February 04, 2019
NY Times thinks original Mary Poppins is "racist"
Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/new-york-times-mary-poppins-racist/#KcoFmzApZqC2EX4L.99
Jack Kemp
In a story worthy of The Onion, the New York Times ran a piece quoting a college professor who claimed Mary Poppins (Julie Andrews) was racist because, while hanging around with chimney sweep Dick Van Dyke, she got coal dust on her face and thus was doing blackface racism.
Apparently the idiot professor thinks that chimneys have white coal dust in England and elsewhere.
To quote the Worldnet Daily article...
You may never see the 1964 movie "Mary Poppins" on television again - now that the New York Times has labeled it racist.
In a piece for the paper by Professor Daniel Pollack-Pelzner, criticizes one of the film’s iconic moments, when Mary Poppins joins Dick Van Dyke’s Bert to dance on a rooftop for the classic song "Step in Time.â€
He writes: "When the magical nanny (played by Julie Andrews) accompanies her young charges, Michael and Jane Banks, up their chimney, her face gets covered in soot, but instead of wiping it off, she gamely powders her nose and cheeks even blacker.â€
Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/new-york-times-mary-poppins-racist/#KcoFmzApZqC2EX4L.99
END
Words all but fail me. The Times and this professor are total ideologue liars and have totally taken leave of their senses.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:28 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.
February 02, 2019
RBG: Weekend at Bubbie's
Jack Kemp
Mediate.om reports
Mediate.om reports
Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theorists Running With Claim Ruth Bader Ginsburg is Dead or In Hiding
The newest trendy conspiracy theory from the MAGA-verse is that
Democrats are trying to hide the news that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead or dying of a secret illness.
The Daily Beast has a new report out that takes a deep dive into the latest rumors taking off among fans
of QAnon....
...but Ginsburg’s also believed to be working from her house.
Even so, "Q,†the anonymous 4Chan user(s) who claims to be a
government official with high-level security clearance, is suggesting
that Ginsburg’s lack of public appearances means that she’s someone’s
trying to cover up the truth about her health.
From the Daily Beast:
"What ‘off-market’ drugs are being provided to [RBG] in order to sustain minimum daily function?†Q wrote. "What is the real medical diagnosis of [RBG]? Who is managing her care?Who is ‘really’ managing her care?â€Two days later, Q celebrated Ginsburg’s health issues, highlighting an article about Ginsburg missing court."Good morning, Patriot,†Q wrote.
Fox News accidentally gave breath to the conspiracy theory last week when they aired an obituary graphic suggesting Ginsburg passed away. The network has apologized and said it
was a control room error...
END OF QUOTE
Read the rest at Gateway Pundit.
Read the rest at Gateway Pundit.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
01:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 4 kb.
CNN Lies, Calls Va Governor a Republican
Timothy Birdnow
CNN called the black-faced/KKK Democrat Governor of Virginia a Republican on Anderson Cooper 360.
From the article:
Mistake? Yeah; right! The Left has a narrative and in it all Republicans are racist Confederate slave masters and that's that. If reality doesn't fit the narrative then reality will have to suffer.
In fact, the Democrats were the party of the Confederacy and the GOP was founded with one purpose in mind; the abolition of slavery. Republicans owned the black vote until FDR bought them with taxpayer money. Now many black people think it was the Democrats who wanted to abolish slavery, or that the Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (in fact most Democrats opposed it bitterly; it was the Republican Congress that passed the legislation.)
I once had an e-mail exchange with a black kid (I think he was younger but you can never tell on the internet) who said Republicans tried to steal Kansas for slavery in the Bleeding Kansas period prior to the Civil War. Huh? I pointed out that the Republican Party did not even exist until 1854, just a couple of years before the outbreak of hostilities in Kansas and the very same year Stephen Douglas got the Kansas-Nebraska Act to pass. That act promoted the idea of "Popular Sovereignty' which said a potential state could choose whether to be slave or free - abrogating the Missouri Compromise. It was this act that directly led to the Civil War. And Douglas was a Democrat.
But none of this mattered; the kid had been told all his life that Republicans are racists who did what the Democrats actually did, and that was that.
