Mysterious Signs Skewering Hillary And Stephanopoulos Are Popping Up Around NYC

Another display of street art taking aim at Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has been spotted in New York City recently.

Western Journalism reported last month on a series of posters criticizing the Clinton campaign for suggesting certain adjectives used to describe the candidate should be off limits. Using selections from the list of descriptors one pro-Hillary group wanted banned, the resulting posters bore a sketch of Hillary Clinton surrounded by phrases such as “Don’t Say Polarizing” and “Don’t Say Secretive.”



These signs were spotted near Clinton’s Brooklyn campaign headquarters while the latest display – focusing on reports that ABC personality George Stephanopoulos donated a substantial amount of money to the Clinton Foundation – was hung near the network’s news headquarters in Manhattan’s Upper West Side. Similar signs and stickers were also found near the Times Square studio from which Stephanopoulos anchors Good Morning America.

Image Credit: Courtesy

Image Credit: Courtesy

Western Journalism heard from one source who passed along several photos of the graphic with the phrase “Pay Pal” prominently displayed on top and a faux “Donate” button at the bottom.

Image Credit: Courtesy

Image Credit: Courtesy

Image Credit: Courtesy

Image Credit: Courtesy

There is little more information available about the source or intention of these signs; however, this ad hoc campaign is just one of several that have bucked the leftist slant often associated with street art.

In addition to the aforementioned anti-Hillary artwork displayed in New York, Western Journalism also reported that artwork supporting Republican White House hopeful Ted Cruz began showing up throughout San Francisco earlier this year.

Is street art like this a threat to Hillary’s campaign? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

See What This News Site Just Did To Tie Sarah Palin To Texas Biker Shootout

As investigators continue to sort out the details of a deadly shooting in Waco, Texas, at least one major news outlet has already discovered a way to weave a Sarah Palin-themed narrative into its coverage of the tragic event.

A Washington Post article published this week included a prominently-placed Twitter post bearing an image that seemed to link the former Alaska governor to the Texas shootout. The Washington Examiner explains the photo of Palin was apparently taken during a Rolling Thunder, a motorcycle event honoring veterans.


Janell Ross’ article, though completely devoid of any evidence linking Palin to the shootings, nonetheless begins with the above image posted above even the first sentence. The apparent effort to implicitly connect the outspoken conservative to the crime quickly became fodder for critics of the leftist mainstream press.

“What does Sarah Palin and a group of veterans have to do with biker thugs in Waco?” one reader asked in response to the Post’s article.

“The writer obviously has personal issues on display here,” another replied.

Criticism of the article – which offered a sparsely sourced claim that white crime victims are treated differently than blacks – as a work of journalism was similarly harsh.

“I managed to make it all the way through this article,” one reader wrote, “and yet, I have no idea what point the author was trying to make…”

Another individual chimed in: “The point was to place blame on law abiding white gun owners for gang violence. The author failed miserably.”

Was inserting Sarah Palin’s picture into this article out of line? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

How The Left Uses ‘Racism’ And ‘Sexism’ To Silence The Right

Ever since the junior senator from Illinois announced his candidacy for the presidency eight years ago, those who have criticized his politics and his ideology have been pummeled with a charge of “racism.” It’s been the perfunctory, knee-jerk response – devoid of intellectual integrity or factual relevance – to avoid the substantive issues, while attempting to simultaneously stifle dissent and silence critics. And it’s clear from early indications, with regard to the 2016 presidential race, that the same modus operandi will be employed against those critical of Hillary Clinton. Only this time, it will be gender based – the charge of sexism.

During the Obama tenure, the charge of “racist” has been unavoidable to any who were critical of the president. Whether it was criticism of Obamacare, lack of transparency, fiscal profligacy, inscrutable foreign policy, class-envy fomentation, and anti-capitalist policies, it didn’t matter. Regardless of the logic, data, facts, or strength of argument, if you opposed the administration’s policies and initiatives, you were a racist. At least according to the sycophants, who were either oblivious to logic, data, or facts, and had an empty logical quiver from which to fire back with anything except blanks.

And what’s pathetic, from a free speech, open discourse, and cogent political discourse perspective, is that it worked. The millions of Americans who flocked to Tea Party rallies, Glenn Beck confabs, and other conservative functions were successfully labeled “racists” because of their opposition to the liberal, destructive policies of the administration. It didn’t matter what color, race, creed, or socio-economic status they hailed from; they were all racists.

For some reason, the fact that the policies propounded and foisted on the nation the past six years are not race-based seems lost on the vapid purveyors of the “racist” tactic. Big government, massive debt, onerous regulations, expansive government control, and the concomitant loss of personal liberty are naturally opposed not because they might be advanced by someone of a certain color, ethnic background, or native language. They’re opposed because they’re antithetical to the founding principles of our republic! It matters not who is foisting the destructive policies and ideology on the nation; it matters that they’re distinctly anti-American. Conservative Ben Carson’s current lead in the crowded GOP primary race underscores that fact.

What’s brilliant about the tactic is that you don’t have to worry about any facts, data, or common sense to employ it. Just by hurling the accusation, several things have been accomplished with one fell swoop. 1) The argument has been misdirected, so it’s no longer about the policies or the substance of the disagreement; it’s now whether the dissenter is truly racist or not. 2) It neutralizes and diminishes the objections of the dissenter; for now, the greater issue is whether he is in fact racist, or not. And 3) it successfully stifles dissent, since no one, probably even real racists, likes to be called one; so why go out on a limb and face the probability of such an accusation?

And now it appears that Hillary Clinton supporters will use the same tactic. Just last month, a pro-Hillary group, self-dubbed the HRC Super Volunteers, warned journalists that they were going to be watching vigilantly how the media reports on Hillary’s campaign. Group member and co-founder John West was thoughtful enough to serve as an early warning system on the words that cannot, I repeat, cannot be used to describe the probable Democrat candidate for president. According to West, “polarizing,” “calculating,” “disingenuous,” “insincere,” “ambitious,” “inevitable,” “entitled,” “over-confident,” “secretive,” “will do anything to win,” “represents the past,” and “out of touch,” are all apparently sexist code-words that the media are not to use when describing the candidate.

According to West, “Already we have seen the coded language of sexism and innuendo used by major news outlets and we are not happy.” As a student of language and etymology, I have to admit I was unaware those words and phrases were definitionally sexist.

But alas, I shouldn’t let myself fall into their misdirection and accusatory trap. It’s not that those words are sexist, it’s just that they’re so accurately descriptive of the presumptive Democrat nominee that using the terms will earn the consternation of Hillary devotees, hence justifying accusations of sexism. By couching those terms in a sexist context, they can as easily avert factual criticism of Hillary as they did in protecting Obama. Just like the accusations of “racism,” it has nothing to do with what is true or what is factual; it has everything to do with ensuring electoral success and neutralizing the opposition by attempting to shape and control the language.

Those of us who are bitter clingers to our freedom, our liberties, and the principles the nation was founded on shouldn’t allow ourselves to be rebuffed or silenced by the non-thinking Alynski devotees who utilize these nefarious and polarizing tactics. And remember, if that’s their primary tool to fight back with, you know that logically you’ve already won because their only defense is casting aspersions ad hominem.

There are two things even more disturbing than a group attempting to regulate political speech. One, that the liberal-biased media may well comply, and play their game; and two, that for a large segment of our unenlightened and uninformed electorate, their “sexist” tactic will work.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

No, The Pope Didn’t Call Mahmoud Abbas An Angel Of Peace

On Saturday, a report made the waves that Pope Francis had called Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas “An angel of peace” during a meeting at the Vatican in Rome. News agencies all over the world presented the Pope’s words as breaking news, among them Reuters, Associated Press and AFP.

Here’s, for example, the BBC report on the news:

“The BBC’s David Willey in Rome says that after 20 minutes of private talks, Pope Francis gave Mr. Abbas the medallion depicting an angel of peace adding: “It is appropriate because you are an angel of peace.”

Here’s what NBC wrote:

“Pope Francis praised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as an “angel of peace” during a meeting Saturday at the Vatican that underscored the Holy See’s warm relations with the Palestinians.

Francis made the compliment during the traditional exchange of gifts at the end of an official audience in the Apostolic Palace. He presented Abbas with a medallion and explained that it represented the “angel of peace destroying the bad spirit of war.”

And here is The New York Times:

“Pope Francis praised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as an “angel of peace” during a meeting Saturday at the Vatican that underscored the Holy See’s warm relations with the Palestinians as it prepares to canonize two 19th century nuns from the region.

Francis made the compliment during the traditional exchange of gifts at the end of an official audience in the Apostolic Palace. He presented Abbas with a medallion and explained that it represented the “angel of peace destroying the bad spirit of war.”

Francis said he thought the gift was appropriate since “you are an angel of peace.” During his 2014 visit to Israel and the West Bank, Francis called both Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres men of peace.”

There is just one problem with these reports: the Pope never called Abbas an angel of peace.

According to La Stampa and other Italian news sites that quoted the official Vatican statement the Pope actually said this: “ lei possa essere un angelo della pace,” (May you be an angel of peace).

Here’s the translation of the account by La Stampa’s Vatican reporter:

As is tradition with heads of State or of government, Francis presented a gift to the Palestinian leader, commenting: “May the angel of peace destroy the evil spirit of war. I thought of you: May you be an angel of peace.”

The Pontiff added that he wanted to express the wish that “direct negotiations between the parties might resume to find a just and lasting solution to the conflict.”

In Italian : “si è parlato del processo di pace con Israele, esprimendo l’auspicio che si possano riprendere i negoziati diretti tra le Parti per trovare una soluzione giusta e duratura al conflitto.

From this statement, it becomes clear that the Pope prefers a negotiated solution to the conflict and seems not to support Palestinian unilateralism.

This was the second time in a week the media got it wrong on news concerning relations between the Vatican and the Palestinian Authority. Last Wednesday mainstream media reported that the Vatican had now recognized the State of Palestine, as if it was breaking news.

But Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi later said: “We have recognized the State of Palestine ever since it was given recognition by the United Nations and it is already listed as the State of Palestine in our official yearbook.”

The Israeli news site Ynet noted that the Vatican has been referring unofficially to the state of Palestine for at least a year. During Pope Francis’ 2014 visit to the Holy Land, the Vatican’s official program referred to Abbas as the president of the “state of Palestine.”

In fact on November 30, 2012 the Vatican decided to support the recognition of Palestine at the UN. The Vatican “called for full recognition of Palestinian sovereignty as necessary for peace in the region.”

So there was nothing new in the Vatican’s recognition of a Palestinian State.

The New York Times, however, thought it was big news and wrote that the agreement is an emotional blow to the Israeli people, no less.

“ For Israelis, it was an emotional blow since Francis has deep relationships with Jews dating back decades, and Christians are critical backers of their enterprise.”

NYT also thought that by signing a treaty with the PA “the Vatican was lending significant symbolic weight to an intensifying Palestinian push for international support for sovereignty that bypasses the paralyzed negotiations with Israel”.

As we learned from Pope Francis’ statement on this issue, the Vatican is promoting a negotiated settlement and not unilateral moves that will harm Israel’s position. So the New York Times was not reporting news but made an effort to rehabilitate Abbas and set up the Vatican as anti-Israel.

Remains the question why the Vatican decided to sign the treaty with the Palestinian Authority at this point?

The answer seems to be that the Vatican is driven by ‘realpolitik’ The Catholic Church is simply protecting its interests in “Palestine”.

Paragraph three in the joint statement of the Bilateral Commission of the Vatican and the State of Palestine at the end of the Plenary Meeting makes this clear:

“The discussions took place in a cordial and constructive atmosphere. Taking up the issues already examined at an informal level, the Commission noted with great satisfaction the progress achieved in formulating the text of the Agreement, which deals with essential aspects of the life and activity of the Catholic Church in Palestine.”

The Roman Catholic Church sees what’s going on with Christian communities in the Middle East and wanted to protect its interests in the Holy Land now that more and more countries are signaling that they support unilateral moves to create a Palestinian State. By signing this treaty,  the Vatican has chosen the State of Palestine as her interlocutor for protecting Christian communities and real estate of the church in the West Bank and Gaza.

Israel, which is the only country in the Middle East that has a growing Christian community, is left out of this discussion.


This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

George Stephanopoulos Donates $50k To Clintons. We’re Not Shocked.

Show of hands: is anyone shocked that George Stephanopoulus is a liberal hack who donated $50,000 to his former employers? In a stunning example of journalistic integrity, ABC News leaked this to Politico when the Washington Free Beacon had the story yesterday and reached out for comment…


Of course, we’re all sure that the donation doesn’t affect his unbiased news coverage. Like, say for example, when he said he was not convinced about the allegations in Clinton Cash.

Or, when, out of the blue, he decided to bring up contraception in the 2012 Republican debates. You know, because it was our main concern in 2012.

I’m sure it’s just ironic that the next day, Democrats launched their war on women.

And, to show bipartisanship, we’re sure George Stephanopoulos didn’t run cover for Hillary when moderating a 2008 Democrat primary debate between her and Barack Obama.

Wait a second…come to think of it, we just went back through eight years of George Stephanopolous news coverage. Eight years, where his coverage favored the Democrats as a whole and favored Hillary Clinton specifically. The same Hillary Clinton whose foundation he was just exposed donating $50,000 to.

Don’t get us wrong. We’re not implying that he’s a biased hack in an industry where it’s hard to shock people with just how big a biased hack you are.

We’re flat out saying so.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth