Looking back at the CNN town hall with Trump. It was the right thing to do. The noise has settled down since the far left and MSM got all upset that Trump did a town hall with CNN.
The Democrats and Independents got to see and hear Trump give his side, and it worked. Trumps ratings went up with Democrats, Independents, but also with women. Mission accomplished.
Does the mainstream media need to bring back the ombudsman to restore credibility and trust? Liberal journalists should acknowledge it’s natural that people wronged by the Bidens would be welcomed by the conservative media, just as Trump-haters (like angry niece Mary Trump) would be celebrated by the liberal media.
In case you didn’t know, the MSM tends to leave out stories and articles that point out the wrong doings of the Biden Administration and their far left allies.
But they don’t pass up an opportunity to report negatively on Conservatives even when they don’t have verification on the articles that they print. How do we correct that?
Here’s parts of an interesting article from The Poynter.
Despite a slight increase since 2016, the public’s low level of trust in the mainstream media is of deep concern for the future of journalism.
Nearly half of people surveyed listed inaccuracies, bias and “fake news” as factors in their low confidence. A general lack of credibility and the perception that reporting is based on opinions was also cited for the loss of trust. But the Gallup poll did offer a glimmer of hope. Nearly 70% of all respondents said they felt trust could be restored somehow.
Would the return of ombudsmen improve public trust in the mainstream media? If so, what changes in the traditional ombudsman role would make its use even more effective? Eight former ombudsmen weigh in with their thoughts on the current state of journalism and the role of ombudsmen in the era of online journalism.
“The ombudsman was thought to be an independent, autonomous person, on a level with the editor-in-chief of the paper’s organizational level, but not reporting to anyone in the newspaper,” said Mark Prendergast, who from 2009 to 2012 was the ombudsman at Stars and Stripes.
From Rex Huppke, USA TODAY, also reprinted on MSN.com
[* It is clear from the word choices, UPPER CASE WORDS, and quotation marks that this person’s article is saying the opposite of what he claims to be for or against. He is mocking at least half the country. — TPR]
Now that my favorite president, Donald Trump, is facing a 37-count indictment from the feds, I join with my brothers and sisters in MAGA, and with all sensible Republicans, in saying this: I’m not sure I want to live in a country where a former president can wave around classified documents he’s not supposed to have and say, “This is secret information. Look at this,” and then be held accountable for his actions.
I mean, what kind of country have we become? One in which federal prosecutors can take “evidence” before a “grand jury,” and that grand jury can “vote to indict” a former president for 37 alleged “crimes”? Look at all the other people out there in America, including Democrats like Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden, who HAVEN’T been indicted for crimes on the flimsy excuse that there is no “evidence” they did crimes. THAT’S TOTALLY UNFAIR!
It’s like Republican Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin wrote in a tweet Friday: “These charges are unprecedented and it’s a sad day for our country, especially in light of what clearly appears to be a two-tiered justice system where some are selectively prosecuted, and others are not.”
TWO TIERS! One tier in which President Trump keeps getting indicted via both state and federal justice systems and another in which the people I don’t like keep getting not indicted via all the things Fox News tells me they did wrong.
It’s like America has become a banana republic, as long as you do as I’ve done and refuse to look up the definition of “banana republic.”
Sure, they’ll tell you that the indictment came via a special counsel investigation, and that the federal special counsel statute keeps such investigations walled off from political influence.
But that’s complete nonsense, unless we’re talking about special counsel John Durham, who was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr while Trump was president and tasked with investigating the NEFARIOUS LEFT-WING CRIMES committed in the Trump-Russia probe. Durham was above reproach, and the fact that The New York Times reported he “charged no high-level F.B.I. or intelligence official with a crime and acknowledged in a footnote that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign did nothing prosecutable, either” is something I will ignore.
Current special counsel Jack Smith, on the other hand – he’s bad news. I know this because Trump has said repeatedly that Smith’s investigation is a witch hunt, and I’ve never known Trump to lie about anything.
Keep in mind, in 2016, Trump said: “I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.”
So after he said that, you expect me to believe he didn’t protect classified information? Just because, according to the indictment, there’s a recording of him holding a classified document in his office at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, and saying to two staff members and an interviewer: “See, as president I could have declassified it. … Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”
You call that “damning evidence.” I call it, “What about Hunter Biden’s laptop?”
Now I can already hear all the libs out there whining and saying that if it were Biden or Hillary or Hunter getting indicted, I wouldn’t be saying a word about two tiers of justice or the weaponization of the Department of Justice or anything like that.