So the media tries at every turn to reinforce the false stereotype they have created and promoted over the years. They excused, even hid, Robert Byrd's membership, nay, leadership in the Ku Klux Klan on the grounds that he was doing "so much good" now. And they'll obfuscate in this matter too.
We don't have a news media, we have a ministry of propaganda.
CNN called the black-faced/KKK Democrat Governor of Virginia a Republican on Anderson Cooper 360.
From the article:
CNN -- the network that promotes the hashtag #FactsFirst -- mislabeled embattled Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam as a Republican on Friday during a segment about the Democrat's apology for his racist 1984 medical school yearbook photo.
Mistake? Yeah; right! The Left has a narrative and in it all Republicans are racist Confederate slave masters and that's that. If reality doesn't fit the narrative then reality will have to suffer.
In fact, the Democrats were the party of the Confederacy and the GOP was founded with one purpose in mind; the abolition of slavery. Republicans owned the black vote until FDR bought them with taxpayer money. Now many black people think it was the Democrats who wanted to abolish slavery, or that the Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (in fact most Democrats opposed it bitterly; it was the Republican Congress that passed the legislation.)
I once had an e-mail exchange with a black kid (I think he was younger but you can never tell on the internet) who said Republicans tried to steal Kansas for slavery in the Bleeding Kansas period prior to the Civil War. Huh? I pointed out that the Republican Party did not even exist until 1854, just a couple of years before the outbreak of hostilities in Kansas and the very same year Stephen Douglas got the Kansas-Nebraska Act to pass. That act promoted the idea of "Popular Sovereignty' which said a potential state could choose whether to be slave or free - abrogating the Missouri Compromise. It was this act that directly led to the Civil War. And Douglas was a Democrat.
But none of this mattered; the kid had been told all his life that Republicans are racists who did what the Democrats actually did, and that was that.
So the media tries at every turn to reinforce the false stereotype they have created and promoted over the years. They excused, even hid, Robert Byrd's membership, nay, leadership in the Ku Klux Klan on the grounds that he was doing "so much good" now. And they'll obfuscate in this matter too.
We don't have a news media, we have a ministry of propaganda.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:06 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 3 kb.
A Schultz run could be Trouble for Trump
Timothy Birdnow
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is thinking of running for President as an independent, and the Democrats are in full panic, fearing he will split the party vote and hand Trump re-election.
At Fox News the pundit John Fund had this to say:
Schultz is getting into the race because he is worried about the leftward, lunatic drift of the Democratic Party. Schultz would be called a flaming liberal in any other era, but in this day and age he is a centrist, and he wants to offer a more moderate vision for disaffected democrats.
Which brings me to my point; everyone is assuming Schultz' candidacy will hurt Democrats, but I suspect it will hurt Donald Trump more. How did Trump win in 2016? He won by enticing DEMOCRAT voters to cross the aisle and vote for him. HE was the outsider listening to the old blue collar Democrats when their former party dismissed them as "old white guys" and the GOP equally ignored their wants (like a border wall.) It was Trump's victories in states like Wisconsin - solidly Democratic - that pushed him over the top.
So what happens if Schultz wins this group? Even a small defection could well mean Trump loses in key states, states he has to win.
Marc A.Thiessen makes the obvious point:
Granted, Thiessen, a RINO Republican who used to write speeches for Bush and now writes for the Washington Post, accuses "both sides" of "throwing red meat to their radical bases". Huh? Not sure how much "red meat" we've gotten from the GOP (outside of Trump) and certainly we are hardly a "radical Base" unless enforcing laws, limiting government spending, and other prudent actions that were universally supported through our whole history is somehow "radical". But Thiessen has a point, a good one, in that the middle is now called the Right, and the liberals are now called the center. The end results is the old white union worker, the minor civil servant, the working blacks and others who once formed the backbone of the Democratic Party are now marginalized, and they seek a sympathetic ear. Conditioned all their lives to hate Republicans, and having no good reason to change that attitude now (Republicans can rightly be characterized as a nest-feathering enterprise outside of a few) they embraced Trump in the last election. Will they stick with Trump? A Schultz candidacy could capture a lot of these people, who have not changed in their beliefs but rather have stayed true to themselves while the party they had supported all those years has turned into a marxist entity.
