Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2t3211e
.BLOGSPOT. COM.
For Sat., Nov. 4, 2017
~All Gave Some~Some Gave
All~God Bless America
Bannon Celebrates Second Anniversary of Breitbart News Daily: Engaged and Informed Audience Defied the Experts to Make Donald Trump President
by JOHN HAYWARD
Breitbart News Executive Chairman Steve Bannon made a special guest appearance on Thursday’s Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Alex Marlow to discuss the importance of the Breitbart News audience to the 2016 election, and to the ongoing political debate in America.
Bannon recalled launching Breitbart News Daily as the original host two years ago.
“You and I and the rest of the team sat down and tried to conceive what the show was going to be,” he said to Marlow. “I think we took our lead from the weekend shows. One thing we found is that it’s caller-based, it’s audience-based. I think what’s the biggest thing that came out of this was that the audience really drives the show. It gave us all the ideas for our final drive to get President Trump elected. It came out of this show, and it came out of the comments section of Breitbart.”
“So it’s caller-based, it’s listener-based. It’s active radio, it’s not passive. I couldn’t be prouder of you and the team. I do look forward into getting back and doing most hosting after this crazy schedule I’ve got kind of calms down a bit. The show is my first love, and I love, as you know, nothing more than sitting in the chair and taking calls from folks throughout the country,” said Bannon.
“Just call in, just listen in to Breitbart News Daily any day and you’ll hear populism,” he said. “You’ll hear this kind of great common sense, this crowdsourced common sense and decency and grit of the American people. We see it across the country, whether it’s guys calling in from Oregon, or Alabama, or Florida, or Maine, Wisconsin – it’s just across the country. I think it’s the backbone of the nation.”
Bannon recalled Andrew Breitbart’s desire to make Breitbart News “not just user-friendly, but actively engaged.” He hailed Breitbart as a “giant in understanding new media” and “understanding how media interacts with people’s lives,” with a core insight that the Internet was an entirely new medium, not merely an upgrade to legacy media delivery systems like television and newspapers.
Of the legacy media systems, Bannon said he much preferred radio to television, having fielded many questions about whether Breitbart News would branch out into TV. “Radio is a theater of the mind,” he explained. “It has a way to have a personal relationship with people. It’s one of the reasons that we love being part of the SiriusXM family, particularly on 125, the Patriot Channel. It’s just a great lineup for us to fit into. We hope to do a lot more with SiriusXM in the future.”
“I’d see this going around the country,” he said. “Going to different rallies, going to different conferences, where we could have the radio setup in the back and be interviewing different people, and cut right to the speeches, and get the crowd response. Now you see every time we do it, there’s a huge crowd. I was able to drop into Value Voters with Raheem and the guys doing the show, it was like 200 people jammed around the radio booth, just kind of seeing who’s checking in, just kind of building the community.”
“One of the things radio can really do is build a community,” he reflected. “I think it’s one of the things we’ve done in the two years we’ve had the show up. I want to thank Dave Gorub, and Liz, and Scott Greenstein, and all of Sirius that allowed us to – it was really experimental at the time – to really do something that was not host-driven.”
“When I left, I did the Friday broadcast on August 12th, and on the 13th I talked to Trump about taking over the campaign, and really committed on Sunday the 14th. I never even called you guys. It was just amazing you stepped right into the show on Monday,” Bannon reminisced to Marlow with a chuckle. “I was very proud of it, because we built the show around plug-and-play, that other people could come in here and do it. You just had to understand how to both juggle both newsmakers and audience calls.”
He proudly recalled one of the former heads of National Public Radio working on a profile of Breitbart for Vanity Fair shortly before Bannon’s departure to work on the Trump campaign: “I told him if you want to understand Breitbart, you’ve got to understand the comments section, and you’ve got to understand Breitbart News Radio. He sat in, and he was totally blown away. I said the callers, actually, people confuse them sometimes with guests because they’re so knowledgeable.”
Bannon observed that SiriusXM’s audience has a greater sense of investment in the programming than terrestrial radio audiences.
“They’ve really put their time and money into this,” he said. “They want to be actively engaged, and obviously Sirius has a tremendous platform for sports and entertainment and everything like that. What we really love about it is that they’re totally committed to really reaching out to people across the political spectrum. They’ve got great progressive channels and great news channels with POTUS. What we love about Patriot is that you’ve really got a place where you get the Mark Levins, the Sean Hannitys, but you also get the Breitbart.”
