RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/273437/media-got-israeli-election-completely-wrong-daniel-greenfield

It ain’t over till the fat lady sings, but unless things change dramatically, Prime Minister Netanyahu is likely to form Israel’s next government. This doesn’t come as much of a surprise. Anyone studying the electoral math of Israel’s next government, one that is based on coalitions, not direct elections, would have had trouble coming to any other conclusion. While two startup right-wing parties appear to have committed the usual egocentric folly of wasting votes by failing to meet the threshold, as did the bizarre Gesher, the numbers are on the side of the right.

Only once the exit polls had begun coming in, did the media slowly tilt toward reporting a likely Netanyahu victory, but even so headlines covered Benny Gantz’s silly victory speech and depicted the results as a rebuke.

Considering that Likud’s numbers appear to be better than they have in a while, that’s some rebuke.

Israel’s political system (like those of most free countries) is somewhat weird. It’s understandable that the media might have trouble grasping it. But the media appeared not to care, taking its signals from those lefty Israeli reporters willing to tell it what it wanted to hear.

And this keeps happening in every Israeli election. Each time, Netanyahu’s victory is implausible and unimaginable until it actually happens.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-4-8-income-inequality-comes-roaring-back-into-the-news

With the demise of the Russian collusion hoax, you knew that something would have to emerge to fill the giant hole in the newspapers and the TV news shows. It looks like the old perennial of “income inequality,” after some time mostly off the front pages, is now the first mantra to be found rushing in to fill the vacuum.

So there we had Ray Dalio — serious mega-billionaire and Co-Chairman of the country’s biggest hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates — showing up on CBS’s “60 Minutes” yesterday to proclaim that income inequality is a “national emergency”:

“If I was the president of the United States,” Dalio said, “what I would do is recognize that this is a national emergency. . . .” “The American dream is lost,” he said. “For the most part we don’t even talk about what is the American dream. And it’s very different from when I was growing up.”

Simultaneously, Mr. Progressive himself, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, turned up in Nevada (of all places) to promote his self-delusional presidential campaign, and chose income inequality as his theme. From today’s New York Post:

[T]here needs to be a “bigger discussion about income inequality and oppression of other groups including Latinos, Native Americans, Asian and women,” he said at the event organized by the immigrant advocacy group Make the Road.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273410/ilhan-omar-american-journalism-bruce-bawer

I first became aware of Lorraine Ali over a decade ago, when, as a staff writer at Newsweek, she cruelly savaged another Ali, namely Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who, like Lorraine, had a Muslim background, but who, unlike Lorraine, had (on 9/11) rejected her faith, courageously calling it out for its ideology of brutal conquest, its systematic subjugation of women, its inculcation of contempt for the infidel, its endorsement of such primitive practices as honor killing and forced marriage, and its prescription of the death penalty for apostasy, adultery, homosexuality, and other transgressions. In her memoir, Infidel, Ayaan (who, owing to jihadist threats, has lived for years with round-the-clock bodyguards) recounted her rise from dire poverty and barbaric oppression in Somalia and Saudi Arabia to a seat in the Dutch legislature, where, defying dhimmi colleagues, she eulogized Western freedoms and stood up for the rights and equality of Muslim women – thereby becoming, for many of us, a world-class heroine.

For Lorraine, however, the L.A.-born daughter of an Iraqi immigrant, Ayaan was, and is, a traitor against a religion that routinely romanticizes; hence, in her review of Infidel on February 26, 2007, Lorraine accused Ayaan of “throwing a rhetorical hand grenade” at Islam – thereby providing, as I wrote in my 2009 book Surrender, “a good example of how anti-jihadist rhetoric is described in violent terms by the same kinds of journalists who, when describing jihad itself, opt for delicate euphemisms.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/04/cnn_disgraces_itself_over_mike_pompeo.html

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour asked James Comey, the disgraced head of the FBI, if his FBI should have shut down “hate speech” at Trump rallies.

Hate speech, we need to understand, is speech the left disapproves of. Amanpour has said nothing about Hillary Clinton calling Trump supporters “deplorable,” not to mention the 24/7 CNN attacks on the president, including calling him a traitor.

When a journalist asks an FBI chief to close down speech she doesn’t like is when America and its media has reached a dangerous moment. It’s when liberal progressive news channels become intolerant regressive political machines.

This wasn’t a first for Amanpour, a once-great journalist now become a well-paid media party hack.

Amanpour was active in preventing Mike Pompeo, the U.S. Secretary of State, from becoming the recipient of the James Foley Freedom Award.

To remind ourselves, James Foley was beheaded by ISIS in 2014 by what President Obama described as “the JV team,” and it was the Trump Administration, including Pompeo, that gave the command and led the total defeat of ISIS.

Part of the proud record of Mike Pompeo in rescuing hostages was outlined in his letter to Diane, James Foley’s mother on April 2, 2019, on learning he had been selected to receive the award.

http://politicalmavens.com/

Purporting to outline the current disease of hatred on both left and right “extremes,” the Times caption reads, “Surge of Anti-Semitism in Europe and U.S. as Economies Cool,” thereby solidifying one of the most heinous anti-semitic tropes – conflating Jews with money. As for the Democrat party, anti-semitism has jumped from its extremes to mainstream candidates for office and members of congress who consider it merely an example of freedom of speech.

