09/20/16

Coptic Pope muzzles US Copts in favor of Al-Sisi

By: Dr. Ashraf Ramelah | Voice of the Copts

Egyptian Copts in the diaspora of New York and New Jersey must decide to obey a call by Orthodox Pope Tawadros II of Egypt for a NYC rally at the UN General Assembly in support of President Al-Sisi’s speech on September 20. An official statement by the Coptic Church indicated that Bishop Beeman of Nakada and Qus and Bishop Yuanis of Assuit were sent to the US to arrange and promote Coptic crowd support prior to the president’s arrival.

The statement said that “We, all Egyptians loyal to our home land, must welcome the president and strengthen him in all the work he does for the good of Egypt.” Because “the Pope has great interest in the success of this visit,” the message urged that Copts do everything possible to ensure the success of this visit, adding, “It is good for Egypt and all Egyptians.” The statement concluded by saying that “Egyptian leaders of evangelical churches in America demand the same support of their followers and should rally for the president.”

The reaction of Copts to this idea is split, and the issue is complex. Statements coming from Bishop Beeman in New Jersey last week accused Copts of causing 60 percent of sectarian violence in Egypt by their insubordination within the church community, offering no explanation or references. Copts are angered and disappointed to receive this criticism and view it as pressure to perform.

Makrius Saweres, priest of the Saint George Church in Jersey City, is demanding that all Copts in the tristate area gather to welcome Al-Sisi on the sidewalks near the UN, warning that, “any wrong doing on the part of the Copts in America [during this event] such as insulting or minimizing the role of the president will reflect on Copts in Egypt.” By this he meant that Copts will pay a dire consequence, as usual, in their Egyptian home towns if they speak their minds.

Many might rather protest against Al-Sisi with this opportunity, but such a timely reminder of violence back home is now an effective muzzle. Furthermore, showing up at all to gather as religious authorities suggest is risky business given the possibility of Muslim Brotherhood gangs doing the same. This could lead to a direct clash between Copts supporting Al-Sisi and Islamists against him. We can’t ignore that Egypt’s Islamists (MB and Salafi) consider Copts behind the fall of Morsi’s regime. Should conflict here take place it could in turn lead to copycat clashes in Egypt. Various potential scenarios in New York could bring sectarian ramifications to Copts in Egypt. Once again, Coptic religious leaders conspiring with the regime in Egypt score political points on the backs of their people.

The Coptic community inside or outside of Egypt never delegated their spiritual leaders as political spokespersons. But this is not new to Copts who were once discouraged by US Coptic Church leaders on orders from Pope Shenuda from protesting against the former Egyptian President Mubarak during his visits to the US. The “alliance” between Shenuda and Mubarak can now be similarly seen here between Tawadros II and Al-Sisi despite Tawadros’ promise upon his installation to be hands-off of political issues, which admittedly are outside of his role.

Even if this plan to support Al-Sisi through an organized rally were appropriate and now needed, it should be initiated and led through the diplomatic channels of the embassies. In which case, both Christian and Muslim supporters of Al Sisi would be included in this call to action. As it stands now, it separates Egyptians by religion even though the Pope’s message declared this to be good for Egypt and “all Egyptians.”

Mobilizing Copts in support of Al-Sisi’s UN General Assembly speech focusing on international issues and not the internal affairs of Egypt has no relevancy. There is absolutely no gain by it except for the power gained by Pope Tawadros II in his political maneuvering, which unfortunately does not calculate for the safety and well-being of his people.

09/20/16

American Media Shield Obama and Hillary from Libyan Debacle

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

With a new report from the British Parliament condemning their own country’s decision to help intervene in Libya, the mainstream media have started to rewrite history. The media’s revisionism seeks to repair the damaged foreign policy legacy of President Obama by making the decision to intervene in Libya the fault of foreign countries, particularly France and England.

A CNN article written with this purpose in mind bears the headline, “Britain’s Libya intervention led to growth of ISIS, inquiry finds.” Angela Dewan writes, “Britain’s military intervention in Libya was based on ‘inaccurate intelligence’ and ‘erroneous assumptions,’ a report released Wednesday found, pointing the finger at former Prime Minister David Cameron for failing to develop a sound Libya strategy.” Yet, she adds, “the United States became involved and played a key role.”