“We take a very different take on things in the fact that, just like the site, we like to present the news and let people come to their own opinions,” he continued. “We’ll provide the means, you provide the opinion. You can see the engagement of the audience. They feel like there’s something in here. What I really love about the show is I came back, I just dropped in to guest host – I think it was a week ago – and to see a number of the callers, I could pick up folks right away that I remembered their voices, I remembered who they are from a couple of years ago.”
Bannon said he was consistently impressed with the level of detailed knowledge displayed by Breitbart News Radio callers.
“Here in Washington, DC and New York City, when I sit in these conference rooms and go around with these experts and we’re talking about projects, we’re talking about issues, we’re cutting deals, something like that, the audience at Breitbart News Daily and all the weekend shows are up to speed just as much as the experts,” he said. “So this thing about expertise and everything like that – the folks out there are really coached up, and really understand the issues of the day.”
Bannon said this extended to the international audience for Breitbart News bureaus like London and Jerusalem as well.
“We were mocked and ridiculed,” he said of the initial response to Breitbart News creating these bureaus and giving them airtime on the radio program. “Americans don’t care about that, they don’t care about international news or something. And to see the engagement, and to go around to places like Alabama and Arizona, places where I spend a lot of time now, and to see guys like Nigel Farage come onstage, and to see that audience that know Brexit and know what’s going on – you sit there and it makes you feel so great to say, ‘Hey, these experts were dead wrong. The American people get it. They’re hungry for this type of news. They understand it. They’re engaged in it.’”
“To see Nigel Farage stand up on stage and start talking about the current negotiations on Brexit, and to see the audience of blue-collar workers and middle-class Americans understand even the nuances of it, and what the British people are going through to kind of exit out of the E.U. – you sit there and go, ‘Wow, the experts were dead wrong,’” he said.
Marlow quoted from comments the previous day by former President Barack Obama: “Bannon and Breitbart did something pretty interesting. Now, they didn’t create a whole new platform, but they did shift the entire media narrative in a different direction, in a powerful direction.”
“As people know, you go to Breitbart, you listen to the radio show, we disagree with President Obama on his policies, but I’ve always admired him as a politician,” Bannon responded, observing that Obama ran his 2008 presidential primary as a populist.
“His lack of experience was an asset. He had this kind of empowered and engaged grassroots effort that really drove him to beat the Clinton machine and then win the presidency,” he said of Obama’s first run. “I think President Obama, as a political figure and as a politician, gets it. I talk to a lot of guys on the left. They understand the power of Breitbart.”
“I continue to heckle these guys all the time and say hey, the Republican Party is going through a regeneration right now, really an internal revolution to correct itself and turn the power back over to the working-class people and the middle-class people in the country that are emblematic of what the audience is at SiriusXM on the Breitbart News Daily show. That revolution has a platform. It has a massive radio platform, it has a massive news platform at Breitbart. They don’t have that on the left. The left doesn’t have a Breitbart,” he said.
“What I mean by that is, we had this kind of theory early on that throwing punches at Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama were one thing, but you were never going to have fundamental change unless you took care of your own house,” he elaborated. “The Republican establishment was so corrupt, and so incompetent, and so out of touch with Republican voters. There was just this huge disconnect in that you had to take care of that first, and once you realigned that, then you could really go on and drive change. I think history has proven that out correctly. It’s one of the reasons we control the House, the Senate, and the presidency, and not enough is getting done.”
“I think the guys on the left understand that. I think President Obama, that’s the real signal he was sending yesterday. He was sending that to the Democratic Party and people on the left, that you need something like a Breitbart. If they ever want to wrench control from the Wall Street crowd that controls the Democratic Party, they’re going to have to have a platform like a Breitbart that does that,” Bannon contended.
“I’ve said that for a long time. I continue to say the stuff on the left, their fights among themselves, are pillow fights,” he continued. “It’s the reason that Bernie Sanders had all the information – guess what? – provided by Government Accountability, Peter Schweizer, the Breitbart platform, and Breitbart News Radio.”
As support for this contention, Bannon cited comments made by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) to the effect that Breitbart News is driving the investigation into the Clintons’ dealing with Russia over uranium exports.
