Connect with us


Anti-Trump Media Just Found Out What The President Has Planned For Them At Their WH Dinner

This is how cool Trump really is



This truly illustrates how cool President Donald Trump really is.

For the second year in a row, while the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner is taking place on April 28th, the president will be busy holding a rally for his supporters in Michigan.

According to a White House statement which was obtained by Bloomberg News the President said “While the fake news media will be celebrating themselves with the denizens of Washington society in the swamp that evening, President Trump will be in a completely different Washington, celebrating…with patriotic Americans.” This came one day after the President in a Twitter post that “much of the media is a scam!”

Trending: First Video of Latest Trump Star Vandal Swinging Pickaxe Shows What Happened – Spread Like Wildfire

Last April the Correspondents’ Dinner was held on the same day as President Trump’s 100th day in office. And instead of wasting his time spending time with people who are hell-bent on taking down his presidency, he decided to instead hold a mega-rally in Harrisburg in order to mark all his first 100 day accomplishments.

This April, although the large majority of us Trump supporters wish the media would stop their biased behavior, it continues. And even though they attack him on a daily basis, even for alleged affairs which took place over 12 years ago they are still trying to take out the president. All this even though we have the lowest unemployment in decades and a GDP which former President Barack Hussein Obama could only dream about.

The mainstream media keeps telling their followers President Trump will soon be out of office while at the same time he is garnering over a 50% approval rating in the same poll which had him very close to beating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. But people on the left sadly keep living in their fantasy world of believing the President has done something worthy of impeachment. I guess that must make them feel better.

Here is more on President Trump’s approval rating via World Tribune:

“Here they go again.

The anti-Trump media in its typical pack fashion has begun criticizing Rasmussen Reports in recent days. Why? Because President Trump likes the job approval numbers we’re reporting.

‘We were branded “outliers” because our findings didn’t show Clinton leaving Trump in the dust on a fast train to the White House.’

It’s true that our Daily Presidential Tracking Poll often finds Trump’s public job approval several points higher than other national pollsters do. The same thing was true during the latter years of Barack Obama’s presidency, but for some reason the big media didn’t have a problem with that.

Now it’s true that if we only surveyed the newsrooms of The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN, Trump’s job approval ratings would be lower than low. Fortunately for our readers, however, we survey the real America outside the newsrooms and beyond the Beltway that girdles the nation’s capital. They give the president higher marks for his job performance out there.

The criticism from the anti-Trumpers is nothing new. Rasmussen Reports was constantly criticized throughout the 2016 election cycle for showing that Trump and Hillary Clinton were in a neck-and-neck contest much of the time. We were branded “outliers” because our findings didn’t show Clinton leaving Trump in the dust on a fast train to the White House.

Two days before the election, a prominent Democratic operative sent us an e-mail asking when we were going to apologize for being so wrong all year.

But a funny thing happened when Americans actually got to vote. Trump defeated Clinton in perhaps the greatest electoral upset in U.S. history, and our polling nailed the exact margin between the two candidates.

Who got it right? The three daily tracking polls – Investor’s Business Daily, the Los Angeles Times and Rasmussen Reports. We’re the ones who were taking the temperature of the electorate every single day, not dropping in for a handful of days like the others — usually after a controversy — for a snapshot of popular opinion.

The rest of the polling industry was way off on the 2016 election results and spent the next several weeks apologizing for its worst performance since Dewey-Beats-Truman. Despite all the mea culpa-ing and public breast-beating, though, nothing much changed in the way they count their numbers.

The Democratic operative who wanted an apology from Rasmussen Reports, by the way, neglected to follow up the election results with an apology of his own.

The big media quickly shifted from trying to stop Trump’s election to sabotaging his presidency, and the polling industry quickly fell in step. At Rasmussen Reports, we shifted some of our demographic margins based on the election results, but it also largely remains business as usual: The difference is, we were right in 2016.

So the anti-Trumpers counting on voters to have a short-attention span are attacking Rasmussen Reports once again for being an outlier and leaning Republican. This is the same stuff we heard two years ago.

Just as we’ve done in previous administrations, we ask pointed questions about most of the major comments and actions of the president and the GOP-led Congress, and quite often the results are not what they’d like to see. But Trump is doing better in our Daily Presidential Tracking Poll than other surveyors say he is.

Why? Well, for one thing, since Gallup left the field earlier this year, Rasmussen Reports is the only public opinion organization that is tracking the president’s job approval on daily basis. The rolling number we post every morning at 9:30 Eastern is based on the responses of 1,500 Likely Voters. We pick up 500 new responses every night Sunday through Thursday and drop the oldest 500 off at the other end.

