RUTHFULLY YOURS

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before:https://amgreatness.com/2017/12/28/a-tale-of-two-presidents-and-one-newspaper/

The stench of failure hangs over Mr. X’s White House. The people know it, judging by the opinion polls. Corporate titans know it and whisper disenchantment with a fellow conservative. Washington knows it when an Administration official calls the budgeting process ”an unmitigated outrage” and when Mr. X’s closest friend in the Senate pronounces the President ”as very close to set in concrete.”

Mr. X’s loss of authority only halfway through his term should alarm all Americans. The economic nostrums he brought to office have not had the predicted effect. Only by recognizing his errors will he find better ideas. To rationalize the failure so far, or to blame his predecessors, the media and Congress, is to condemn the nation to two more years of destructive confusion.

By his own reckoning, Mr. X became President for one basic reason: to restore the morale and power of America. By his own analysis, that meant above all ”the rejuvenation of our economy” so that America could regain industrial strength, put all its people to work and defend its interests around the world.

Sound familiar? It should—it’s the opening three paragraphs of a New York Times editorial about Ronald Reagan’s first administration, published on January 9, 1983. So if you think the Times is repeating itself, you’re right. For the past half-century, the Times and other Democratic Party house organs have adopted a single unwavering posture toward Republican and conservative presidents: they’re against them, no matter what.

Hence their reliance on boilerplate editorials such as the one quoted above; presidents may come and go, editorial writers may pass through the pages of the Good Gray Lady, and times may change, but the rhetoric remains the same. If you think this is accidental, however, you must have been born yesterday.

The point of the cultural Marxist project, for which the Times is, and long has been, the chief spokesman, is to keep hammering home the same points about its enemies, until they are simply accepted as fact and no longer even contended or questioned. Do you honestly think, at this point, that there is a single soul on the staff of the New York Times who would today disagree with the sentiments expressed in 1983—or not endorse them if the editorial board substituted the name of Trump for Reagan?

A well-established trajectory of witch hunts is that eventually, the purge will turn in on itself. Regarding the left’s efforts to upend perceived power structures through the redefining of men (as a group) as sexual predators, the left is finding that the sights on the identity politics cannon have been trained back on them. After the New York Times announced that embattled White House reporter Glenn Thrush would be keeping his job after his suspension in the wake of sexual harassment allegations, reports began to emerge that the women employed by the newspaper are expressing their concern for how the Gray Lady treats members of the fairer sex.

On November 20, Vox published an article by the website’s editorial director Laura McGann reporting claims that Thrush preyed on women working in political journalism. The bombshell of the article was McGann relating her own uncomfortable encounter with Thrush. McGann wrote that he “slid into my side of the booth, blocking me in. I was wearing a skirt, and he put his hand on my thigh. He started kissing me. I pulled myself together and got out of there, shoving him on my way out.”

Almost immediately after McGann’s story broke, the New York Times suspended Thrush and began conducting an investigation. A month later, the Times reported that Thrush would be returning to work, but with a different assignment. In a statement, the Times’ lawyer Charlotte Behrendt said, “While we believe that Glenn has acted offensively, we have decided that he does not deserve to be fired.”

Reporting on the NYT’s in-house fallout, HuffPost says,”The announcement set off a wave of indignation among Times observers, who thought it sent a message that the paper condones sexual misconduct and isn’t concerned about the safety of its female employees. But among the female Times employees who spoke to HuffPost, the takeaway was less about the dangers of sexual misbehavior and more about who actually matters at the paper.”

“We’re not really sure what the message is here,” one woman told HuffPost. “I feel really conflicted.”

According to HuffPost, another woman lamented that “while the Times took careful steps to nurture and protect its star male reporter, there were loads of women struggling to get help with flat-lining careers inside the newsroom. For her, the Thrush decision was another painful reminder of how the Times is failing its female reporters.”

In an internal survey, the Times has discovered that many of its female employees feel undervalued and unsure of how to advance their careers.