“Schiff comes out on MSNBC, I think it was, and says last night, came out of the committee hearings: ‘Oh, this is all driven by Bannon and Breitbart, the Uranium One thing.’ Well, I don’t know if it’s ‘driven’ by us, but it was certainly with Peter Schweizer and the team at GAI given a platform at Breitbart and other places to drive that kind of news – yeah, it was presented to the American people. Bernie Sanders had all that information and never could deliver it. One of the reasons is they didn’t have a Breitbart on the left,” said Bannon.
“So I couldn’t be prouder of where we are right now as a news platform, particularly this kind of inextricably-linked nature between the news platform and radio,” he said. “That’s why, when people say ‘why don’t you do TV?’ – you know, TV is TV, and TV is great. I’m glad Laura Ingraham – we love Laura, we love Sean Hannity, we think the shows are amazing. But radio is very different. It’s inextricably linked with the platform. Regardless of what you think of him personally, and regardless of what you think of him as a politician or a political leader, President Obama really understood how to connect with a big segment of the American people. I think the shout-out he gave Breitbart yesterday was very powerful.”
Marlow pointed out another remarkable feature of Obama’s comments is that “he said Trump’s voters aren’t prejudiced, they’re realistic,” marking “the first time I’ve heard a major Democrat not attack the Trump voters.”
“It was amazing because they understand that what the Trump campaign and what President Trump was able to do in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin is quite powerful, and they’ve got to get those voters back,” Bannon agreed.
“I keep telling people, if we continue to drive this agenda and connect with working-class and middle-class people in those states, it’s a realignment like 1932. You can govern for 50 years,” he said.
“By the way, they understand that. That’s why they came out the other day with the ‘Better Deal,’ you know, Phase Two, where they’re talking about additional economic programs – although they kind of missed the mark in talking about public sector unions,” he said of the Democrats.
“Everybody understands what the game is here. Everybody understands the voters they’re going after. I’m speaking next week up in Michigan, on the first anniversary of the victory. I decided to go there, I got invited from all over the country to talk, and I wanted to go there because it’s kind of the traditional home of the Reagan Democrats, and to really lay out the case of why President Trump won, and why it’s important to continue to execute on this program,” said Bannon.
“But Biden and these guys get it. I mean, Biden is running in 2020, obviously. So they definitely get it. They’re trying to reach the audience that listens here every day, and all we do, folks, is just listen to you,” he stressed, explaining that much of President Trump’s winning strategy in 2016 was taken directly from the comments and feedback of the Breitbart News audience.
Real Meaning Behind ‘Allahu Akbar’
dailywire.com
On Tuesday, a Muslim terrorist rented a truck and drove it down a pedestrian walkway in lower Manhattan, killing eight and wounding 11.
When the terrorist (ISIS, an Islamic extremist group, has claimed responsibility) jumped from the vehicle, witnesses say he yelled, “Allahu akbar!” CNN likes to translate this phrase as meaning “God is great.” The New York times does, too, as in this passage from its front-page story on Wednesday, when it said the terrorist “ran up and down the highway waving a pellet gun and paintball gun and shouting “Allahu akbar,” Arabic for “God is great….”
But it doesn’t mean that — not by a longshot.
“Allahu akbar” means, literally, “Allah is greater.” But the elative tense in Arabic is somewhat flexible, so it can also mean “Allah is greatest.” Either way, though, there is no generic deity — it isn’t just “God.” No, Allah is explicit in the phrase and means, literally, “Allah” — not “God.”
“The translation of the phrase is often rendered as ‘God is Great,’ but when you unpack the term you quickly realize that it is much more than a simple expression,” The Jerusalem Post wrote. “After all, a simple expression would never do as the last words a Muslim speaks while maiming and murdering innocents.”
Allahu Akbar does not actually mean “God is Great,” and contrary to common belief, it is not a phrase from the Koran. In fact, it is not found anywhere at all in the holy book of Islam, but rather in the Hadith.
The Arabic expression is called the takbir. The words “akbar” and “takbir” use the same three-letter root, k-b-r, which means “big” or “great.” Allahu Akbar is, in fact, part of the muezzin’s call to prayer. It is a phrase used in times of happiness and joy, used when a baby is being born, during the pilgrimage to Mecca called the hajj and during festivals called the Eid. And yes, also in wartime and in jihad.
But the phrase soon began to mean something else entirely.
We understand how it was intended when Egyptian Olympic judoka Islam El Shenaby uttered the words just before his match with Israeli Olympic judoka Ori Sasson. He was not celebrating the birth of a child.
