Note: This story was written on request by GotNews.com, and was originally posted there. Please feel free to share the story, and check out GotNews.com and see their excellent work for yourself.
You should already know the top reason that General David Petraeus should be disqualified for the position of Secretary of State.
While problems in his marriage and his infidelities aren’t relevant to the role, and shouldn’t eliminate him from consideration for the job, the fact that his pillow talk with his mistress involved him unlawfully sharing classified information is demonstrative of someone who has serious errors in judgment.
If unlawfully storing classified information was one of the many things that disqualified Hillary Clinton to voters, personally sharing such information with your hand-picked “biographer” you were having an affair with should preclude President-elect Donald J. Trump from nominating Petraeus to the Secretary of State position. Who is to say a foreign spy agency wouldn’t use such knowledge to plant a female surrogate to seduce Petraeus and extract high-level classified information from him?
The Washington Post’s Craig Timberg released a report on Thursday night for its paper on Friday, calling for its readers to dismiss 200 news websites as “fake news”, referring to them as “Russian propaganda”. It was expected that mainstream media would continue its war on alternative news outlets, and use dubious sources in the process, but WaPo’s article reached a new low. Though many MSM outlets jumped on the recent list published by Melissa Zimdars and used it as an actionable “source”, despite its questionable nature, no other news organization followed up on WaPo’s article and their source, even though it was highly shared on social media and was the most trafficked article on WaPo’s website on Friday. Given the speed in which other MSM outlets jumped on the last list of “fake news” websites, the absence of any follow up from the MSM truly demonstrates WaPo’s lackluster journalistic standards.
The high circulation of the article demonstrates how influential WaPo can be, even when its reporting is proven to be highly suspect at best. The credentials of Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton, the authors, can hardly be questioned, and their website The Intercept (who was not cited by the article’s source) published an article rebutting WaPo’s accusations shortly after they were published. Many of the websites named (ZeroHedge, Liberty Blitzkrieg, and The Ron Paul Institute) published their own rebuttals, but I will be 100% quoting The Intercept in this article, because not only was it not named on the list, thus validating its impartiality, its takedown of the article was so excellent, it deserves to be used as the authority to undermine WaPo here.
The wage gap myth has been around for a long time, but it truly reached the top in 2014, when President Obama said the following in his State of the Union speech:
You know, today, women make up about half our workforce, but they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment. Women deserve equal pay for equal work.
This statement has been thoroughly debunked by just about every non-progressive outlet in existence, but no one did it better than Maddox did last year. The article is excellent, but his video, embedded below, is even better. Its the single best piece I’ve ever seen taking down the myth, and well worth the 5 minutes it takes to watch it. He starts his argument off with the obvious statement:
There’s no question that the Trump win was a boon for gun rights. Hillary Clinton was an openly anti-gun candidate who appeared to not believe in the Second Amendment at all. She was committed to stacking the Supreme Court with justices who were against gun rights, and pushing for legislation for increased gun controls. Meanwhile, Trump was endorsed by the NRA and consistently stated his position as a champion of gun rights, promising for a slew of gun rights bills in addition to pro-2A Supreme Court nominations. There were likely many voters in this election who were so concerned with gun rights that they simply felt they had no choice but to vote for Trump. In swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, gun rights voters coming out in force could have been the difference between winning and losing.
It is important to note that Trump has historically not been friendly to gun rights. In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, he called out Republicans who “walk the NRA line” and “refuse even limited restrictions” on firearms. He seemed to be supporting a ban on “evil black rifles”, and using nomenclature that has been commonly used by the gun control crowd to denigrate their owners. A flip-flop of these proportions is quite epic, and it is worth questioning if Trump merely did it to gain the necessary support to win. While he could be a wild card for gun rights, and his position supporting them cannot be taken for granted, let’s examine the proposals put forward by Trump’s team, and see what could be in store for gun rights.
