Lame-stream media slams POTUS for Fox News pick for UN job

If President Trump chose not to attend the funeral of George H.W. Bush the media would have called him insensitive and probably something like adolescent. He attended and all they could talk about was how he should not have been there.

Now the lame-stream media is blasting Trump's pick to replace Nikki Haley as UN Ambassador. Heather Nauert was the person he nominated and now they're questioning her qualifications and point out that he typically picks people who have worked at, or are currently working at Fox News.

It was okay when Obama nominated another journalist/communist, Samantha Powers, in 2013, for the same position, but hey, this is Donald Trump, and anything he does will be slammed by the leftist media.

Powers, 48, was a war correspondent for four years. She covered the Yugoslav Wars for the Boston Globe and U.S. News & World Report, as well as other publications. She was a columnist for Time while being director of a human rights center at Harvard.

She joined the Obama campaign in 2008, but was quickly forced to resign after she correctly observed Hillary Clinton to be a "monster" who was "stooping to anything" to win.

After Powers' nomination to the U.N. position, many Republicans supported her nomination such as Sens. Lindsey Graham, John McCain and independent Joe Lieberman. She was confirmed by a vote of 87-10 and served for over three years then succeeded by Nikki Haley.

But now that Trump has nominated as Haley's replacement Heather Nauert, a former Fox News journalist, the media has a problem with that.

Nauert has worked as a journalist for twenty years and also served as a government affairs consultant, working on issues such as Social Security, insurance and taxes, as well a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

This is not "What About-ism," it's about media bias.

In April last year, the U.S. Department of State announced that Nauert would become the department spokesperson. This past March, she was named Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.

But Trump nominated her so the media has a problem with that.

The geniuses at the Comedy News Network (CNN) immediately called into doubt Nauert's skills. In a section of a news piece titled "Qualifications questioned," CNN cited a "senior diplomat" who said, "This is extraordinary. Especially in the footsteps of the former ambassadors: Madeleine Albright, Susan Rice."

Susan Rice? She went on the weekend morning shows lying about Benghazi being sparked by a video when, in fact, she knew it was a lie.

In a Washington Post piece headlined "The Foxification of the Trump White House, visualized," the super-liberal rag complained about the "remarkable bit of interplay between the administration and the network that is also the only one Trump has praised regularly since taking office ..." And Obama and the left constantly attacks.

In other words, it's really getting to them.

Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, who served under George W. Bush, noted the hypocrisy. "More than 26 reporters went into the Obama Administration. I guess that was fine with the press back then, but not now," he tweeted.

Erik Wemple, a Washington Post "reporter", responded to Fleischer's tweet: "All right: Were they from the same cable-news network -- the same cable-news network that the president watches for hours and hours each day, and gets bogus information from?"

Fleischer ate his lunch, responding: "No, silly. Barack Obama had his pick of reporters from every network, newspaper and magazine. They almost all fell for him, and those who didn’t join his Administration loved him and gave him soft coverage for 8 years."

Bite it, Wemple.


Hello fellow conservatives. At this time of year when everyone has a hand out for a hand out, I don't. I simply want you to follow Brain Flushings and check out the ads on this page. It's free, I'm free and you're free to follow me or not. I hope you do. Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah.




Tweet

Madeline Albright believes Hillary Clinton will go to hell if she endorses Cuomo

Still not President of the United States

Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election to Donald J. Trump. That isn't relevant to this post but it's so nice to say.

Clinton, a loser to Trump, is expected to endorse Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) for a third term and will not be endorsing Cuomo's female progressive opponent, Cynthia Nixon. 

Nixon's qualifications are impeccable: she stars in "Sex and the City" whereas President Trump merely starred in "The Apprentice" and only ran his business empire.

Sadly, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright believes that there is a "special place in hell for women who don't help each other." She is a woman of firm conviction and although she said those words in 2016 when Hillary was running against Trump [and lost, by the way], it's clear that she still believes those sentiments and feels that Hillary Clinton needs to go shopping for a pearl handle Hammacher Schlemmer pitchfork.

And the chances are, she'll need one.

Cuomo will be accepting his party's nomination for the third time, The Failing New York Times reported.

Cuomo is facing tough opposition from Nixon, who criticized former Governor Mario Cuomo's son, Andrew, for not being far enough to the left. And she pushed him further to the left on granting paroled felons the right to vote [Democratic] in the state. If elected, she will also likely propose that felons get free medical and dental care and a car.

The "Sex and the City" actress will attend the Democratic convention on Wednesday, despite being endorsed by the union-backed Working Families Party, saying to her comrades, "New York Democrats deserve to have at least one actual Democratic candidate for governor at their state convention."

Hillary's hypocritical support for Cuomo will not make much of a difference to her supporters because they will never read this blog and the mainstream media will never discuss the issue.


Tweet

Madeleine Albright, Trump's secret weapon

Former Secretary of State under Bill Clinton (but not in "that way") Madeleine Albright just may be President Donald Trump's secret weapon.

Ms. Albright has threatened to "register as Muslim" over Trump's immigration policies but we know that he doesn't really plan to register Muslims in the first place, but this supposed plan is made up by the media to stir up opposition to Trump's real policies.

But what if Albright really does become a full-blown Muslim? Wouldn't that discourage young men who may have thought of converting to Islam from pulling the trigger, so to speak? Is this the reward extremists will get from self-detonation? 

Is she the typical "virgin?" 

Trump never said that he plans to register Muslims--that's fake news--this is important to remember.

But Albright threatens to 'register' as a Muslim, as does Mayim Bialik, the actress on "The Big Bang Theory. Bialik is Jewish and Albright discovered later in life that she too has a Jewish background.

Neither Albright nor Bialik (who holds a PhD in something) seem to realize that as Jews or Christians (in Albright's case) they are described as apes and pigs in Islamic scripture and are hated.

To get a better picture of just how barbaric the religion of peace can be toward Christians and Jews, click here. 

What is wrong with Trump holding off for 120 days before we begin "extreme vetting" of people coming from countries that are known for breeding and harboring terrorists?

The only thing I would say that Trump is overlooking is that there are countries not on the list for which he wants to temporarily freeze visas and immigration. These countries include Saudi Arabia, the hub of the extreme Wahhabism that encourages violent jihad; as well as Lebanon, Jordan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. 

Ironically, all of these countries are primarily Islamic. But where Christians and other non Muslims are being persecuted and killed, Trump should make it easier for those people to gain refugee status.

In the meantime, Albright and Bialik need to remove their heads from their nether regions and acknowledge the disregard to democracy, law and order and human rights that Europe has caused to befall itself by opening its borders to poorly vetted refugees who often enough, wish them harm.

Bialik is just a stupid person with a lot of education, while Albright is more sinister.

Albright favored war with Saddam Hussein and was trying to find an excuse to start that war. In his book, Gen. Hugh Shelton (ret) then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave an account in his memoirs of an exchange had with Albright. He describes a disgusting conversation they had where she states:

"I know I shouldn't even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event--something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough--and slow enough--so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?"

Shelton writes: The hair on the back of my neck bristled, my teeth clenched, and my fists tightened. I was so mad I was about to explode. I looked across the table, thinking about the pilot in the U-2 and responded, "Of course we can . . . " which prompted a big smile . . .

"You can?" was the excited reply. 

"Why, of course we can," I countered. "Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go." 

This is the way liberals think. Let someone else do it. Let someone else pay for it. Let someone else defend me.


Tweet