It was a declaration of jihad, of war, it was a war cry used to destroy the non-believer. …
After September 11, 2001, the FBI said that they found notes with the takbir among the possessions of the terrorist in Dulles, the crash site in Pennsylvania and in Mohamed Atta’s suitcase.
In the suitcase they even found a note that read, “When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.”
Micah Halpern, a political commentator, also traces the phrase back to the Hadith, a set of additional Muslim texts written after the Koran. One passage describes how the prophet Mohamed prepared to attack Jews in 628 A.D., shouting “Allahu Akbar.”
The exact quote from the Hadith is: “The Prophet set out for Khaibar and reached it at night. He used not to attack if he reached the people at night, till the day broke. So, when the day dawned, the Jews came out with their bags and spades. When they saw the Prophet; they said, ‘Muhammad and his army!’ The Prophet said, ‘Allahu Akbar! (Allah is Greater) and Khaibar is ruined, for whenever we approach a nation [i.e. enemy to fight] then it will be a miserable morning for those who have been warned.’” “Allahu” is the nominative form of the word “Allah,” the name of God in Islam. It is not God. There is a significant difference between the name of God and the word “god.”
Establishment Crumbling: Poll Shows Mitch McConnell, Senate Allies’ Approval Ratings in Free Fall
by MICHAEL PATRICK LEAHY
A Politico/Morning Consult poll released on Tuesday for the third quarter shows plunging approval ratings for most incumbent senators from both parties among all voters.
Republican establishment senators aligned with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) see even more dramatic declines in their net approval ratings among likely Republican primary voters, as reported in “DATA DU JOUR – per Morning Consult,” by Politico Playbook:
The average senator’s approval ranking has dropped by eight net percentage points since the first quarter of 2017. … Among the 25 senators with the largest approval drops over this time period, 18 are Republicans and 7 are Democrats. … Susan Collins’ net approval among Maine Republicans dropped from +38% to -2% over the last quarter, a 40 point swing. Lisa Murkowski’s net approval among Alaska Republicans dropped from +33% to +2%, a 31 point swing.
Dean Heller’s net approval among Nevada Republicans dropped from +41% to +16%, a 25 point swing. McConnell is the least popular senator and growing increasingly unpopular: The Senate Majority Leader maintains his title as the least popular senator in America, with 33% of Kentucky voters approving and 55% disapproving. This represents a net 15% drop since Q2.
Among all voters, Republican establishment senators fared poorly as well.
“The most dramatic swings in approval came for Republican Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) and Sen. Cory Gardner (Colo.). Their net rankings both went down 18 percentage points,” Politico Playbook noted:
In Kentucky, one-third of voters approve of McConnell’s job performance, while 55 percent of voters said they disapprove — more than any other senator. In Vermont, 71 percent of voters approve of Sanders, while 22 percent disapprove of Sanders, who ran a stronger-than-expected race in 2016 for the Democratic presidential nomination.
McConnell’s net approval, the difference in his approval and disapproval percentages, dropped 15 percentage points, the third-largest drop in the Senate, from the second quarter, according to the survey. The slide came as he failed to advance Obamacare repeal — a key pillar of the GOP’s political agenda since the law’s enactment in 2010.
Only 33 percent of Kentucky voters approve of McConnell’s performance on the job, while 55 percent disapprove. That is a drop of eight points in McConnell’s approval rating of 41 percent at the end of the second quarter and a seven point increase in his second quarter disapproval rating of 48 percent.
Only Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), currently on trial for public corruption on bribery, fared worse than McConnell in terms of third quarter approval.
New Jersey voters gave him only a 32 percent approval rating, while 41 percent disapproved of his job performance. Menendez’s seven point approval rating decline in a single quarter from 39 percent at the end of the second quarter should set off alarm bells for Democratic Party officials in the state, who will be faced with a decision about how to respond to the outcome of Menendez’s trial, which is scheduled to go to the jury for deliberation within days.
If found guilty, the question will become when and how Menendez should be asked to resign. If found not guilty, Menendez might still face a tough battle for re-election. His approval ratings have dipped so low, should he become the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate seat in 2018, the unthinkable might be a possibility: a strong GOP candidate taking a surprise November 2018 victory over the tainted Democrat.
The poll results should be taken with more than a grain of salt, however, due to its unusual methodology. While most reliable professional polls are conducted over a two-to-three-day period of 500 to 1,500 respondents using phone interviews to get the most accurate “snapshot” of opinion at any moment of time, the Morning Consult Poll is conducted online over a three month period beginning June 1 and ending September 30 of more than 250,000 respondents in 50 states — an average of 5,000 respondents per state– and is online only.
