This war on “fake news” began after anti-Trump world leaders, heads of social media platforms and the mainstream press realized they lost the presidential election because they no longer had credibility and influence over the US population.
Obama made clear his desire to limit news reports by populist media at a press conference in Lima, Peru, on Sunday where he also defended the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
“If, generally, we’ve got elections that aren’t focused on issues and are full of fake news and false information and distractions, then the issue is not going to be what’s happening from the outside; the issue is going to be what are we doing for ourselves from the inside,” he claimed. “The good news is that’s something that we have control over.”
According to exit poll data collected by CNN, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton defeated Trump among Hispanics at 65 percent to 29 percent. While that’s a big margin, it’s smaller than the one Barack Obama won by in 2012. He defeated Mitt Romney among Hispanics 71 percent to 27 percent.
Trump did better among black voters as well. While Obama absolutely dominated among blacks, beating Romney 93-7, Clinton only beat Trump 88-8. Lower overall turnout among black voters, a shift may have been decisive, propelled Trump to small victories in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania that seemed out of reach for him just days ago.
Intriguingly, despite expectations that his path to victory depended on supercharging white turnout, Trump did not outperform Romney among white voters. He received just 58 percent of the white vote, a small drop from Romney’s 59 percent. Clinton, though, dropped further, winning just 37 percent of whites compared to Obama’s 39 percent.
Never mind Obama refusing to use the term “radical Islamic terrorism,” now the BBC has suggested that calling terrorists “terrorists” might be a bigoted thought crime.
A tweet sent out by BBC Scotland asks, “Do you think we should remove the word “Islamist” or “terrorist” from our newspapers or does it categorise the atrocities for what they are?”
Because referring to Islamists who carry out atrocities in the name of Islam as “Islamists” might offend Islamists.
Even worse, calling terrorists who carry out acts of terror “terrorists” might be Islamophobic.
“Paging Mr Orwell, the BBC needs you to slap some sense into them,” responded popular YouTuber Sargon of Akkad.
“No that would be absolutely stupid. Get a grip,” remarked another Twitter user.
“If you don’t name them, they’ll cease to exist, right?” added another.
It’s no surprise that this comes from the BBC, an organization that is so politically correct it actively discourages white people from applying for jobs in order to make itself more ‘ethnically diverse’.
However, the mere notion that the words “Islamist” and “terrorist” should be censored because they don’t accurately “categorise the atrocities for what they are,” is totally absurd and suggests that the BBC thinks some terrorist atrocities are actually justified and that terrorists shouldn’t be called the pejorative term “terrorist”.
Absolute unbridled insanity.
President Obama made it “very clear” that deporting illegal immigrants is not a priority of his administration, despite the Supreme Court upholding an injunction on Obama’s 2014 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents policy.
We all know that Barack Obama was nominally a lawyer at some point in his past – not a good one, by anyone’s account, but he was one. Assume for the moment that Barack Obama had as his client The Muslim Brotherhood, or CAIR, or Hamas, or any one of dozens of organizations dedicated to taking down the United States. Could he possibly have done a more effective job of hiding his client’s actions or intentions while they went about conducting criminal operations unmolested as he has for seven years? Could he have been more successful at misdirecting and
Though not every lawyer shares a client’s philosophy, the zeal with which an attorney does his job can sometimes be proportionate to his identity with the client’s goals and objectives. The president certainly is a zealous fellow when it comes to radical Islam.
We know he won’t call it “radical Islam,” claiming that that is a distraction or a talking point. Perhaps the real reason is that he doesn’t believe that what the Islamists he supports are doing is radical at all. Maybe the actual issue is that he believes in and supports their efforts to infiltrate and subvert the United States. That would explain an awful lot, wouldn’t it?
For seven years, we have heard how the president “doesn’t get it” and is in over his head, is naive, and countless other excuses. None of this has ever been the problem. He gets it. He simply gets it with regard to his own agenda, his own end game.
It’s the American people who continue not to get it. The president is in bed with the enemy. It is ironic that so many of those who are angry that the president won’t say “radical Islam” themselves won’t openly say that he is and always has been the patron of radical Islamists, and he protects them for that reason. Until we admit this, and see him for what he is and what he has been doing consistently and with determination, we enable him to succeed.
There is no recovery. The only thing we’ve experienced over the past eight years of Obama is a historic plundering and strip mining of the U.S. economy by a handful of oligarchs and their political and bureaucratic minions.
The evidence has been clear for years. Fully employed Americans have been borrowing from payday lenders at egregious rates in order to pay for normal everyday living expenses, while a small group of executives grab as much as possible for themselves. You can see this in corporate profits margins at historically high levels and in the use of cash to buyback shares as opposed to paying employees a living wage. To see just how grotesquely out of whack the economy has become under the crony policies of Obama and the Federal Reserve, let’s revisit what I like to call the “Serfdom Chart.”