We go through additional screening questions to survey Likely Voters for the obvious reason that they’re the ones whose responses count: That’s where the electoral rubber hits the road. These people intend to vote. Many other pollsters survey registered voters, but think how many Americans don’t bother to vote in every election. A survey of registered voters doesn’t really tell you much about how an election is going to turn out.

Other companies poll an even wider field by surveying “Americans” which is basically anybody over 18 who answers the telephone. A survey like that on an upcoming election is largely worthless, although it often spawns a big headline.

Then there’s the whole issue of so-called “robocalls.” Rasmussen Reports is often criticized for using an entirely electronic surveying method. We record our questions, and then everyone we call hears that exact same question in the exact same voice with the exact same inflections. Many of our competitors use human callers and think that gives them an edge. But especially in an age as politically mean-spirited and divisive as ours, our results suggest that people are more likely to privately tell the truth to an automated voice than to a real person, especially one who asks the question in a little different tone of voice each time. Maybe respondents are more likely to tell the truth if they don’t think they’re being judged by someone on the other end of the line.

Interestingly, Rasmussen Reports did a survey in late August of 2016 in which we asked Likely Voters: Compared to previous presidential campaigns, are you more likely or less likely this year to let others know how you intend to vote? Or do you feel about the same? Seventeen percent (17 percent) of Republicans – nearly one-in-five – said they were less likely in 2016 to tell someone how they intended to vote. That compared to just 10 percent of Democrats. If you’re looking for why Trump was the upset winner contrary to the pollsters, this is a good place to start.

Like many other pollsters, we now draw a sizable percentage of our survey results from special demographically balanced Internet panels to capture the growing number of Likely Voters who no longer have landline telephones. These panels are increasingly important because they both reach younger Likely Voters and do so while maintaining their personal privacy – just like in the voting booth.

Unlike many of our competitors, there’s a link to each survey’s questions within the first two or three paragraphs of every analysis we post. We don’t load the questions at Rasmussen Reports, so we have nothing to hide.

Each pollster brings their own analysis to the number crunching, what we refer to as our own “special sauce.” We tried to explain this to voters just before the 2016 election in a piece we called, Why Pollsters Disagree .

So it’s 2018, and the forces that oppose Trump are calling us “outliers” again. The president, not surprisingly, likes our numbers and boasts about them which makes our competitors even angrier. We’re not on the Trump team; we’re not on the anti-Trump team. At Rasmussen Reports, we’re just trying to do an honest job telling you what America thinks.”

H/T 100PercentFedUp

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’



Scott Wallace is a multimillionaire running in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District against current incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-R). Considered an elite, even amongst the wealthy, he boasts a net worth of between $127 million and $309 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. This would make him the third-richest member of Congress if he were elected to the House today.

From a hardline leftist pedigree, his grandfather was Henry Wallace, the “New Deal visionary” and one-time vice president under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His wealth is inherited, stemming from a seed company his grandfather founded that was purchased by DuPont for $10 billion in the 1990s, along with a large number of stocks with the largest being DowDuPont.

His campaign is largely self funded with Wallace claiming he is “putting a significant amount of my own assets into this because this is the most important thing I can imagine doing for America at this point in my life — this is a very expensive district to run in, but it is crucial in the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House.”

But just why this is so incredibly important to Wallace goes beyond the typical party lines of Republican and Democrat. Receiving endorsements from both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wallace is a population control zealot who believes families who choose to have more than two children are “irresponsible breeders” and should be taxed. Wallace has donated nearly $7 million dollars to various population control groups over the past 20 years, with the majority going through his own Wallace Global Fund.  In addition to its efforts towards population control, the foundation has also reportedly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-Israel groups that support a boycott of the Jewish State.

Fox News reports:

“Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was among the organizations that received the money from the fund. According to public records, it received $420,000 between 1997 and 2003.

The group, shortly after being founded in 1968, released a brochure advocating abortion to stabilize population growth and claimed that “no responsible family should have more than two children.” To deal with larger families, it also called for families to be “taxed to the hilt” for “irresponsible breeding.”

It also blamed the overpopulation on the ‘white middle-class’ that ‘use up more than their share of resources and do more than their share of polluting‘ and urged them to ‘voluntarily limit their families to two children.’

Paul Ehrlich, who co-founded the ZPG, once called abortion “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.” The goal of the organization, which changed its name to Population Connection in 2002, has remained the same since its inception, arguing that the world needs to contain population growth with particular emphasis on American families.

The organization’s political arm, Population Connection Action Fund, publicly endorsed Wallace for Congress, saying his support for their cause is “exactly the kind of dedication we need in Congress.”

Wallace’s fund also gave $20,000 in 2010 to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), a group that sees the economic growth as undesirable and instead supports an economy with ‘stable or mildly fluctuating levels’ and a society where birth rates equal death rates.