With that caveat in mind, it is probably best to consider the poll results a lengthy rolling average that may show trends over time when comparing second quarter results with third quarter results of approval and disapproval ratings of senators among all voters.
Among the incumbent senators who are up for reelection in 2018 whose approval ratings are under 50 percent, always a danger sign for incumbents, are:
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) with a 33 percent approval, 48 percent disapproval rating. (Approval down 4 points, explaining perhaps why he has said he will not run for re-election.)
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), with a 38 percent approval, 41 percent disapproval rating. (Approval down 3 points.)
Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV), with a 39 percent approval, 30 percent disapproval rating. (Approval down 2 points.)
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), with a 42 percent approval, 39 percent disapproval rating. (Approval down 4 points.)
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), with a 41 percent approval, 38 percent disapproval rating. (Approval down 1 point.)
Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), with a 43 percent approval, 32 percent disapproval rating. (Approval down 3 points.)
Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE), with a 45 percent approval, 35 percent disapproval rating. (Approval down 4 points.)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), with a 45 percent approval, 36 percent disapproval rating.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), with a 46 percent approval, 41 percent disapproval rating. (Approval down 6 points.)
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), with a 47 percent approval, 28 percent disapproval rating. (Approval down 3 points.)
Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN), with a 47 percent approval, 26 percent disapproval rating. (Approval down 6 points.)
Two other Democratic senators up for reelection in 2018 are slightly over 50 percent but have each seen their net approval ratings drop 9 points in the past quarter:
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), with a 53 percent approval, 36 percent disapproval rating. (Approval down 4 points.)
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), with a 55 percent approval, 32 percent disapproval rating. (Approval down 5 points.)
“Not so long ago Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tom Campbell’s campaign released polling showing the challenger ahead of incumbent Senator Heidi Heitkamp,” Rob Port wrote at North Dakota’s popular Say Anything Blog on Tuesday:
There was much scoffing about the poll, as perhaps there should be for any survey conducted and released by a political campaign, but now new numbers from Morning Consult indicate there may be something to the Campbell numbers.
Earlier this summer Morning Consult measured Heitkamp’s popularity among North Dakotans at 60 percent, with just 28 percent disapproval. That was good enough to make Heitkamp the 11th most popular member of the U.S. Senate.
But now that same poll shows Heitkamp’s popularity has fallen. Her approval rating is down to 55 percent, and her disapproval is up to 32 percent.
Her approval rating is down to 55 percent, and her disapproval is up to 32 percent.
Heitkamp is still above water, but the news isn’t good for the incumbent who is widely seen as vulnerable heading into the 2018 election.
The only bright spot for the Democrats among senators up for reelection in 2018 is Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), who has seen has approval ratings climb to 53 percent, while his disapproval rating has dropped to 33 percent.
Other notable ratings of senators not up for reelection in 2018:
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AL), with a 49 percent approval, 38 percent disapproval rating. (Approval down 6 points.)
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), with a 46 percent approval, 44 percent disapproval rating.
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO), with a 40 percent approval, 29 percent disapproval rating. (Approval down 8 points.)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), with a 62 percent approval, 30 percent disapproval rating.
CNN Hit With Devastating Blow, It’s Panic Time
Ben Baker
CNN has struggled this year in the face of a number of fake news allegations and criticisms for its apparent biases.
According to Deadline, this month’s viewership numbers reveal just how bad things are at the news network. CNN lost 52 percent of its viewers with a 54 percent hit specifically to its key age demographic.
Interestingly, the numbers reveal that the most watched cable news program for October was Hannity on Fox News Channel. Hannity had recently been moved to 9 PM to compete with Rachel Maddow’s show on MSNBC. Hannity proved the winner with a total viewership of 3.2 million.
According to The Daily Caller, many attribute CNN’s plummeting viewership and ratings to the “Trump Effect.” A study done by YouGov found that CNN was behind both MSNBC and Fox News in regards to brand perception.
Those polled were asked, “If you’ve heard anything about the brand in the last two weeks, through advertising, news or word of mouth, was it positive or negative?” The response was overwhelmingly negative.
Ted Marzilli of YouGov says the drop in brand perception started in October of 2016, stating, “CNN’s negative acceleration point happened in mid-October 2016, around the time Anderson Cooper interviewed Melania Trump, notably discussing her husband’s famous ‘Access Hollywood’ tape.”