The Times ignores completely the enormous influence of anti-semitism on campus and in leftist institutions and organizations. There is no mention of Muslim influence,, either monetary or political, in movements such as BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) or Israel Apartheid Week, an annual occurrence on campuses across America since 2005. Nor is anything said about intersectionality, a concept emphasizing the commonality between oppressed brown and black groups and their mandatory identification with the plight of Palestinians. Interestingly, these groups are only concerned with Palestinians who are “controlled” by Israel – no mention is made of their abysmal treatment by other Arab countries who keep them in deplorable refugee camps, refusing to offer citizenship to their Muslim brothers. The fact that more than a million Palestinians are citizens of Israel is never divulged, nor is the fact that their standard of living and educational and professional opportunities surpass what they can expect in Arab countries.

Although the Times pretends that much of this anti-semitism is a result of Israel’s right-wing leadership, the animosity expressed by Muslim nations and immigrants throughout Europe is directed at “Jews” wherever they may live. The Koranic sources of this hatred are not mentioned in this lengthy article which also fails to mention the resurgence of respect for Louis Farrakhan by Democrat members of congress and organizers of the Women’s Marches on Washington. The Times leaves us with the assessment of a sociologist at the University of London who equates the British right and left by saying that both consider Israel to be a “belligerent country that defends itself against Muslims.” A more accurate description would be that Israel is a strong country which is constantly forced to defend itself against Muslim belligerents and terrorists who refuse to accept the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14003/pulitzer-prize-fake-news

Julie K. Brown refused to investigate and/or publish highly credible information that undercut the simplistic and largely false narrative fed her by her biased sources. I know, because I have been providing her with much of the documents and information she chose to bury rather than report.

Here is the truthful narrative Brown refused to report. Every fact can be documented…. The only problem is that Secret Service and other records conclusively proved that none of them was ever on that Island and that the Gores didn’t even know Epstein…. Yet her own employment records prove that she was well above the age of consent when she claims these liaisons occurred— in the unlikely event they ever occurred at all.

A careful review of these records led Giuffre’s own lawyer to conclude — in a lawfully recorded conversation— that it would have been impossible for me to have been where she falsely claimed to have had sex with me, and that his client’s accusations against me were “wrong,” “simply wrong.”… Even Giuffre’s best friend said that Giuffre told her she had never accused me until she was “pressured” by her lawyers to do so.

So shame on Brown. Shame on the Miami Herald. And shame on the Pulitzer Committee if it fails to investigate Brown’s reporting and encourages such fake news and shoddy journalism by rewarding it.

Among the leading candidates for a Pulitzer Prize in investigative journalism is the Miami Herald and its reporter Julie K. Brown for its series on the Jeffrey Epstein case. The series, however, was not based on rigorous and objective investigation, but rather on one sided, and largely false tips from self-interested lawyers who used the series to their financial advantage. Brown refused to investigate and/or publish highly credible information that undercut the simplistic and largely false narrative fed her by her biased sources. I know, because I have been providing her with much of the documents and information she chose to bury rather than report. Had she reported this contradictory material, she would have endangered the Pulitzer Prize she has been aiming to win. The Pulitzer Committee should not reward such biased and result oriented “reporting” by giving her the prize.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/02/media-failed-collusion-wanted-trump-traitor/

Attorney General William Barr’s summary of the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation findings confirmed not only the conclusions of congressional committees in the House and the Senate, but the work of left-wing and conservative writers and freelance internet sleuths.

Nonprofessionals and nonexperts unraveled the treasonous Trump-Russia collusion narrative months before their media competitors (not to mention investigators) did, in spite of their comparative lack of inside knowledge and resources. How did the doyens of media fail so spectacularly for two years on the matter of Trump-Russia collusion, while anti-establishment opinion journalists and media neophytes succeeded?

One answer: The mainstream media was never seeking the truth, while its skeptics were. Were the mainstream media honest, it would admit it graded itself not on journalistic accuracy, but on the amount of damage it inflicted on President Donald Trump—while generating ratings, and thus increasing market share in a tough environment.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/31/did-bruce-ohrs-testimony-defuse-a-nyt-bombshell/

As the congressional testimony of key figures in the so-called Russiagate scandal becomes public, some of it provides a basis to question the veracity of news reporting that often appeared to give cover for the same officials who participated in the scheme. For example, the recently-released testimony of Bruce Ohr does not substantiate a bombshell September 2018 New York Times story that claimed Ohr was leading a secret operation to turn Russian oligarchs connected to Vladimir Putin into FBI assets.

Ohr, a former top official at the Obama Justice Department, testified behind closed doors last August to the House Judiciary Committee. Ohr has emerged as the conduit between Democratic political operatives working on behalf of Hillary Clinton and James Comey’s FBI just before the 2016 presidential election. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, had been hired by Fusion GPS to dig up Russia-related dirt on candidate Donald Trump. Working with her on that project: Dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British agent and now London-based consultant who happened to have a decade-long friendship with Bruce Ohr.

Congressional investigators wanted to know how and why Ohr passed along political propaganda from Fusion GPS—which had been hired by both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National committee—to the FBI in the summer of 2016. Ohr and Steele had extensive communications in 2016 and early 2017, including dozens of emails and text messages.