Connect with us

Media

Are claims the Washington Post paid people to accuse Roy Moore believable?

Published

on

Are claims the Washington Post paid people to accuse Roy Moore believable

The internet is filled with all sort of trolls, liars, and nobodies, but so is the media. Doug Lewis, a vocal Trump supporter, claims to know somebody who was offered money by The Washington Post to accuse Roy Moore of sexual assault. While Doug Lewis is a complete Trump supporter, WaPo is invested in the Doug Jones campaign against Roy Moore. So biases aside, let’s hear what he has to say.

So, let’s stop here and see how much of this is plausible. A reporter named Beth right? Beth Reinhard so happens to be a reporter who worked on the Roy Moore story. He could have known that and have made up the story using the name, or he could have never read the story like a lot of people who have dismissed it. One thing that we do know is that WaPo sought people out. They even state that:

Could it be that they had people who refused their offer? Possibly. Though this accusation is far from being reputable. Let’s continue:

In my opinion, his story get a little shady at this point. Not sure why he would have a restriction on talking about the issue. This twitter account has the makings of a conspiracy theorist. Trolls were quick to point out how he initially tweeted 1000$ instead of $1000 as proof of him being a Russian troll, because they have the symbol after the number. However, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he tweeted this on a mobile device where people often make this annoying error.

To me, Doug Lewis seems like your classic Trump supporter living in Florida. What Russian troll has 17.9k followers and six years of tweet history? Doug Lewis now has his followers pestering him for more details. So he is expected to deliver something.

Final Thoughts

There aren’t a lot of verifiable facts. What we do know is that The Washington Post sought people out and Beth Reinhard was on the story. Whether they offered women money to accuse Roy Moore has yet to be proven. If true, I hope this surfaces fast. Until then, this claim isn’t credible and is just one Trump supporter rallying to save Moore. The story is fishy, and Roy Moore definitely needs to helm his defense rather than his fans on Twitter.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Jordan

    November 13, 2017 at 1:02 pm

    If you are under the impression that, “this claim isn’t credible,” then you have to think the same about the Wash Post “report (hit piece)”.

    Now think rationally and square these 3 “facts” in the WP “report (hit peice)”:

    1…The reporter was tipped off about Moore by hearing rumors at a Moore rally

    2…the incidents happened 38 years ago

    3….the 4 women never knew each other

    “How did the WaPo know there were four women, who they were, and how to contact them?… A Washington Post reporter just happens to be in Alabama talking to Roy Moore supporters… And he happens to hear what no one has reported in 38 years, no political opponents – No one… That Roy Moore, 38 years ago, made advances to teenage girls. Four of them. Now, the four girls do not know each other, they have never met. Yet the person who the Post reporter happened to run into and speak to, the person who supposedly told the reporter the story about the four girls, happened to know all four girls and how to contact them?”

  2. Jordan

    November 13, 2017 at 1:11 pm

    Another Moore accuser, Leigh Corfman, has claimed “several pastors at various churches made sexual advances at her.” This 3x divorcee who has also filed for bankruptcy three times.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Federalists

Vice says women shouldn’t have guns

Published

on

On Friday, Vice’s Twitter account tweeted out a previous Vice article from June 14, 2016, entitled, “A Very Incomplete List of People Gun Rights Activists Think Should Be Armed.”

The brief article is a lamentation of the belief of Second Amendment advocates, specifically “the NRA and other right-wing groups,” that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

The tweet (below) reads, “The NRA wants to put guns in the hands of: Schoolteachers, Preachers, Anyone who goes into a nightclub, Women …just to name a few.”

According to author Harry Cheadle – who evidently believes that women shouldn’t be afforded Constitutional protections or exercise our God-given human rights – “the goal [of 2A advocates] is to make sure everyone is prepared to engage in a shootout at all times.”

“And by everyone, I mean everyone,” he emphasized.