He says CNN was also attacked for appearing to blame President Trump for causing violence at the time, claiming, “Also at that time, a local North Carolina Republican office was firebombed, causing conservative-leaning media to pounce on CNN for suggesting Trump’s rhetoric spurred the incident.”
He says CNN was also attacked for appearing to blame President Trump for causing violence at the time, claiming, “Also at that time, a local North Carolina Republican office was firebombed, causing conservative-leaning media to pounce on CNN for suggesting Trump’s rhetoric spurred the incident.”
CNN has also been targeted by President Trump repeatedly for biased criticisms and fake news propagation. In February, President Trump tweeted, “FAKE NEWS media knowingly doesn’t tell the truth. A great danger to our country. The failing @nytimes has become a joke. Likewise @CNN. Sad!”
One example of CNN engaging in fake news was in June when the network was forced to redact a controversial story for making false claims, according to The Washington Free Beacon. CNN formed an elite investigative unit in the beginning of 2017 to report on in-depth stories.
One such story was released in June, stating that President Trump’s ally, Anthony Scaramucci, had supposed deep ties to a Kremlin based multi-billion dollar investment fund. The story was redacted, citing failure to meet “editorial standards,” and three members of the team were asked to resign.
Another story in June claimed that former FBI Director James Comey would give a testimony before Congress that contradicted President Trump’s claims that Comey informed him at least three times that he was not under investigation. It turns out the anonymous sources utilized were incorrect after Comey stated that he had, in fact, made those statements to the President. CNN was forced to correct the piece.
CNN has suffered unprecedented rating declines. Is CNN coming to an end?
Given their constant beratement of President Trump, propagation of the Russia collusion narrative, and a number of fake news events, it’s no wonder CNN is struggling with viewership. It’s also telling that Sean Hannity is the most watched cable news show, given his strong support for President Trump and conservative views.
CNN’s blatant bias and anti-Trump views are causing the network to suffer. A network can’t claim to offer unbiased news reporting unless they actually deliver on their word. CNN’s struggles show the consequences of such false statements.
Politico Hides Fusion GPS Employment Of Key Source
There's just one approach you have to take if you're a member of the media: undying fealty to Robert Mueller, no questions asked. Democracy dies in darkness, as we all know.
On Monday, Politico ran a story criticizing the Wall Street Journal for failing to adopt the political groupthink that pervades most of the media elite.
It’s not enough that the vast majority of mainstream media operate as the communications arm of the Democratic Party. Any deviation from this approach results in strong criticism by other journalists. One media writer even criticized Fox News for mentioning the conclusion of a corruption and bribery trial of sitting U.S. Senator Bob Menendez this week. Apparently they were supposed to spend the entire day spreading hysteria about Trump’s criminal collusion with Russia to steal an election that was Hillary Clinton’s birthright — never mind the lack of evidence — to the exclusion of all other news.
So Politico runs “Murdoch-owned outlets bash Mueller, seemingly in unison.” As stupid as the headline is, the subhed gets stupider: “After resisting opportunities to take Trump’s line on Russia, the Wall Street Journal editorial page goes all in.”
Yes, the entire Democratic media complex bashes Trump, seemingly in unison, going all in on the Hillary Clinton campaign narrative of collusion with Russia, and the problem is that some media outlets #resist. Politico “media reporter” Jason Schwartz is upset that the Wall Street Journal doesn’t follow the media herd.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page has in the past been a stern critic of Donald Trump, but in recent days has come under fire for pieces that critics say shift attention away from the president — with many people, including former staffers, left to wonder why.
After having generally avoided Trump’s efforts to de-legitimize democratic institutions, the Journal last week wrote an editorial calling for special counsel Robert Mueller to resign and featured a contributor op-ed Sunday afternoon that said Trump should issue a blanket pardon in the Russian scandal, including of himself.
The Journal has also called for an investigation into Democratic Party collusion with Russia, a conservative talking point in the wake of a Washington Post report that Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid for some of the opposition research that led to the infamous “dossier” of anti-Trump information – but which made no suggestion of any collusion with Russia.
It’s almost funny how much this question-begging reads like Democratic media talking points. See, it’s not that anyone might legitimately view Robert Mueller’s handling of the Russia probe as inappropriate or heavy-handed. It’s not that anyone might have a problem with the criminalization of political differences. It’s not that anyone might not trust Mueller’s ability to investigate an issue directly related to his longtime buddy and protege James Comey.