Well, those whiners would be right, but the difference is I believe Biden and Hillary and Hunter are all guilty and should be locked up for life, whereas with Trump, I believe he is great and innocent and the best president America has ever known.
It’s like this: If Hillary got indicted for murder, I would say, “Yes, she is absolutely a murderer. Lock her up.”
But if in some outrageous scenario President Trump were indicted for murder just because he told a bunch of people that he did a murder, I would say: “HOW DARE YOU CHARGE THIS MAN WITH MURDER WHEN OTHERS IN THE U.S. HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH MURDER! THERE ARE CLEARLY TWO TIERS OF JUSTICE, ONE IN WHICH MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT, WHO SAID HE MURDERED SOMEONE, IS CHARGED WITH MURDER AND ONE IN WHICH PEOPLE WHO HAVEN’T MURDERED ARE NOT CHARGED WITH MURDER!”
And that, my liberal friends, makes perfect sense to me and my MAGA companions. So watch out. The Trump Train’s a comin’.
[* I have not done any editing for grammar errors. This snide, self-important turkey is representative of the amount and level of pandering being done on behalf of the Leftist regime. –TPR]
What the Durham Report is and isn’t. I’m sure you’ve heard by now that the Durham Report is out and both some on the right are upset and most on the left continue with the misinformation. Let’s review.
The report isn’t a document that asked for or atgave indictments. Durham after all is a Democrat who’s been in the government service for years. It also isn’t a whitewash of the FBI, DOJ, and the Obama administration.
And it isn’t a tell all or vindication of all the rumors from the left and right in reference of what it would contain. It is a document of facts. Let me explain. It’s a report of just the facts.
It’s a vindication of not just Trump, but of Conservative talk show hosts and Conservative media. They for three years were saying that there was no Russian interference on Trumps side.
It’s a report that fills in the blanks for all. It confirms that Clinton was the one who used Russian misinformation to smear Trump. It proves that Obama, Biden, and heads of the FBI and DOJ knew that Clinton was using Russian documents that were false.
What’s really daming is that it confirms that Obama had Trump wired. It proves that the FBI and DOJ went to the FISA courts without real intel.
Finally on what is. The Durham Report released on Monday highlighted that in 2016, McCabe, the FBI’s deputy director, and Strzok, the agency’s deputy assistant director for counterintelligence, beghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSXhRKA_XIEan the probe — dubbed “Crossfire Hurricane” — without “ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information.
https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1492695040040210432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1492695040040210432%7Ctwgr%5E1cfb27449f7535f169ab36e787cb2fa1d6d7fd27%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fthe-media%2F2023%2F05%2F16%2Fdurham-report-vindicates-mark-levin-breitbart-on-fbi-spying-on-trump%2F
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837989835818287106?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E837989835818287106%7Ctwgr%5E1cfb27449f7535f169ab36e787cb2fa1d6d7fd27%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fthe-media%2F2023%2F05%2F16%2Fdurham-report-vindicates-mark-levin-breitbart-on-fbi-spying-on-trump%2F
So where do Conservatives go now or do they? Say what you will, FOX still is king of the hill when it comes to Conservative media reporting. Have they moved closer to the middle? Are they now considered MSM? Yes to both.
Only one missing from the conservative photo I posted is OAN. So when you take the other top 10 Conservative websites, FOX has a bigger audience than all ten combined.
Only true Conservative website to really consider would be NewsMax. That doesn’t mean the others are less relevant, It’s just that they don’t have the money or viewership. In another article that I wrote, I wrote that Tucker should buy NewsMax and from there create a powerhouse of his own. Hopefully he reads this.
Now I left out Rumble, Gettr, Gab, Parler,Truth, etc. All great but TV media websites.
Introduction: The right to petition is a fundamental aspect of a Constitutional Republic, ensuring that citizens can voice their concerns and demand action from their government. However, on Inauguration Day, the Biden administration took an unexpected and concerning step, quietly shutting down the “We The People” petition platform. This article explores the implications of this decision and its impact on accountability, freedom of speech, and the rights of the American people.
The Creation of the Platform under the Obama Administration
In 2011, the Obama administration launched the ‘We The People’ petition platform as part of its commitment to fostering an open and participatory government. Designed to facilitate direct communication between the public and the White House, the platform allowed anyone to create and sign petitions on various topics, from policy changes to social issues. If a petition garnered a specific number of signatures within a given time frame, it would receive an official response from the White House.
