There's no question that animosity exists on both sides of the political spectrum, but have you noticed how personal it has become for many on the left? It is disturbing how intolerant and filled with rage leftist extremists have become, and how many more people are falling into the category of leftist extremism. But what concerns me as much as this pattern of ill will and abuse from leftists is that it is unchecked by their peers and often applauded.
Rush Limbaugh’s December 2018 Limbaugh Letter has an article titled “Demonizing White Men.” It highlights -- with actual quotations from people in the media, academia and the political and entertainment arenas -- the attack on white men as a class. You can decide whether these statements are decent, moral or even sensible. Should we support their visions? Don Lemon, a CNN anchorman, said, “We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them.”
Teresa Hanafin didn’t hold back against Trump in her Fast Forward email news digest for the Boston Globe, warning that Trump would be spewing “his agitprop live tonight” during the first Oval Office address of his presidency: "The major TV networks all caved to Trump's request that they broadcast his agitprop live tonight when he addresses the country from the Oval Office at 9 p.m. about the southern border. But news anchors and execs are wringing their hands over the prospect of being hapless conduits for Trump's umpteen untruths....he's desperate to stop those big meanies Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter from yelling at him."
The death of former president George Herbert Walker Bush created a calm oasis of civil discourse, if only for a couple of minutes. It was appropriate to salute this man’s kindness and statesmanship, even when you disagreed with him passionately, as many conservatives did. And yet, it’s a bit odd that pundits suddenly remember the kinder, gentler noblesse oblige of Bush’s presidency. This from the same industry that mocked him when he was in office.
So Sen. Elizabeth Warren has announced she commissioned a DNA test to address her long-standing claims to have Cherokee ancestry. The Boston Globe reported Warren’s DNA analysis “suggests she’s between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American.”The fraction 1/1024 works out to 0.09 percent. So since Sen. Warren is .09 percent Indian, she may now be eligible to own .09 percent of a casino.
The genetic tests are in and have determined the strong percentage of Senator Elizabeth Warren's American Indian ancestry. Now none can dare question her heritage which has finally been firmly established. The problem, however, is that Warren might have less American Indian blood in her than the percentage of Sherpa ancestry of the average resident of Idaho.
The October 15 Boston Globe makes an attempt in "Warren releases results of DNA test" to establish the American Indian bonafides of the Massachusetts senator but ultimately the most Indian thing about her might be the name of the state she represents.
Anita Hill, perennially painted as the “Rosa Parks of sexual harassment” by the national press, is back on the scene as the media push the unproven teenage-groping accusations against Brett Kavanaugh. The New York Times asked her to write an op-ed on how we can get these next Kavanaugh hearings “right.” Asking Anita Hill how to get a fairer congressional hearing is like asking Janet Cooke how to get better newspaper reporting.
After last-minute accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Anita Hill is back in the spotlight, and Boston Globe reporter Stephanie Ebbert got prime front-page space Wednesday for an incredibly fawning interview of Hill, who accused her boss Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment near the end of his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 1991. Ebbert’s story is headlined like a lament, and both the headline and the story itself assume the guilt of both Thomas and Kavanaugh, who each happen to be conservative Republican nominees: “Happening again? Hill’s not surprised.”
The Boston Globe successfully organized a campaign to get nearly 350 newspapers, large and small, to publish an editorial on August 16 “on the dangers of the administration's assault on the press.” They laughably claimed "This whole project is not anti-Trump. It's really pro-press.”
Does Donald Trump secretly own the Boston Globe? The question comes as the Globe’s call for newspapers to publish anti-Trump editorials was followed by some 350 newspapers around the country. Fox headlined the inevitable and forseeable this way: “Trump accuses The Boston Globe of ‘COLLUSION’ with other papers as hundreds run editorials against him.”
Yes, that headline is real. In covering the effort by over 350 newspapers to collude against President Trump, Wednesday’s Hardball featured MSNBC host Chris Matthews alluding to Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin in the segment promoting the anti-Trump collusion campaign started by The Boston Globe.
The Boston Globe’s call for a concerted media effort against the President came to fruition on Thursday as more than 350 papers across the country ran editorials decrying President Trump’s attacks on the news media. The paper's managing director Linda Henry appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Thursday morning to accept praise for her organization’s efforts