So, just who, exactly, does Vice believe should be considered prohibited from exercising his/her Second Amendment rights?

“Here is a surely incomplete list of people that gun rights activists believe should be packing heat. Once all of these categories of Americans are all carrying guns on them at all times, presumably we will finally be safe…”

The listed include (as worded the article), but are not limited to:

-Women

-Gay people

-Jews

-Holocaust victims

-Some people who commit domestic violence

-Firefighters

-Every black person in America

-Pilots on planes

-People on the terrorist watch list

Yes, ladies, you read that right. A gun in the hand of a woman is as great a risk as possible terrorists. I can imagine Mr. Cheadle must be petrified at the sight of a woman behind the wheel of a car!

Ahhh!

Yes, Mr. Cheadle is apparently quite fearful of women, Holocaust victims, and black Americans, among others.

Well, as you might expect, this didn’t go over too well on Twitter. Here are just a few of the (often snark-filled) reactions.



And, in case you are wondering about my own response to Vice’s tweet… I joined the NRA.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Media: Please stop bringing Fame to mass murderers with the Gratuitous use of their Names and Imagery.

Published

on

By

It is time that we stop glamorising killers with unnecessary media fanfare    #NoFame4Killers

Saying that the Socialist-Left wants a certain level of violence to push gun control will always result in a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Still, it’s hard to shake that conclusion when it comes to the idea of refusing to bring fame to mass murderers. Studies have shown that these killers inspire others to copy their horrid acts, so it’s only logical that cutting down their media exposure would help alleviate the problem.

Proving the point is the report in the Miami Herald that: There have been threats of violence at 12 U.S. schools, at least, since Fla. Shooting, Including an arrest of a high school student who threatened ‘Round 2’ of Florida Shooting as reported at Tme.com

Consider a 2015 study from researchers at Arizona State University and Northeastern Illinois University reported in the PLOS journal, concluding that:

We find significant evidence that mass killings involving firearms are incented by similar events in the immediate past. On average, this temporary increase in probability lasts 13 days, and each incident incites at least 0.30 new incidents (p = 0.0015). We also find significant evidence of contagion in school shootings, for which an incident is contagious for an average of 13 days, and incites an average of at least 0.22 new incidents (p = 0.0001).

To make it perfectly clear, we are not talking about keeping this information secret or censoring the media. The data should be available in certain places in the media – a dispassionate recitation of the facts of the crime, to keep conspiracy theories and other such nonsense at bay. But there is no logical reason to make a mass murderer famous for the sake of clicks or ratings.

Nor is this a call for government intervention, this is more like a “gentlemen’s agreement” (or gentlewoman’s as the case may be) to stop gratuitously promoting these killers. It’s about denying fame to cowardly murderers who are the worst of the worst, nothing more, nothing less.

Consider that the experts in the field have detailed the extensive planning and preparation these mass murderers that proceeding through five distinct phases. This article published in PoliceOne.com detailed these stages: 5 phases of the active shooter: A tactical reload

1. Fantasy Phase
2. Planning Phase
3. Preparation Phase
4. Approach Phase
5. Implementation Phase

Are we to believe that the “Columbine effect” doesn’t factor in these stages?
In addition, are we to believe that in the Left’s magical “Gun-Free” Utopian fantasy land, that criminals of this type wouldn’t find alternative methods of mass murder?

Both sides of the political aisle have championed this have idea. It was extensively discussed on the Glenn Beck Radio program: Logic and Reason Needed, As well as the publication ‘Mother Jones’.  While we loathe to link to them, they did offer some useful tips to alleviate this deadly problem:

Report on the perpetrator forensically and with dispassionate language. Avoid terms like “lone wolf” and “school shooter,” which may carry cachet with young men aspiring to attack. Instead use “perpetrator,” “act of lone terrorism,” and “act of mass murder.”

