Monday, October 03, 2016

Violating Privacy

The NYT has violated the privacy of Donald Trump around election time. I find this amusing from a paper that has made zero effort to ascertain if any element of the divine birth and super human intelligence of Obama is true. The paper did publish the fact that Obama hired media manipulators who knowingly lied to a compliant media after Obamacare and the Iran deal were passed.

There are huge gaps in the Obama narrative. The outrageous secrecy has fueled birtherism. This is amusing because the
Obama bio should simply be titled Ooops. There is zero evidence Obama Sr ever married or lived with Obamas insane hippie chick circus clown mother. Even the divorce certificate is no proof as no Joint assets or support payment was mentioned. Divorce courts do not check that couples were in fact married especially when the divorce is not contested. The fact that Obama is illegitimate only is relevant in that he has peddled a myth from day one. His grades are relevant in that he peddles himself as an intellectual above all others. Classes that what I did between bong hits.

I am so glad the media is outraged about Trump calling a beauty pageant winner Miss Piggy. That is nicer than the names Hillary called women abused by her sexual predator husband.

While we are at it. Let's ask the Times if they invested any effort doccumenting the heinous crimes of Lois Lerner vs the public. These crimes are far more serious than lane closures. Obstruction of justice in this case tampering with the evidence. The behavior at the IRS is so heinous as to warrant collective punishment for the agency. Bonuses should be withheld for five years and a hiring and wage freeze ahould be imposed until the guilty parties step forward. Lerner should be offered jail or denaturalization and deportation. Now some of you think this is overkill. However, the crimes of Lerner strike at the heart of trust in government. Lerner abused her position for partisan purposes. Learners crimes are worse than Benedict Armold and anything imagined by Nixon. As her crimes included abusing those who support Israel, she should be asked to leave


Ducky's here said...

Let's count the ways in which Beak is wrong ...

1. Blaming the IRS for the forms leak.

The leaked documents were the front pages of his Connecticut, New Jersey and New York returns. Got that Beak? His Federal return wasn't leaked.

2. Even your boy Trump has opted out of the birther nonsense.
Time to shape up, Beak.

3. Trump regularly insults women. Don't pull a straw man with unfounded accusations against Clinton.
Just what were the damning Hillary quots? Got a concrete example.

4 "As her crimes included abusing those who support Israel, she should be asked to leave"
Marking a Likud front group for audit to determine their qualification for tax exemption is not a crime.
Is the fact that one of the groups audited was lobbying for the Israeli apartheid regime anything criminal?
Your hysteria won't make it any further than this blog page. Pure hysterics.

beakerkin said...

1 This is an illegal violation of privacy and jail terms should follow.

2 I have never esposed birtherism. Obama has lied about his family. His mother and father were never married nor lived under the same roof. He definitely is a beneficiary of afirmative action.

beakerkin said...

3 The allegations are not unfounded nor is Hilliarys role in abusing women who dealt with her sexual predator husband minor.


beakerkin said...

4 Lerner abused pro Israel groups on behalf of Obama. She is a Capo and needs to be asked to leave the community and be denied the right to burial. Of course long after she retires she is back in the community she betrayed.

She should be shunned and be tossed from her house of worship.

Ducky's here said...

1. The Times was copies of the returns in a manilla envelope, they checked them out for authenticity and they published the story.
You believe the Times did something illegal in printing the story. If the documents are authentic they have committed no crime. A candidate for the presidency would be a public figure with limited claims to privacy.

2. You go on about all kinds of issues with his parentage but you aren't specifically a birther? Maybe.

3. Do you have anything to point to concerning Hillary's actions towards those women? I'm not saying yes or no. Just saying I haven't seen anything concrete.

4. I'm going to ask once again, is it criminal to flag a front group for the Isreali apartheid regime for a legal examination of their tax exempt claim (which was granted)?

Ducky's here said...

" “This is open-and-shut,” said in an email Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor who is a leading scholar on freedom-of-the-press issues. “As the Supreme Court made clear in the Pentagon Papers decision, the press cannot be held liable for publishing truthful information that is relevant to the public interest in the absence of a clear and present danger of grave harm.” "
Not that Beak has much respect for the 1st amendment but he might find this interesting.