IT

What a difference a year can make for The New York Times
By Joe Simonson
What a difference a year can make for The New York Times.
As President Donald Trump announced his decision Wednesday to withdraw the nationâs 2,000 troops from Syria, a bipartisan cadre of opinion-havers attacked him as recklessly abandoning allies in the region and jeopardizing Americaâs influence over foreign affairs.
One newspaper was particularly harsh: The Times.
Quickly after Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced his resignation (in part as a protest against Trumpâs decision on Syria) Thursday, Americaâs paper of record quickly produced a scathing editorial, proclaiming âJim Mattis Was Right.â

âWho will protect America now?â The Times asked.
The editorial frets about how American troops leaving Syria âhampers moraleâ of âallied forces like the Kurds.â (RELATED: Trump Explains His Decision To Withdraw From Syria)
âIt could also risk getting American soldiers killed or wounded for objectives their commanders had already abandoned,â writes The Times.
Yet almost a year ago, on Jan. 19, 2018, that same editorial board raked the president over the coals for even daring to continue Americaâs policy of military adventurism.
The Times expressed concern that more American troops beyond the 2,000 initially deployed could soon be sent overseas in a mission without any clear goals.
âSyria is a complex problem. But this plan seems poorly conceived, too dependent on military action and fueled by wishful thinking,â The Times said.

While on Thursday The Times worried that leaving Syria could leave the Kurds vulnerable to Turkey, at the beginning of 2018, the paper also believed that the U.S. would be setting up a clash between the minority group and a NATO ally.
âTurkey, which views the Kurds as an enemy, has threatened a cross-border assault. All of this raises the grim possibility that American troops will clash with Turkey, a NATO ally,â The Times wrote last January.
Nowhere in Thursdayâs editorial does The Times ever point to an alternative timeline for withdrawal for American forces in Syria. Such an omission is quite startling, considering last January the paperâs chief criticism of sending forces to the region was setting up just another forever-war in the Middle East.
One thing is clear from these two diametrically opposed editorials: The job of The Times isnât to provide valid criticisms of Trump, but to simply oppose him at all costs.
Alyssa Milano mocks amputee veteran’s massive border wall crowdfunding, gets Twitter-flogged

Actress Alyssa Milano (L) / Brian Kolfage Jr. (R) © Reuters / Danny Moloshok /Mike Segar
The actress-turned-Democratic firebrand was left red-faced as after she took aim at the crowdfunding campaign to build a border wall between the US and Mexico, now at over $13mn. In a tweet on Thursday, Milano wrote:Â “Oh, yes! Let’s #GoFundTheWall while not taking care of our veterans. Cool. Cool. Cool.”

It was not long before the tweet ignited a firestorm on Twitter, as many noticed Milano hand’t done her homework, as the GoFundMe page was started by Air Force veteran Brian Kolfage, a Purple Heart recipient, who lost three limbs in a rocket attack in Iraq.
The campaign, with a designated goal of $1bn, started less than a week ago and has already shot up to be one of the five top GoFundMe campaigns ever.
Milano’s fellow Hollywood celebrity and outspoken conservative James Woods led the backlash against her, pointing out who started the fund.

Many actual veterans chimed in, tweeting at Milano that they have backed the crowdfunding campaign, while others accused her of preying on the cause she did not seem to care about before.
“Bring Vets up when it’s convenient for you. Any other day you could care less,” one Guser wrote.

People argued that building the wall and helping veterans are not incompatible tasks and can both be done at the same time.
Milano, one of the most prominent #MeToo movement stars, has been rallying behind virtually every anti-Trump and pro-Democratic cause, often using her Twitter with its 3.48 million followers to spew vitriol at Trump, calling him a “piece of sh*t” and “evil creature” for the treatment of caravan migrants at the US-Mexican border in November.
However, just like this time, back then Milano was accused of hypocrisy and poor research. She was reminded that border agents used the exact same means â pepper spray â to repel rock-throwing migrants at the border when Obama was in office.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!