Minimise use of the perpetrator’s name. When it isn’t necessary to repeat it, don’t. And don’t include middle names gratuitously, a common practice for distinguishing criminal suspects from others of the same name, but which can otherwise lend a false sense of their importance.

Keep the perpetrator’s name out of headlines. Rarely, if ever, will a generic reference to him in a headline be any less practical.

Minimize use of images of the perpetrator. This is especially important both in terms of aspiring copycats’ desire for fame, and the psychology of vulnerable individuals who identify with mass shooters.

When both ends of the political spectrum agree on something that is so basic and eminently obvious, everyone should take notice. But then again, maybe there are those who really want a certain level of violence, who would prefer to tilt at the windmill of gun control and never really solve anything.

 

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The Progressives and the Race Card

Published

on

The “race card” has been the left’s longtime weapon against conservatives. It must stop now, or America will be lost forever. Just as with other fallen nations and empires of ancient past.

For many years the left has accused the Republican party, conservatives and moreover, Bible-believing Christians of being racist and wanting to keep America purely Anglo white. Just recently Univision’s equivalent to Walter Cronkite, Jorge Ramos; just made a reviling statement during his appearance on CNN only proving the conservative right about the news media bias in favor of the Democratic Party and their agenda of supporting chain migration.

“They are not proposing immigration reform, they are proposing immigration revenge,” Ramos said. “Because they not only want to help the DACA students but also they want to have a wall, they want more border security, they want to end the so-called chain migration which is family reunification and then the visa lottery.”

However, as the truth gets out about the real history of the American progressives especially those involved in the Democrat party, the true racists proved to be the Democrats themselves. Before Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party which won Dinesh D’Souza four Golden Razzies (which he accepted with honors), the respected Steven Spielberg stayed true to history and showed the open display of racism and the advocacy of slavery that the Democrat party was supporting back in the days of Abraham Lincoln in his namesake 2012 film that Spielberg produced and directed.

In spite of these two films, the race card has been the best weapon that the Democrat progressive leftist to use against people who want to see a cap put on this chain immigration crisis in America. Those who want that cap are so afraid to be seen as bigots and people that hate blacks, Asians, Latinos, etc, etc. If we are going to preserve America and its founding principles we can no longer play defense on this issue. We must play offense, and the above movies I mentioned are a good start to use against the Democrat pravda machine.

I am convinced more than ever that the white progressives are not suffering from “white liberal guilt” nor do they really want to pay penance for own past sins nor the sins of what their movement and political party (the Democrats) has done in the past.

No, they show their true colors when they accuse us of doing what they have done and/or what the Democrats and other progressives of the past have done. History has shown to all of us that they are the racists, xenophobes or what other names they can throw at us hoping that it sticks. The biggest of this bunch at least in the 20th century are Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Wilson abandoned Biblical truth in favor of Darwinism and ushered that into Princeton University when he became president of that respected educational institution. LBJ was always a racist but like smoking the honeybees he knew to give the African-Americans enough money from the taxpayers to keep them quiet and have them vote Democrat for the next 200 years or so when he lost the civil rights fight in the 1960’s. Both were big-time racists and hated the negro citizen with a passion. Lest we forget that Wilson screened the pro-Ku Klux Klan movie “The Birth of a Nation” at the White House when he was POTUS.

As Christians we need to continue to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the one and true single race…that being the “Human Race.”

God wants all humans to be saved by his son Jesus regardless of skin color or heritage (Mark 16:15). Yeshua did not just die for the Jews (his own people) and the white gentiles. He died for the black, the yellow, the red, the brown etc. etc. The Gospel is the one and only true melting pot while America’s version is a secondary one but based on the principles of the first one. The progressive’s gospel of diversity celebration and co-existence only creates a ‘salad bowl’ which only leads to more division among the citizenry and power-hungry tyrants ready to take control. That control is why they are currying favor among the minorities, and that will not end well for them or any of us who is not a politician or bureaucrat.


This piece was originally published in The Christian Post

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.