When a reporter asked the press secretary if she would take back her comments made on Fox Business News, where she implied that because of President Trump, “we will not see diseases like the coronavirus come here,” she clarified her statement and then turned the tables on them.

“Well first let me note, I was asked a question on Fox Business about the President’s travel restrictions. I noted what was the intent behind those travel restrictions which is, we will not see the coronavirus come here, we will not see terrorism come here, referring to an earlier set of travel restrictions,” McEnany’s responded.

So apparently, McEnany wasn’t predicting “we won’t have that come here” but rather, her tone was more one of “we won’t” as in , “we won’t have any of that.

But this “gotcha” question didn’t even phase McEnany, who quickly retorted “I guess I would turn the question back on the media and ask similar questions. Does Vox want to take back that they proclaimed that the coronavirus would not be a deadly pandemic.?Does the Washington Post want to take back that they told Americans to get a grip, the flu is bigger than the coronavirus? Does the Washington Post likewise want to take back that our brains are causing us to exaggerate the threat of the coronavirus? Does the New York Times want to take back that fear of the virus may be spreading faster than the virus itself? Does NPR want to take back that the flu was a much bigger threat than the coronavirus? And finally once again the Washington Post, would they like to take back that the government should not respond aggressively to the coronavirus? I’ll leave you with those questions and maybe you’ll have some answers in a few days. Thank you very much.”

The Media outlets McEnany mentioned,  are the same ones who regularly chide the President for not “doing more”  in the beginning.  And yet, the articles cited are from that same time period.  Yes, you read that right.  The articles McEnany mentioned, articles that discouraged the idea of  us taking severe action and prevention, are from the same time period in which these media outlets  NOW allege that the President did not take enough action in the beginning.

In an effort to downplay the president’s earlier preventative measure of a travel ban,  the media repeatably  tries to coerce the President and his representatives to concede that not enough  action was taken in the period between ordering the travel ban and his emergency declaration.

By McEnany  citing her critics articles from that same time period, the media is left having to admit to making light of the coronavirus.

All of this opens up the argument that the President’s travel ban may have been less effective due to the media downplaying the coronavirus.

Sources:         wp logo     npr logo nyt

NPR News

“Worried About Catching The New Coronavirus? In The U.S., Flu Is A Bigger Threat”

headline of article by Lennie Bernstein


The New York Times

“Coronavirus is starting to freak me out — not the illness itself but the amped-up, ill-considered way our frightened world might respond to it.

“Yes, the novel virus appears to be spreading quickly at the outbreak’s epicenter in the Chinese province of Hubei, but after a late start the Chinese government is now imposing unprecedented measures to contain it. As the World Health Organization declared last week, it remains too early to call the outbreak a global public health emergency.


“So far, the Wuhan coronavirus is not much more frightening than the outbreaks of other recent coronaviruses like SARS in 2003 or MERS in 2012, each of which killed fewer than a thousand people around the world. The new virus’s death toll has just exceeded 130; for context, according to the CDC, about 15 million Americans have been sickened by the seasonal flu so far in the 2019-2020 flu season, and 8,200 have died from it. (The flu kills between 300,000 and 650,000 people around the world annually.)

“What worries me more than the new disease is that fear of a vague and terrifying new illness might spiral into panic, and that it might be used to justify unnecessarily severe limits on movement and on civil liberties, especially of racial and religious minorities around the world”.  Farhad Manjoo,  The New York Times 

Had enough? Contact these outlets and let them know you are done with their double standard!

Contact NPR

Contact The Washington Post

Contact The New York Times

Together, we can make a difference!

How the Impeachment Process will help Trump

It’s now apparent that what Nancy Pelosi was really after all along was to smear President Trump’s good name. She claims that history will show, forever, that President Trump was impeached. Wait a minute though…this assertion is false on two counts. First, President Trump’s so called impeachment is invalid; it was set declared under a format that did not use due process, so it’s not valid. The whole meeting was planned in secret, and Republicans were not allowed to ask questions. As one analyst put it, any attorney operating this way would be swiftly debarred. So constitution and proper judicial protocol was not followed at all.

The second reason that Pelosi’s Machiavellian claim that Trump is ruined by this is none other than Former Democratic POTUS President Clinton. Hailed as a hero by his own, you’ll never hear any Dem declare that Clinton is a scum bag, which makes her ghoulish delight in Trump’s supposedly marred image, seem laughable. What a double standard! But the Dem’s have always been so great at double standards. The most comical claim yet is that they would be sending the articles of impeachment to a kangaroo court if it were to go to the senate.

Apparently, Gaslighting and Projection are the Dems favored strategies, if you can call it that.


“According to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote”.

“For the House to vote ‘to impeach’ without ever sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial would also deviate from the constitutional protocol. It would mean that the president had not genuinely been impeached under the Constitution; and it would also deny the president the chance to defend himself in the Senate that the Constitution provides”.    Noah Feldman, Harvard Law Professor

Liberal Bloomberg’s own journalist, also a professor of law at Harvard, is admitting that the so called impeachment of President Trump, is not a valid one.

“…that’s because “impeachment” under the Constitution means the House sending its approved articles of to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the president is impeached.

As for the headlines we saw after the House vote saying, “TRUMP IMPEACHED,” those are a media shorthand, not a technically correct legal statement. So far, the House has voted to impeach (future tense) Trump. He isn’t impeached (past tense) until the articles go to the Senate and the House members deliver the message”.     Noah Feldman


Kimberley Strassel: “Behold the Lord High Impeacher”

wall street

Subscribe to the Wall Street Journal to read more. Or read the full text here

“Under today’s process, Mr. Schiff gets to make up the rules as he goes along. Behold the Lord High Impeacher. Democrats view control over the narrative as essential, having learned from their Russia-collusion escapade the perils of transparency.

read more