The Purpose and Significance in our American Constitutional Republic
The ‘We The People’ platform served as a vital tool in promoting civic engagement and empowering citizens to voice their concerns and demand government action. By providing a direct line of communication with the White House, the platform enabled Americans to hold their government accountable and advocate for changes they deemed necessary. It also helped foster transparency, as official responses shed light on the government’s stance on various issues.
Notable Successes and Milestones Achieved through the Platform
Over the years, the ‘We The People’ platform played a role in influencing government policy and sparking national conversations on various topics. Some notable successes include:
These successes, among others, highlight the importance of the ‘We The People’ platform in the American constitutional republic and its role in promoting civic engagement and government accountability.
The Removal of the Platform on Inauguration Day
On January 20, 2021, the day Joe Biden was inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States, the ‘We The People’ petition platform was taken down without prior notice or explanation. This sudden disappearance of a widely used communication tool between the public and the White House caught many off guard and raised questions about the Biden administration’s commitment to transparency and public engagement.
The Lack of Public Announcement or Explanation
What made the removal of the platform particularly concerning was the lack of communication from the Biden administration. No public announcement was made, nor was any explanation provided as to why the platform was taken down or if there were plans to reinstate it. This silence left users and advocates of the platform in the dark and fueled speculation about the administration’s motives behind the decision.
Comparisons to Previous Administrations’ Actions Regarding the Platform
It is worth noting that the ‘We The People’ platform remained active throughout both the Obama and Trump administrations. While the Trump administration was initially slow to respond to petitions, the platform was never taken down or disabled. The Biden administration’s abrupt removal of the platform without explanation stands in stark contrast to the actions of previous administrations, further raising questions about its commitment to the principles of civic engagement and government accountability.
The unexplained disappearance of the ‘We The People’ platform under the Biden administration has left many Americans concerned about the future of this important tool for public engagement and government transparency. It remains to be seen whether the platform will be reinstated or if a similar initiative will be introduced to fill the void it left behind.
The removal of the ‘We The People’ platform has serious implications for accountability and public engagement. The platform provided citizens with a direct line of communication to the government, allowing them to voice their concerns and demand action on various issues. Losing this valuable tool hinders the public’s ability to hold the government accountable for its actions and decisions, making it more difficult to foster a transparent and responsive political system.
The Chilling Effect on Freedom of Speech and Public Discourse
The disappearance of the platform also has the potential to create a chilling effect on freedom of speech and public discourse. Without a dedicated platform for voicing concerns and mobilizing support for change, citizens may feel less empowered to speak out on important issues. This could lead to a decline in public debate, which is essential for the health of a constitutional republic.
The loss of the ‘We The People’ platform has raised concerns about the Biden administration’s commitment to government accountability and transparency. It is essential for citizens to continue advocating for the reinstatement of the platform or the creation of a similar tool to ensure their voices are not silenced.
Even with the removal of the ‘We The People’ platform, citizens can still participate in the political process and make their voices heard through various channels. In this section, we will explore alternative petition platforms, the importance of remaining engaged, and examples of successful grassroots movements and campaigns.
In the absence of the ‘We The People’ platform, several third-party petition platforms have emerged to fill the void. Websites such as Change.org, MoveOn.org, and Avaaz.org allow users to create and sign petitions on various issues, facilitating public engagement and advocacy. While these platforms are not directly connected to the government, they can still influence policy changes and raise awareness about pressing issues.
Even without a direct line of communication with the government, it is crucial for citizens to remain engaged and proactive in the political process. This can be achieved through various means such as contacting local representatives, participating in town hall meetings, joining advocacy groups, and voting in elections. By staying informed and active, citizens can continue to hold the government accountable and promote positive change in society.
Throughout history, numerous grassroots movements and campaigns have had a significant impact on policy changes and social reform. Some notable examples include:
These examples demonstrate the power of citizen participation and grassroots activism in shaping public policy and promoting social change.
The Role of Honest Journalism in Upholding a Constitutional Republic
In a constitutional republic, the media plays a vital role in informing the public and ensuring that citizens stay well-informed about the actions and decisions of their government. By providing comprehensive reporting, the media can hold the government accountable and help maintain a system of checks and balances.
Transparency and accountability are essential components of political reporting. By offering unbiased and accurate information, the media can foster trust between the public and the government, ultimately contributing to a healthier political environment. However, the potential consequences of biased or misleading information can be detrimental to public perception and decision-making, leading to a divided society.
The removal of the ‘We The People’ platform is a significant event that should be thoroughly covered by the media. Journalists have a responsibility to investigate and report on the reasons behind the platform’s removal to keep the public informed about potential changes in government priorities and their impact on citizen participation.