These votes now have only one place to go, but if Schultz gives them an option...
Schultz's candidacy could be disastrous for Trump inn the next election.
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is thinking of running for President as an independent, and the Democrats are in full panic, fearing he will split the party vote and hand Trump re-election.
At Fox News the pundit John Fund had this to say:
Mike Allen, the well-wired reporter for Axios, says Democrats are beyond being furious at Howard Schultz, the former CEO of Starbucks. Allen is "hearing threats of boycotts and social isolation, attacks on Starbucks, and emotional, insistent lobbying of his advisers.â€
The anti-Trump talking heads and liberal consultants are terrified at the mere thought that an "independent centrist†presidential candidate like Schultz would draw some votes from a liberal Democratic nominee running against President Trump in 2020.
Democrats claim that third party candidates such as Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have swung elections in the past.
The anti-Trump talking heads and liberal consultants are terrified at the mere thought that an "independent centrist†presidential candidate like Schultz would draw some votes from a liberal Democratic nominee running against President Trump in 2020.
Democrats claim that third party candidates such as Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have swung elections in the past.
Schultz is getting into the race because he is worried about the leftward, lunatic drift of the Democratic Party. Schultz would be called a flaming liberal in any other era, but in this day and age he is a centrist, and he wants to offer a more moderate vision for disaffected democrats.
Which brings me to my point; everyone is assuming Schultz' candidacy will hurt Democrats, but I suspect it will hurt Donald Trump more. How did Trump win in 2016? He won by enticing DEMOCRAT voters to cross the aisle and vote for him. HE was the outsider listening to the old blue collar Democrats when their former party dismissed them as "old white guys" and the GOP equally ignored their wants (like a border wall.) It was Trump's victories in states like Wisconsin - solidly Democratic - that pushed him over the top.
So what happens if Schultz wins this group? Even a small defection could well mean Trump loses in key states, states he has to win.
Marc A.Thiessen makes the obvious point:
Indeed, the neosocialist turn national Democrats have taken is precisely why Schultz decided to run as an independent. He calculated that he could not win the Democratic nomination running as a conventional, centrist Democrat. "I no longer feel affiliated with the Democrats] because I don't know their views represent the majority of Americans," he says.
Schultz is right. In fact, a recent Pew Research poll found that 53 percent of Democrats want the party to move in a more moderate direction, not embrace the radical policies of Ocasio-Cortez. That is precisely what the party needs to do if it wants to beat President Trump. Democrats should be trying to win back the millions of once-reliable Democratic voters who twice cast their ballots for Barack Obama but switched to Trump in 2016.
Schultz is right. In fact, a recent Pew Research poll found that 53 percent of Democrats want the party to move in a more moderate direction, not embrace the radical policies of Ocasio-Cortez. That is precisely what the party needs to do if it wants to beat President Trump. Democrats should be trying to win back the millions of once-reliable Democratic voters who twice cast their ballots for Barack Obama but switched to Trump in 2016.
Granted, Thiessen, a RINO Republican who used to write speeches for Bush and now writes for the Washington Post, accuses "both sides" of "throwing red meat to their radical bases". Huh? Not sure how much "red meat" we've gotten from the GOP (outside of Trump) and certainly we are hardly a "radical Base" unless enforcing laws, limiting government spending, and other prudent actions that were universally supported through our whole history is somehow "radical". But Thiessen has a point, a good one, in that the middle is now called the Right, and the liberals are now called the center. The end results is the old white union worker, the minor civil servant, the working blacks and others who once formed the backbone of the Democratic Party are now marginalized, and they seek a sympathetic ear. Conditioned all their lives to hate Republicans, and having no good reason to change that attitude now (Republicans can rightly be characterized as a nest-feathering enterprise outside of a few) they embraced Trump in the last election. Will they stick with Trump? A Schultz candidacy could capture a lot of these people, who have not changed in their beliefs but rather have stayed true to themselves while the party they had supported all those years has turned into a marxist entity.
These votes now have only one place to go, but if Schultz gives them an option...