No, there’s just one approach you have to take if you’re a member of the media: undying fealty to Robert Mueller, no questions asked. Democracy dies in darkness, as we all know. But did you know journalism dies if you in any way question powerful government officials with unlimited prosecutorial power?
Maybe Jason Schwartz Should Read Some Russia Reporting
Schwartz’s understanding of the dossier appears limited. The outfit that ran the dossier operation is Fusion GPS. Critics are accusing it of being an unregistered agent of Russia. It worked on behalf of Russian interests to fight Magnitsky Act sanctions. The dossier’s sources were, according to the dossier itself, Russians at high levels of the government. And the foreign spy contracted to run the dossier operation allegedly paid middlemen in Russia to secure this information. Let’s just say that if Team Trump had run this operation, there would be widespread heart failure at CNN.
But note that Schwarz appeals to “former staffers” of the Wall Street Journal to bash the page. In addition to people who now work for competing outlets, Schwarz ends his piece with “former Journal editor Neil King” saying “I don’t know a single WSJ alum who’s not agog at where that edit page is heading.”
Politico’s media reporter didn’t mention that King works for … Fusion GPS. In fact, Fusion GPS has several former Wall Street Journal staffers. And Fusion GPS is known for pitching smear operations to friendly journalists.
Chuck Ross of The Daily Caller broke the news that CNN’s reporter covering the Russian dossier story is a very close friend of Fusion GPS principals. Here’s CNN reporter Evan Perez kicking back with Fusion GPS folks, including Neil King and Peter Fritsch.
CNN has not disclosed Perez’s close ties to the group he’s covering.
Politico didn’t mention that the journalist it quoted smearing the Wall Street Journal works for Fusion GPS. That seems a curious omission for a piece criticizing the media outlet for not following everyone else’s lead in downplaying the group’s significance.
The media have also done a very poor job of explaining that Fusion GPS’ King is married to Shailagh Murray, also a former Journal reporter, who was a top communications advisor to President Barack Obama. NB: King omits his connection to Fusion GPS from his Twitter bio.
As the Politico article demonstrates, the problem with the media is that too many outlets express servile devotion to Democratic talking points, and are not skeptical enough of prosecutorial overreach. It’s fine that the media woke up from their eight-year hibernation to critique the president, though the manner in which they’re critiquing leaves much to be desired. But it’s not fine that they are unwilling to even tolerate criticism of other powerful figures and entities, such as Mueller and the Justice Department. And their curious lack of journalistic interest in a Russia-connected outfit that feeds them stories and narratives is telling. Perhaps media reporters should look into it.
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist.
‘I am a mass murderer,’ former abortionist tells Congress
Claire Chretien(LifeSiteNews) – “I am a mass murderer,” a former abortionist who is now pro-life told a U.S. House committee yesterday as she testified in favor of legislation banning abortions on babies with beating hearts.
Dr. Kathi Aultman, a board certified Ob/Gyn and a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), bluntly told this to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee today as it discussed the Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017.
This legislation would stop nearly all abortions by making it illegal for doctors to commit them on babies with beating hearts. Fetal heartbeats begin at 21 days after conception and are usually heard by parents when their child is six or eight weeks along.
The Heartbeat Protection Act makes no exception for babies conceived in rape or incest.
The Committee’s legislators were shown an ultrasound video taken hours before the hearing. The video showed an 18-week-old baby named Lincoln Miller, whose heartbeat could be heard and whose heart could be seen pulsing.
18-week-old baby Lincoln Miller "testifies" before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. His heartbeat could be seen and heard on an ultrasound video... Claire Chretien / LifeSiteNews“I love to meet adults that I delivered, but it’s always bittersweet because I am reminded of all the people I will never meet because I aborted them,” Aultman testified. “It also reminds me that I am a mass murderer.”
Just because “we can’t see who they will become, we feel justified in sacrificing babies in the womb for the people we can see,” she said.
“Our society has been subjected to extreme propaganda” from abortion supporters, she said. “We have sanitized our language to make abortion more palatable.”
Later in her testimony, Aultman said that when she was an abortionist, she called the babies she aborted “fetuses” but the ones she delivered “babies.”
Aultman recalled the “tiny but perfectly formed limbs, intestines, kidneys, and other organs” of aborted babies she examined under microscopes.