The role of America in this debacle is not just an addendum to the interference by Britain and France. As The New York Times reported back in February, Hillary Clinton’s “conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel [Muammar] Qaddafi’s forces.” The Times article cites former Defense Secretary Robert Gates as crediting Mrs. Clinton’s influence in tipping the scales for Obama to favor intervening there.

Despite the presence of other nations in the coalition, Mrs. Clinton took credit for the early developments in Libya. She announced on television, “We came, we saw, he died.” Her aide, Jake Sullivan, wrote in a State Department email that Mrs. Clinton had “leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s [L]ibya policy from start to finish.”

One of the decisions that Sullivan notes Mrs. Clinton made was to ensure that the Russians abstain, and other countries support, UN Resolution 1973—the resolution that authorized a no-fly zone over Libya.

But the media are working to ensure that the Libya debacle doesn’t affect Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign. Articles on the British parliament’s report by Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, and Newsweek fail to even mention Obama or Clinton.

“The Foreign Affairs Committee concludes that the British government ‘failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element,’” writes Ben Norton for the liberal website Salon. “The summary of the report also notes that the war ‘was not informed by accurate intelligence,’” continues Norton. Ironically, it is Salon which, at least in part, outlines Obama’s and Clinton’s role in creating the chaos that envelops Libya today.

“Saif Qaddafi quietly opened up communications with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton intervened and asked the Pentagon to stop talking to the Libyan government,” writes Norton. “‘Secretary Clinton does not want to negotiate at all,’ a U.S. intelligence official told Saif,” he continues.

It is now clear—and should have been clear at the time—that Qaddafi had no intention of massacring civilians in Benghazi. As we have pointed out in our 2014 and 2016 Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) reports, Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic (Ret.) was working with Qaddafi’s military to broker a truce. Qaddafi had, Kubic notes, already begun pulling his troops back from Benghazi and Misrata. The United States decided not to pursue the truce talks. The Pentagon has since confirmed (see the top of page 680) that the bid for a truce took place.

President Obama told Fox News that his “worst mistake” was “Probably failing to plan for the day after” Qaddafi was toppled in Libya. “What went wrong?” According to this article in The Atlantic, “Obama has placed the responsibility on the entrenched tribalism of Libyan society, as well as the failure of America’s NATO allies to step up to the plate.”

But it was not necessary to get involved in Libya in the first place, given that Qaddafi had become an ally in the War on Terror and had given up his weapons of mass destruction. The intervention demonstrates how the Obama administration switched sides in the war on terror.

Yet the mainstream media seek to exonerate President Obama for his actions in Libya. By reporting on the details of a foreign report describing the mistakes made by the British government leadership, the media can conveniently make the story about British ineptitude.

But what about our own government’s mistakes?

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama cannot escape their part in this debacle, and bear a significant part of the blame for the failed intervention into Libya, even if the media refuse to apportion blame where it truly lies. As former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta wrote in his book, Worthy Fights, “In Afghanistan I misstated our position on how fast we’d be bringing troops home, and I said what everyone in Washington knew but we couldn’t officially acknowledge: that our goal in Libya was regime change.”

Clearly, regime change was the goal of the United States government from very early on. And this debacle has led to the growth of ISIS. As we point out in our 2016 CCB report, the Obama administration facilitated the provision of arms to the al-Qaeda-linked rebels. Obama also authorized covert support to the Syrian rebels. “The Syrian Support Group, with Obama/Chicago connections, became the U.S. conduit for aid to various Syrian rebel militias. Turkey became the distribution hub,” states the CCB report. “…it now appears that at least some of the recipients instead were jihadist units that would eventually coalesce into the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS–later, simply Islamic State or IS).”

In other words, President Obama’s decision to switch sides in the war on terror has directly led to the arming of Islamic radicals in Libya and Syria. This is far from a mistake in failing to plan for the day after—it is a series of mistakes by an administration, and president, willfully ignoring the jihadist sympathies of those the government is arming.

The 2012 Benghazi terror attacks started with the misbegotten adventure by the Obama administration and its NATO allies, who were bent on regime change in Libya. Then came the failure to secure our Special Mission Compound and CIA Annex in Benghazi, the dereliction of duty by failing to come to the aid of our personnel when they were under terrorist attack on September 11 and 12, 2012, and the ensuing cover-up. Despite the media’s attempts to shield President Obama from the blame, he and his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had much to do with the recent and current chaos in Libya.

Roger Aronoff

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

09/19/16

It’s the Marxism, Not the Birtherism

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

The Washington Post is not sloppy; it is dishonest. Forget Kenya or Hawaii as Barack Obama’s birthplace. The issue is that he was mentored by a communist named Frank Marshall Davis, who taught him that blacks had a “reason to hate” and that Christianity was the white man’s religion. Davis essentially raised Obama in Hawaii for seven years of his young life, when he was smoking dope in the “Choom Gang” and learning how to be a revolutionary. That’s why Obama left Hawaii to admittedly hang out with “Marxist professors.” Davis had taught him well.

The rest is history, except that the Post and other liberal media have sanitized history in order to conceal the Marxist nature of Obama’s proposed “fundamental transformation” of America.

In Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, Davis was “Frank,” a mysterious figure with only a first name who had served as his mentor. Later, the identity of “Frank” was shown to be Davis by Trevor Loudon and Accuracy in Media. Davis had a 600-page FBI file and had been on the FBI’s Security Index for 19 years. That was the smoking gun in Obama’s life story, not the place where he was born. His birthplace was always a secondary issue.

The “birther” issue is now being used by Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama and their media allies to get black people riled up. It’s part of their get-out-the-vote drive. Not surprisingly, the Post and other media play right along with it. They realize Obama has done little for black people. So they have to demonize Trump.

The Post’s Jenna Johnson reported on Friday afternoon that Hillary Clinton “said Trump owes Obama an apology for promoting a false theory about his birthplace. She did not directly address the Trump assertion that her own 2008 campaign promoted the same theory, but her current campaign flatly rejected that claim.”

This appeared under the headline, “Trump admits Obama was born in U.S., but falsely blames Clinton for starting rumors.”

Do you remember Johnson? She was the co-author of a Post story asserting that Trump was sexist for talking about whether Hillary was physically fit to be president. That story appeared one day before Hillary collapsed while leaving the 9/11 memorial in New York City.

One day it’s sexism, another day it’s racism.

Actually, Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle did admit that a Clinton staffer had spread the claim that Obama was born outside of the United States. Hillary did not personally apologize to Barack Obama for that. Yet now the cry is for Trump, who questioned the place of his birth, to personally apologize to Obama.

All of this is just racial politics. Hillary knows that most blacks are not as enthusiastic about her as they were for Obama. So she has to get them up in arms. On cue, the Congressional Black Caucus has called on Trump, not Hillary, to apologize. The group’s political action committee has already endorsed Hillary for president.

Obama should apologize to the American people for failing to tell us the truth, and nothing but the truth, about Frank Marshall Davis. First, he covered up the identity of “Frank.” Then, when the truth came out, his campaign said Davis was just a civil rights activist.

The Post still won’t tell the truth about the Obama-Davis relationship, eight years after we disclosed it, because the reporter they assigned to do the job was himself a red-diaper baby who had personal and family reasons to conceal the truth.

After Patti Solis Doyle admitted that a Clinton staffer had spread the claim that Obama was born outside of the United States, James Asher, the former McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief, claimed that Clinton aide and ally Sidney Blumenthal had told him about it. He said Blumenthal raised the issue with him “face to face.”

This is very significant. Blumenthal had also raised the Frank Marshall Davis issue during the 2008 campaign. That was never retracted because it was true. The media ignored it for that very reason. They didn’t want to sink Obama’s campaign for the presidency. They still don’t want to bring it up.

The “birther” issue is getting more traction, even though it’s mostly beside the point, because Hillary thinks she can exploit it politically.

Hillary ignores “Frank” now, for obvious reasons, because she needs Obama’s help with the blacks to get elected in November. Blumenthal has to know how damaging the “Frank” connection is to Obama because he cited our work on the subject in 2008. Today, however, Hillary Clinton needs Obama. So Davis is a non-issue.

Coming to her aid is Michelle Obama, saying, “There were those who questioned and continue to question for the past eight years, up through this very day, whether my husband was even born in this country. Well, during his time in office, I think Barack has answered those questions with the example he set by going high when they go low.”

He hasn’t answered the questions about “Frank” because the press corps has never asked.

Tell us all about “Frank,” Mr. President. Tell us about the meaning of your poem to Davis titled, “Pop,” which included strange lines about stains and smells on shorts.

There are indeed very important questions remaining about “where” this president came from. The “where” is not the physical place, but the psychological and mental space in Barack Obama’s young mind that was once filled with communist notions by Frank Marshall Davis. Everything that he has done politically can be explained by the Davis influence.

Even Blumenthal knew there was a story there. It is the cover-up that changed the course of American history and put the United States on the course to becoming a socialist state.

Obama’s foundation advises us that he has changed America, but that the work is not yet done. “As President Obama has said, the change we seek will take longer than one presidency,” the foundation tells us.

You ain’t seen nothing yet! Frank Marshall Davis lives on through Barack Hussein Obama.

Cliff Kincaid

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected] View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

09/19/16

THE CLINTON LIE RATCHET

Hat Tip: Craig Miller

09/18/16

#LoudonClear: Tonight’s special guest ‘Jimmy from Brooklyn’ (audio)

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

TrevorConstitution2

On #LoudonClear Thursday night, Trevor Loudon hosted special guest “Jimmy from Brooklyn,” a well known anti-Communist.

Listen:

09/17/16

Background Checks and Fingerprints

By: T F Stern | T F Stern’s Rantings

Recently the State of Texas altered the requirements for the renewal process licensed locksmiths must complete in order to continue applying their skills in what used to be a free market system. The Department of Public Safety/Private Security Bureau, (DPS/PSB) working under their interpretation of HB 4030 passed during the 84^th session, has determined that locksmiths must haveyet another set of official fingerprints submitted along with a complete background check in order to maintain a valid locksmith license.

While visiting my father, holding his aging hand as we watched some insignificant golf show on the television, I noticed his fingers were a bit discolored as his circulatory system no longer functioned at peak efficiency. It’s just a guess; but you could bet the farm the fingerprints on his hands would be the same ones he’s had since birth, the same ones he had when he signed up with the Navy in WWII and the same ones he’ll have when he meets St. Peter on the other side of the veil.

Some where in Washington, as the singer Arlo Guthrie would point out in his tune, Alice’s Restaurant, there’s a study in black and white of his fingerprints…

These identifying marks don’t change all that much over time so it’s beyond my thought process as to why the State of Texas considers it necessary, requiring locksmiths to furnish a fresh set of these prints simply to renew a license… a license which has that very same set of fingerprints already tied to it and filed away collecting dust.

About the only thing such a requirement does is add $25.00 to the cost of doing business for each and every locksmith while accomplishing absolutely nothing towards the State of Texas’ goal, “protection of the public through fair and impartial regulation of the Private Investigations and Private Security Industry”

Then there’s the requirement of another complete and thorough background check in order to maintain an already issued locksmith license; that bothers me too. Actually, the veins in my neck are pulsing and may explode while thinking about this.

The State of Texas conducts a complete and thorough background check of each individual prior to issuing a locksmith license. If the State wants to find out whether or not a licensed locksmith has committed a noteworthy criminal act since the last time he/she went through the licensing process then all the State’s investigators would have to do would be to bring up a standard criminal check on their computer, not much different than the way police officers are able to find out the same information while on patrol; it takes only a minute, sometimes less.

If someone can explain why the State of Texas considers locksmiths…locksmiths who’ve already been fingerprinted, had their background checked six ways to Sunday and then issued a license…if someone can explain why the State of Texas considers locksmiths a threat or danger to the public… Could you hand me my blood pressure medicine; those veins are swelling some more.

Yesterday I received an email from the DPS/PSB letting me know my latest renewal efforts were finally accepted and that my pocket sized wallet card would be sent in a timely manner.

Do you see why the updated renewal process bothers me?

This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.

09/17/16

New Book Exposes “Marxist Madrassas” in Higher Education

New Book Exposes “Marxist Madrassas” in Higher Education and Advocates Online Learning Revolution to Save Students Money and Provide Marketable Skills

Available at: Amazon.com

For immediate release Contact: Cliff Kincaid, [email protected]

A groundbreaking new book on campus radicalism titled Marxist Madrassas examines the educational background of Mrs. Hillary Clinton, in a chapter titled, “From Goldwater Girl to Marxist,” and looks at the far-left influences at Harvard and Columbia that have guided President Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of the United States.

“If you want to change society, change academia,” says co-author Cliff Kincaid, a long-time journalist and media critic. “Changing academia will save our culture and our nation.”

Kincaid, who was himself banned from a college campus because of his conservative views, examines the dangerous inroads Marxist totalitarianism has made at a number of universities. He also documents the useless but expensive degrees in such areas as “Queer Studies” being foisted on students. Kincaid’s own son, who moved to South Korea to find a job, contributes a chapter on how students can take advantage of the education online learning revolution and get marketable skills.

With the publication of Marxist Madrassas, available through Amazon.com, Kincaid’s educational non-profit, America’s Survival, Inc., wants to help spark a revolution in academia and offer low-cost and affordable learning options for students who are serious about getting good jobs. “Journalism has been changed through the Internet revolution,” Kincaid notes, “but the brick-and-mortar schools have maintained their liberal monopoly in education. This must change.”

A chapter on the creation of a “New Student Movement” looks at how the hard-core left is now attempting to turn students with college debt and despair about the future into a socialist army demanding federal bailouts. Many of them turned out for the “Bernie Sanders Revolution” demanding the taxpayers repay the $1.3 trillion in college debt they owe. “These young people need freedom and hope, not socialism,” Kincaid says.

In addition to exploiting students in debt and despair and censoring conservative views on campus, the book says radical movements are using college campuses to wage campaigns against Israel and Jewish students.

Marxist Madrassas, which is must reading for students and parents, also examines higher tuition rates stemming from superfluous “diversity” programs and overpaid administrators with nothing better to do than reengineer the social views of young people. The case of former Harvard Professor and now far-left Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who falsely claimed Indian heritage to get a teaching job, is among the cases examined in this regard.

Dr. Tina Trent, a scholar who comments frequently on educational issues, writes the final section of the new book on how anti-free speech attitudes on campus are being spread to society at large. She suggests there is a plan to turn the United States into a European-style socialist state where freedom of speech is suppressed because it is considered offensive to left-wing special interest groups.

Kincaid’s educational non-profit, America’s Survival, Inc., has published several books on current issues and maintains a series of websites devoted to such topics as George Soros, leftist influence on the Roman Catholic Church, radical Muslim infiltration of America, and corruption in the journalism business. His main home page is www.usasurvival.org.

Available at: Amazon.com

09/16/16

The Denise Simon Experience – 09/15/16

By: Denise Simon

Hosted by DENISE SIMON, the Senior Research / Intelligence Analyst for Foreign and Domestic Policy for numerous flag officers and intelligence organizations.

SEGMENT 1: Daniel Ikenson, Cato Institute discusses the Trans Pacific Partnership facts.

SEGMENT 2: Ed Miller, Co-Author with deceased Phyllis Schlafy book titled: The Conservative Case for Trump.

SEGMENT 3: Sam Faddis, former CIA discusses the big cash transfers to Iran.

SEGMENT 4: Naveed Jamali, former FBI domestic spy and author of the book titled: How to Catch a Russian spy.

BROADCAST WORLDWIDE: – WDDQ – TALK 92.1FM, WJHC – TALK 107.5FM, and on RED NATION RISING RADIO

09/16/16

Will Obama Pardon Snowden?

By: Cliff Kincaid | America’s Survival

Former intelligence official Fred Fleitz discusses the drive by George Soros and other left-winger to force President Obama to pardon NSA defector Edward Snowden. Donald J. Trump has called for Snowden to be executed as a traitor.

Read: Intelligence Committee Approves Snowden Report

09/15/16

Goober Dana Milbank Hides Stupidity With a Beard

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

One of my favorite Andy Griffith episodes shows Goober growing a beard to try to look smart. Picking up an apple, he declares, “One time you was a seed.” Unfortunately, the extreme makeover didn’t work for Dana Milbank of The Washington Post during an appearance on the Clinton News Network (CNN). His new beard didn’t disguise the loony opinions that have become his hallmark.

The occasion was an appearance with CNN’s Brooke Baldwin to confirm that Hillary was right in saying that half of Donald J. Trump’s supporters were deplorables. “Come back any time,” Baldwin concluded. The appearance wouldn’t be worth commenting on, except for the fact that Milbank tried to look and sound like an intellectual. It was really funny.

At a time when Mrs. Clinton has attacked half of all Trump supporters as “deplorable,” Milbank was brought on to somehow confirm this. He had no problem with the rise of black hate groups like Black Lives Matter or President Obama’s racially divisive rhetoric. Instead, he saw white people (of which he is one) as the problem.

“There’s been a huge jump in the amount of racial stereotypes expressed by white people in America, people who will say that black Americans are less intelligent or lazier than white Americans,” he declared. “And it’s really quite shocking, something like 62 percent of white voters have these sorts of sentiments, and by better than 2-1 they vote Republican.”

He added that since 2008, “there’s been sort of a 20 percentage point jump in the number of white Americans expressing these racist stereotypes and a lot of that has to do with backlash against the first African-American president.”

Assuming that there is rising racial tension in this country, is it not reasonable to conclude that spectacles like overpaid black athletes protesting the National Anthem have played a role? What about the role played by the media in promoting Black Lives Matter, a group that honors a black cop-killer named Assata Shakur, who killed a white New Jersey State Trooper?

Neither Baldwin nor Milbank mentioned that the nation’s first black president has endorsed not only the ugly protests in the NFL (which included socks depicting policemen as pigs), but the anti-white racism of Black Lives Matter.

Obama has also highlighted the killings of black people in a campaign carried forward by his own Department of Justice against local police forces. Yet, Heather McDonald of the Manhattan Institute notes that, as of July 9 of this year, whites were 54 percent of the 440 police shooting victims, compared to 28 percent of them black. Last year whites made up 50 percent of the 987 fatal police shootings, and blacks, 26 percent. And, she adds, “Blacks commit homicide at nearly eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined.”

According to Milbank, rising racial hostility is absolutely not Obama’s fault. White people are to blame. He is a modern-day Goober.

Looking at the violence in places like Chicago, it may be the case that many white people are no longer willing to accept that they are to blame for black people killing themselves and others. Perhaps their opinions of black people have become more critical. They wonder why Obama doesn’t seem to care for his own people. They wonder why black politicians in the Democratic Party are so slow to condemn this violence and do something about it.

Consider the video of a 71-year-old man in Chicago who was recently shot while watering his lawn by a young black thug who wanted his money. Chicago Tribune columnist John Kassreports, “The shooters, these feral young men, aren’t an accident. They are the direct product of the Democratic welfare state that helped destroy families. The government became the father, the fathers became irrelevant or were driven off, and black families that had withstood decades of Jim Crow segregation began to collapse.”

Kass is white, but can anybody seriously doubt the truth of his observation? Where are the black “leaders” sounding the alarm?

CNN posted the video, with the description, “A 71-year-old man was shot and robbed by two men while watering his lawn in a southwest Chicago neighborhood.” The “two men” were black.

Yet talking and bearded heads like Milbank are worried about theoretical white racism, as reflected in surveys about stereotypes.

Milbank is a dishonest but familiar face, with or without a beard, to conservative media figures holding news conferences to announce the results of their investigative reporting about Obama and Hillary that Milbank and his colleagues refuse to do. He has showed up at various events to see what conservatives may have to say about various left-wing scandals. I have personally seen him at AIM conferences on Benghazi and my own conferences on Obama’s ties to the black racist communist Frank Marshall Davis. Usually, Milbank writes his stories during the events, when he thinks he has discovered something he can twist or distort, in order to try to make the conservatives look crazy or foolish.

In the Andy Griffith episode, Goober finally shaves off the beard, after people start fleeing from his pseudo-intellectual rhetoric. He realizes that he has been acting stupid when he has been trying to sound smart.

The Brooke Baldwin-Dana Milbank show is a modern version of that timeless classic. These people don’t realize how stupid they look and sound. They are modern-day Goobers who can only succeed in driving people away from CNN to alternative media.

Yes, we appreciate it, Mr. Milbank. Now, go shave off the beard.

Cliff Kincaid

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected] View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.