There has been a back-and-forth going on for the past several days between traditional mainstream media and web-based news sites, with both sides accusing the other of being arbiters of “fake” news. It has gone far enough to elicit comment from Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, pledging to purge fake news from Facebook, and Twitter has recently begun a purge of “alt-right” accounts in its attempt to crack down on “hate speech”. Though the back-and-forth has been going on for quite some time now, in the wake of Trump’s victory, the debate has made its way to the front pages of the news cycle in both the MSM and web-based media. It is appropriate to provide some back story as to who has said what, before any analysis on which news sources to trust.
The electoral college was originally designed by the founding fathers to allow the minority a voice at the top, or more importantly, to ensure that 51% of the people cannot trample the rights of the other 49%. Specifically, the system was designed to prevent concentrated population centers from controlling the rest of the nation, and was designed to have a chief executive who is elected by a majority of not just the people, but a majority of regions as well.
In the wake of Trump’s loss in the popular vote, but strong win in the electoral college, liberal outlets such as Slate have called to abolish the electoral college, and replace the Presidential election with a straight popular vote count. This is rather amusing, since Slate put forward an excellent defense of the electoral college in 2012, just after Obama had won both the electoral college and the popular vote. The argument from Slate was surprisingly excellent, and I have quoted a large piece of it below:
Note: This is a guest contribution. Please share your thoughts with the author, Gary Potter, in the comments.
It’s a fair assumption that more or less everyone on the planet knows who Donald Trump is. It’s an equally fair assumption, as derived from the rise of the “alt-right” media, that many even know why Donald Trump is. Those that don’t – lately you can catch them in places like Portland or behind a desk at the New York Times – are suffering a very real existential crisis with regards to this question; they certainly know who Trump is, and there seems to be too much evidence from too many sources to continue the pretense he will not become the President of the United States in 2017.
The NY Times released several articles and tweets, and even a letter from its publisher and executive editor, pledging to “report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor”. Given the fact that profit and revenue continue to decline at the paper, prompting yet another round of layoffs, the NY Times at least gave the outward appearance of accepting the new reality of news. The internet has given birth to a slew of alternative media outlets that are able to easily expose errors and bias in MSM reporting, and their rise has directly contributed to the decline of MSM outlets and their ad revenues. In the wake of Trump’s win, it almost felt as if Mainstream Media recognized that it needed to change to survive.
Well… almost. The big television outlets continue to get the majority of viewers, which brings them the majority of big name interviews. And they are showing absolutely no signs of abandoning their biased reporting, instead continuing to demonstrate the same hubris that is leading to the decline of traditional print newspapers and their online outlets. Nowhere was that more evident than last night’s 60 Minutes interview of Trump.
Just before the election, Trump revealed his plan for his first 100 days in office. I agree with most of it, disagree with some of it, but overall, I think he has excellent ideas to start his administration off, hope that he indeed ends up sticking to his pre-election plan, and also hope its release wasn’t pure election pandering.
However, there is one specific line item that he can and should focus on to start his term. It would be the best way to unite the entire country behind him, including those who hate him and are protesting against his victory, even some of the rich elites who campaigned for Hillary. It is a no-brainer idea that has been proposed by plenty of people in the past, and it just so happens to be the no.1 item listed on his agenda.
We did it, and you helped us do it. Together, we have stood up to the establishment machine, and we won. And we won decisively.
There is no questioning it, because the win was so strong – states that were expected to vote blue (notably Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin) came up red. Together, we have won a great victory; we came out in record numbers, exercised our right to vote, and made the difference necessary to win after so many years of losing. Our leaders’ inability to serve anyone but themselves led to the rise of another, but different rich elite business mogul, but so thoroughly despised by them that they would do anything and everything to prevent him from grasping control from their criminal hands. He did not win because he is a man, or a racist, sexist, misogynist… and she did not lose because she is a woman, standing up for the rights of the underprivileged, or concerned about the overall well-being of this nation. He won because he is not just another crooked, for sale politician trying to take our dignity from our own hands, and because he was able to demonstrate that fact to this country like no politician running for high office has ever done.