Dr. Kathi Aultman flanked by Arkansas State Sen. Jason Rapert (left), Rep. Andy Harris, R-MD, and Rep. Mike Johnson, R-LA...Claire Chretien / LifeSiteNewsRep. Steve Cohen, D-Tennessee, made a point at the beginning of reading at the beginning of the hearing a statement from ACOG disavowing Aultman’s testimony.
“Her testimony does not represent” our views, the ACOG statement said.
Cohen later yelled at Star Parker, an African-American pro-life activist and Committee witness, accusing her of “ignorance.” Parker had suggested Cohen shouldn’t conflate the evil of abortion with social ills and issues like Medicaid.
Aultman said three patients led her to think differently about abortion: one who underwent her fourth abortion at Aultman’s clinic apathetically, one who displayed “hostility” by saying, “no, I just want to kill it” when asked if she wanted to see her baby, and one with four born children who cried throughout the abortion.
“What struck me was the apathy of the first patient and the hostility of the second towards the fetus, contrasted with the sorrow and misery of the woman who knew what it was to have a child,” Aultman testified. “I realized that the baby was the innocent victim in all of this. The fact that the baby was unwanted was no longer enough justification for me to kill it. I could no longer do abortions.”
Aultman said her views also changed after she saw young women who chose life do amazingly well versus the women who suffered terribly in the aftermath of abortion. Aultman herself is post-abortive.
“I don’t believe a woman can remain unscathed after killing her child,” she said.
Trump Makes Shocking UN Move, No One Expected This
Luis Miguel
The ideological differences between the Obama and Trump administrations are perhaps nowhere more starkly portrayed than in their respective policies toward the communist
Castro regime in Cuba. Where former-President Barack Obama sought to normalize relations with Cuba, President Donald Trump intends to continue applying pressure on their oppressive government while taking measures to promote human rights on the island.
Accordingly, the White House is undoing a major pro-communist Cuba move by the Obama administration. As The Hill reports, the Trump-appointed ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, will vote on Wednesday against the UN resolution that condemns the US embargo on Cuba. Under Mr. Obama, the US abstained from the vote.
The international community is largely against the US embargo on Cuba, which seeks to limit the flow of money to the Castro regime known around the world for its political persecution and human rights abuses.
The Obama White House, through then-Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, broke tradition by abstaining from voting on the UN Resolution condemning the US over its Cuba embargo.
The US had repeatedly voted against the resolution for 25 years before the Obama administration abstained in 2016. The gesture was largely seen as former-President Obama’s way of signaling defiance to the Republican Congress that ignored his calls to lift the Cuban embargo.
At the time of the surprising abstention, Ambassador Power said: “After 50-plus years of pursuing the path of isolation, we have chosen to take the path of engagement.” But the Trump administration is undoing Mr. Obama’s Cuba policy.
The vote against the resolution follows an announcement from the White House earlier this year that President Trump is reversing his predecessor’s approach to the communist nation. New rules under the Trump administration prohibit financial transactions that go toward the business arm of Cuba’s military.
As expected, Senate Democrats urged the White House to follow Mr. Obama’s lead and abstain from the vote. In a letter to the President, Democrat lawmakers argued the embargo is an “outdated Cold War policy” that should be removed.
“Our failed embargo against Cuba has been repeatedly and publicly condemned by the international community as ineffective and harmful to the people of Cuba,” the Senators wrote. “The longer we maintain this outdated Cold War policy the more our international regional credibility suffers.” Meanwhile, the Trump administration remains committed to improving the condition of Cubans while also protecting American interests–and without benefiting the Castros.
Heather Nauert, the spokeswoman for the State Department, told the press how the vote against the resolution serves America’s interests with regard to Cuba. “The Trump administration policy gives greater emphasis in advancing human rights and democracy in Cuba, while maintaining engagement that serves US national interests, maintains engagement on areas of US national interest, ensures US engagement, benefits the Cuban people and ensures compliance with the statutory ban on tourism.”
President Trump is reversing some of former-President Obama’s pro-Cuba policies. Did President Trump’s surprise shock you?
Interestingly, the announcement comes as the US investigates mysterious medical injuries suffered by American embassy personnel in Havana, which included permanent hearing loss, balance problems, and difficulty sleeping.
Reports suggest the injuries are the result of sonic attacks targeting the American citizens working in the embassy compound. If the claim is true, it may be another factor driving the White House’s decision to seek a more hard-line approach to dealings with Cuba.
G’ day…Ciao…Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/11/httpift_3.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment