Yet another media outlet is taking on Dr. Ben Carson over what he wrote in his autobiography in 1990. This time it is ABC News on their Sunday morning show with George Stephanopoulos. Carson shot the ABC "journalist" down, but it was still disgusting to watch.
Think about this. Stephanopoulos was a member of the Clinton inner circle during Bill Clinton's presidency. He was the "journalist" who invented the "war on women" with his question about ending birth control at a Republican debate in 2012. Now he's out there piling on against Carson in the outrageous media attempt to take the good doctor down.
I've really had enough of this biased media garbage. Are we really going back to 1990 to look into things that happened around 1970? Why isn't Stephanopoulos telling us about all those issues in Hillary Clinton's background. Let's compare some of them with the Carson ones:
1-C. Carson says that as a young teen he tried to hit his mother with a hammer but his brother stopped him. After that, Carson says, he found God and changed from his angry and destructive ways. The media says that they cannot verify this even though they haven't spoken to Carson's mother or brother about it. In other words, this is an attack without any basis.
1-H. In 2001, when Bill Clinton's term ended, Hillary had to send back to the White House about $200,000 in furniture and art that she "took" when they moved out. She was never indicted for theft for taking these items owned by the public. There is, however, no dispute that she "took" all these items that were not hers.
2-C. Carson says that in his last year in high school he was offered a full scholarship to West Point. After examination, it turns out that Carson was told that he was assured a free four year education at West Point if he applied. (He chose not to apply.) The media is in a frenzy about the difference between a free education and a full scholarship, except there really is no difference.
2-H. During Bill's first term as governor of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton opened a commodities trading account at a brokerage with less than $1000 and engaged in a series of trades over a few months. Every one of the investments that Hillary made was profitable. When the profit in her account hit $100,000, Hillary stopped trading and never again got involved with commodities trading. The brokerage where she opened the account also happened to be the same brokerage used by a representative of Tyson Foods, the large agribusiness whose headquarters are in Arkansas. It certainly looks like each day trades were made on opposite sides of the same commodity and at the end of the day the winning trades were put in Hillary's account and the losers were put in the Tyson representative's account. When this was investigated, the records of the accounts had somehow mysteriously disappeared. It seems likely that this was actually a $100,000 payoff by Tyson to the Clintons, but there are no records from which to prove that, so no action was ever taken against them. Hillary claimed that she did well on the trades from reading the Wall Street Journal. But here's the question that someone needs to ask Hillary: if she made $100,000 in a few months because she was so good at trading commodities (as opposed to it all being fixed), why did she stop trading? Why was it that in 2001 when she claims to have been "dead broke" she did not go back to commodity trading as a way to make money quickly. Are we really to believe that Hillary Clinton who has devoted her life to amassing money and power really decided that she would stop trading commodities (if her story is for real)?
There's a lot more like the stuff listed above. For Carson the quibble is whether or not a scholarship to college is the same as a free education. For Hillary Clinton, the issue is whether or not she stole $200,000 of items from the White House and participated in a scheme to funnel a $100,000 to her and her husband. The liberal mainstream media is focused on Carson. After all, why investigate Hillary's character. Does it matter whether or not the president committed multiple felonies? Apparently the answer by the media to that last question is that it depends on whether or not that president is a Democrat or a Republican.
Think about this. Stephanopoulos was a member of the Clinton inner circle during Bill Clinton's presidency. He was the "journalist" who invented the "war on women" with his question about ending birth control at a Republican debate in 2012. Now he's out there piling on against Carson in the outrageous media attempt to take the good doctor down.
I've really had enough of this biased media garbage. Are we really going back to 1990 to look into things that happened around 1970? Why isn't Stephanopoulos telling us about all those issues in Hillary Clinton's background. Let's compare some of them with the Carson ones:
1-C. Carson says that as a young teen he tried to hit his mother with a hammer but his brother stopped him. After that, Carson says, he found God and changed from his angry and destructive ways. The media says that they cannot verify this even though they haven't spoken to Carson's mother or brother about it. In other words, this is an attack without any basis.
1-H. In 2001, when Bill Clinton's term ended, Hillary had to send back to the White House about $200,000 in furniture and art that she "took" when they moved out. She was never indicted for theft for taking these items owned by the public. There is, however, no dispute that she "took" all these items that were not hers.
2-C. Carson says that in his last year in high school he was offered a full scholarship to West Point. After examination, it turns out that Carson was told that he was assured a free four year education at West Point if he applied. (He chose not to apply.) The media is in a frenzy about the difference between a free education and a full scholarship, except there really is no difference.
2-H. During Bill's first term as governor of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton opened a commodities trading account at a brokerage with less than $1000 and engaged in a series of trades over a few months. Every one of the investments that Hillary made was profitable. When the profit in her account hit $100,000, Hillary stopped trading and never again got involved with commodities trading. The brokerage where she opened the account also happened to be the same brokerage used by a representative of Tyson Foods, the large agribusiness whose headquarters are in Arkansas. It certainly looks like each day trades were made on opposite sides of the same commodity and at the end of the day the winning trades were put in Hillary's account and the losers were put in the Tyson representative's account. When this was investigated, the records of the accounts had somehow mysteriously disappeared. It seems likely that this was actually a $100,000 payoff by Tyson to the Clintons, but there are no records from which to prove that, so no action was ever taken against them. Hillary claimed that she did well on the trades from reading the Wall Street Journal. But here's the question that someone needs to ask Hillary: if she made $100,000 in a few months because she was so good at trading commodities (as opposed to it all being fixed), why did she stop trading? Why was it that in 2001 when she claims to have been "dead broke" she did not go back to commodity trading as a way to make money quickly. Are we really to believe that Hillary Clinton who has devoted her life to amassing money and power really decided that she would stop trading commodities (if her story is for real)?
There's a lot more like the stuff listed above. For Carson the quibble is whether or not a scholarship to college is the same as a free education. For Hillary Clinton, the issue is whether or not she stole $200,000 of items from the White House and participated in a scheme to funnel a $100,000 to her and her husband. The liberal mainstream media is focused on Carson. After all, why investigate Hillary's character. Does it matter whether or not the president committed multiple felonies? Apparently the answer by the media to that last question is that it depends on whether or not that president is a Democrat or a Republican.
No comments:
Post a Comment