Schultz's candidacy could be disastrous for Trump inn the next election.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:22 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 698 words, total size 5 kb.
February 01, 2019
Ryan Lied about Wall Funding
Timothy Birdnow
Paul Ryan, the Pee Wee Herman of American politics, welched on a deal with Trump whereby the now former House Squeeker, er, Speaker promised to get funding for the border wall in exchange for Trumpelstiltskin signing the $1.3 trillion Omnibus of 2018.
According to the Daily Caller article:
Now, it is possible Trump is lying but I don't think so; he signed that bill with no enthusiasm whatsoever, and said it was "the last time". Clearly there was a reason for Trump to sign it. Ryan, on the other hand, has always been in favor of open borders and cheap labor courtesy of his paymasters at the Estados Unidos Cámara de Comercio, er, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Ryan has proven a duplicitous weasel and I am glad he never ascended to the Vice Presidency. He is the worst of swamp creatures.
Frankly, I would like to see men like Ryan punished when they get out of office. Now they go on to lucrative lobbying jobs, or jobs in the media or academia, and they make out far better than the average American. It's time for these people to learn they can't knife America in the back and get away with it. Were I The Donald I would send friendly little notes to anyone trying to hire, say, Ryan and warn them that they would get no favors from me while I was in office. But that's just me.
Frankly, we should get all the caballeros who show up at the border with these caravans and plant them in Ryan's front yard. Start a tent city there. Maybe then he'll have a different attitude.
Paul Ryan, the Pee Wee Herman of American politics, welched on a deal with Trump whereby the now former House Squeeker, er, Speaker promised to get funding for the border wall in exchange for Trumpelstiltskin signing the $1.3 trillion Omnibus of 2018.
According to the Daily Caller article:
But after the president signed the massive, $1.3 trillion spending package, Ryan reneged on his commitment.
"Well, I was going to veto the omnibus bill and Paul told me in the strongest of language, ‘Please don’t do that, we’ll get you the wall.’ And I said, ‘I hope you mean that, because I don’t like this bill,’†the president recounted in an exclusive Wednesday interview with The Daily Caller.
"Paul told me in the strongest of terms that, ‘please sign this and if you sign this we will get you that wall.’ Which is desperately needed by our country. Humanitarian crisis, trafficking, drugs, you know, everything — people, criminals, gangs, so, you know, we need the wall.â€
"And then he went lame duck,†Trump said.
"Well, I was going to veto the omnibus bill and Paul told me in the strongest of language, ‘Please don’t do that, we’ll get you the wall.’ And I said, ‘I hope you mean that, because I don’t like this bill,’†the president recounted in an exclusive Wednesday interview with The Daily Caller.
"Paul told me in the strongest of terms that, ‘please sign this and if you sign this we will get you that wall.’ Which is desperately needed by our country. Humanitarian crisis, trafficking, drugs, you know, everything — people, criminals, gangs, so, you know, we need the wall.â€
"And then he went lame duck,†Trump said.
Now, it is possible Trump is lying but I don't think so; he signed that bill with no enthusiasm whatsoever, and said it was "the last time". Clearly there was a reason for Trump to sign it. Ryan, on the other hand, has always been in favor of open borders and cheap labor courtesy of his paymasters at the Estados Unidos Cámara de Comercio, er, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Ryan has proven a duplicitous weasel and I am glad he never ascended to the Vice Presidency. He is the worst of swamp creatures.
Frankly, I would like to see men like Ryan punished when they get out of office. Now they go on to lucrative lobbying jobs, or jobs in the media or academia, and they make out far better than the average American. It's time for these people to learn they can't knife America in the back and get away with it. Were I The Donald I would send friendly little notes to anyone trying to hire, say, Ryan and warn them that they would get no favors from me while I was in office. But that's just me.
Frankly, we should get all the caballeros who show up at the border with these caravans and plant them in Ryan's front yard. Start a tent city there. Maybe then he'll have a different attitude.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:54 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.
37kb generated in CPU 0.0324, elapsed 1.1221 seconds.
34 queries taking 1.1131 seconds, 164 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 1.1131 seconds, 164 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