The organization openly supports zero population growth and its executive board member, Herman Daly, advocated issuing reproduction licenses, allowing women to have only two children unless they buy the license for more children from other women. Daly called it the ‘best plan yet offered’ to limit population growth.”

The group advocates strongly for abortion and along with taxing families “to the hilt” for having more than two children, as noted in a Yale Law School publication about the “voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The group advocates that –

  1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population.
  2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available—and at no cost in poverty cases.
  3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding.

Fox News continued:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

“In Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick voted to defund Planned Parenthood and supports Donald Trump’s effort to take away a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

Largely reminiscent of Nazi Germany who exercised eugenics to its full and most horrific potential, this policy of so-called “irresponsible breeders” also resembles the one-child policy from China that saw forced abortions or other forced invasive birth control procedures. Yet eugenics practices had their roots in America as well. American newspapers frequently offered praise for eugenics just prior to WWII and The Holocaust …. that is until Adolf Hitler revealed the true horrors of what eugenics really looked like. They avoided the subject for decades thereafter.

Nine out of ten eugenicists in the 20th Century were also Progressives or Socialists, and the most central component to the eugenic creed is the desire to engineer and centrally plan human reproduction, weeding out the unwanted or undesirable, according to a report on eugenics by PBS.

Yet where does that end? Who determines who is undesirable? Is it the unborn child conceived at an inconvenient time? The elderly mother? The child with cerebral palsy? Those with PTSD? Autism? Blue eyes? White skin? You cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics and they say the propagandist’s job is to effectively make the people forget his “enemy” is, in fact, a human being just as he is. It seems we never really do learn from history, do we?

Continue Reading


Trump Issued Major Warning: ‘We Will Look Into Discriminatory and Illegal Practice’ – It’s On!

Huge problems and everyone needs to know!



President Donald Trump voiced his concerns over “discriminatory and illegal practice” when he posted about the alleged controversy going on with Republicans being censored on Twitter. The tactic is sometimes referred to as “shadow banning” and it seems to be a strategy that social media platforms use to limit the visibility of some people. For example, ever wonder why someone who is genuinely popular might have tons of followers but their posts don’t seem to get many responses? It could be one of several reasons. Either they have fake followers, the post is no good, or they are being censored. In many cases, it’s a form of censorship that’s the obvious result. When a social media user goes from getting a lot of replies and views on their posts, then all of a sudden there’s very little replies and it seems like no one has seen the post – then they were hit with that form of censorship or suppression.

Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been called out for suppressing the content of certain Republican voices or those who support President Donald Trump. Well-known stars like Diamond and Silk have made it very public that they feel targeted for the views and opinions on their pages. That’s just the tip of the iceberg because the problem spans from targeting well-known mainstream people all the way down to the independent publishers. Censorship like this is affecting people’s careers and causing an unbalanced platform in which people with certain views are being limited. It might not be listed as a “ban” but it’s certainly limiting the viewership of certain people. The content that would once appear in people’s feed or timeline now requires a fine-tooth comb to find and it seems like people are realizing this more often and being upset with it.

Trump spoke about it on Twitter and Vice News completed a report on it.

Vice News reported: “Twitter is limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results — a technique known as “shadow banning” — in what it says is a side effect of its attempts to improve the quality of discourse on the platform.

The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and it’s the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.

“The notion that social media companies would suppress certain political points of view should concern every American,” McDaniel told VICE News in a statement. “Twitter owes the public answers to what’s really going on.”

Presented with screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: “We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this.” Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote: “I’d emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets.”

Twitter directed VICE News to a May 15 blog post that explained the company’s new approach to combating “troll-like behaviors.” After making changes to its platform, the company said that “[t]he result is that people contributing to the healthy conversation will be more visible in conversations and search.”

Twitter did not respond to a follow-up question.

Twitter’s troll hunt, however, has ensnared some of the most prominent Republicans in the country. Type in the names of McDaniel, conservative members of Congress like Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz, and Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian, for example, and Twitter’s drop-down search bar does not show their profiles. The search menu also does not display the verified profile of Rep. Devin Nunes of California, only his unverified one that he seldom uses to post.

That limits their visibility and the ease of finding their profiles compared to their liberal counterparts.

UPDATE: July 26, 10:00 AM: Twitter appears to have adjusted its platform overnight to no longer limit the visibility of some prominent Republicans in its search results.”

At what point do social media platforms give the control back to the people? Users should not have to worry about their views being censored by the machine.

Censoring any content that is not illegal should not be tolerated by the users.

Continue Reading

Like Us on Facebook



No trending posts found at this time.