Encouraging public discourse on the implications of the platform’s removal for citizen participation and government accountability is essential. Open discussion about the removal of the ‘We The People’ platform can raise awareness of its consequences and inspire citizens to seek alternative channels for engagement and accountability. Honest journalism plays a pivotal role in upholding the values of a constitutional republic and ensuring that the government remains answerable to the people.
A Call to Action for a Stronger Constitutional Republic
In conclusion, the removal of the ‘We The People’ petition platform raises crucial questions about accountability, transparency, and the rights of American citizens. It is more important than ever for citizens to stay informed and engaged in the political process and for journalists to hold the government accountable for its actions.
As concerned citizens, we must act to ensure that our voices continue to be heard. To that end, we encourage you to sign and share the Accountability Act petition on Change.org. This petition aims to promote transparency and accountability in the government, calling for the restoration of the ‘We The People’ platform, among other measures.
Winning. Washington Post calls for more police. Especially in cities like DC. All the MSM was calling for the defunding of police. Most called for a citizen type social worker group replacing them.
Now the Washington Post has finally admitted that it doesn’t work. More police is the answer.
WaPo editorial board shifts view on ‘Defund the Police’ since George Floyd riots: DC ‘needs more officers’
Recent editorials from the Washington Post changed the publication’s “Defund the Police” perspective with calls for increased police presence in the D.C. area.
On Friday, the paper’s Editorial Board published a piece arguing “Why police officers need to be in D.C. schools.”
“Many cities yanked officers out of schools while reassessing policing after George Floyd’s 2020 murder. However well-intentioned, the experiment has left kids more vulnerable and classrooms less safe amid surging youth violence. That’s why a notable number have already reversed course — including, in this region, Alexandria and Montgomery County. Other jurisdictions, from Boston to Phoenix, are actively debating whether to follow,” The Post wrote. “D.C. should join them.”
However, the Washington Post was one of many media outlets that entertained the idea of defunding the police after the death of George Floyd in 2020.
“Weeks of sustained anger and grief after the police killing of George Floyd have reignited a public debate over police brutality in the United States. Alongside demands for police reform, another demand has surfaced: Defund the police. This provocative slogan at its most constructive represents a welcome call to reimagine public safety in the United States,” a June 2020 editorial stated…
“Rethinking which institutions truly serve public safety and imagining new ones should be part of that conversation. This work is arduous and demanding — as many community organizers who have been doing it for decades can testify. But no one ever said reimagining public safety would be easy,” The Post wrote.
https://twitter.com/CapehartJ/status/1270711158744535040?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1270711158744535040%7Ctwgr%5Ebe914db7cc16472bd5246a02571962a8b5cf71c5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2023%2F04%2Fliberal-washington-post-editorial-board-reverses-position-on-defunding-the-police%2F
What a big difference.
Winning. Twitter goes after misinformation from the extreme left. Can you hear the howling coming from the fanatics on the left? State affiliated, Misinformation, Fake News, just some of the labels being put on some of the old dinosaurs on the extreme left.
Fact checking the Pinocchio guy at the WP. Taking NY Times blue check away .Labeling NPR State Affiliated. Anthe future.d I’m sure we will see more in
We heard how the New York progressives were going to put a hurting on peaceful Conservatives and MFG would be assaulted and run out of town during the Trump court appearance this past Tuesday.
We had some pushing and shoving, but no beat down like the left promised. But there was some excitement from a MSM news crew member making death threats against a Journalist.
An independent photojournalist named Oren Levy was violently assaulted by a deranged CBS News crew member while covering the Trump arraignment in New York City on Tuesday.
The Post Millennial was the first outlet to cover the incident. In the video below, a large, deranged black man grabs Levy by the jacket and shoves him back. He screams “don’t ever f**k with me” at Levy for an unknown reason.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1643358670594404353
https://twitter.com/i/status/1643387928553422849
NY Times attacked for agreeing with Hate Groups only 99% of the time. Finally NY Times stands up to progressive hate group. GLAAD. Recently the Times did an editorial defending the Harry Potter writer plus showing the other side of transgender issues.
Well GLAAD lost it. How dare they tell the rest of the story and present both sides of an issue? That’s not what progressives do. We have this from The Hill.
The top editor of The New York Times warned the newspaper’s journalists who have voiced displeasure with the outlet’s coverage of transgender people and issues that such public criticism will “not be tolerated.”
In a memo to staff on Thursday obtained by The Hill, executive editor Joe Kahn said the Times “received a letter delivered by GLAAD, an advocacy group, criticizing coverage in The Times of transgender issues.”