Contempt for Trump serves as a warrant for abandoning all disinterested judgment

The antipathy to Donald Trump, which in its keenest manifestations is fierce and relentless, is a disabling set of mind, nowhere more so than in the reporting on or about him.

Contempt for Trump—the conviction that he is some sort of dangerous historical “accident” in the presidential office—serves as a warrant for abandoning all disinterested judgment and analytic neutrality. To those who oppose him, particularly those in the news media, Trump is regarded as just SO bad that standards can be virtuously abandoned, and neutrality and dispassion set aside, so long as it helps (such is the hope) to hurt Trump, and, maybe, get rid of him.

The new rule is: anything that can weaken Trump’s standing, sever his connection with the populist base, and help to bring him down is fair game. Hence the sloppiness and one-directional nature of most Trump news. In just the last few weeks, Brian Ross at ABC, the Wall Street Journal, and CNN each had to correct or deny major stories that had all been wrong in the same direction. They hurt Trump.

Stories, however, that might hint at some aspects of competency or adroitness in Trump’s handling of affairs are either passed over or given the most desultory treatment. How many tins of Pepsi Trump drinks gets more coverage than the defeat of ISIS in Iraq, which has occurred under his watch. Under Obama that would have generated skyscraper headlines; under Trump you can search for it in the back pages and fine print.

When the majority of the American media failed in their coverage of the presidential election, they had to find some excuse for their massive incompetence. The New York Times, with all their resources, and after two full years of daily coverage of the campaign, was nonetheless projecting Hillary Clinton’s chances of victory at a full 92 per cent on election night itself. That was at least better than the pathologically anti-Trump HuffPost, which had Hillary’s chances set at a modest 98 per cent! Such was the state of American journalism, these companies barely allowed for the mere possibility that Trump could win. Under their professional eye, he was just a sideshow, even in the very hours before he actually won.

http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/3652/Im-Still-Strzok-by-the-Espionage-Machine-Party.aspx Out of a reported 10,000 texts between senior, adulterous Justice Department/FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, Strzok’s “insurance policy” text is naturally attracting considerable attention — although noticeably not in the New York Times and assorted media followers who set course by it. Predictably, neither is Peter Strzok’s mention of the “Espionage Machine Party.” Then again, the “Espionage […]

At this point in the first Trump administration, the Left’s derangement at the election of an NOKD outsider is already well into the red zone. Exhibit A:

At one point during the online streaming of the game last month, two white announcers for a Forest City radio station, KIOW, began riffing on the Hispanic names of some players from the mildly more diverse community of Eagle Grove. “They’re all foreigners,” said Orin Harris, a longtime announcer; his partner, Holly Jane Kusserow-Smidt, a board operator at the station who was also a third-grade teacher, answered: “Exactly.”

For some people, this is as American as it gets.

Mr. Harris then uttered a term occasionally used these days as a racially charged taunt, or as a braying assertion that the country is being taken back from forces that threaten it. That term is, simply, the surname of the sitting American president.

No, really: the surname of the sitting president is now racist.

Last year’s contentious presidential election gave oxygen to hate. An analysis of F.B.I. crime data by the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, found a 26 percent increase in bias incidents in the last quarter of 2016 — the heart of the election season — compared with the same period the previous year. The trend has continued into 2017, with the latest partial data for the nation’s five most populous cities showing a 12 percent increase.

In addition, anti-Muslim episodes have nearly doubled since 2014, according to Brian Levin, the director of the center, which he said has also counted more “mega rallies” by white nationalists in the last two years than in the previous 20. “I haven’t seen anything like this during my three decades in the field,” he said.

One might point on that there have been plenty of Muslim anti-Christian episodes since 2014, including the recent attempted suicide bombing in Times Square, which was “provoked” by the sight of Christmas posters. This creature, an “immigrant” from Bangladesh, was kind enough to confess that he tried to kill Real Americans “for the Islamic State.” Of course, he had to taunt Trump:

The Facebook post, published by his account on Monday morning, read: “Trump you failed to protect your nation.”

Maybe the Times will take that into consideration the next time it’s tempted to run an inflammatory headline like this:

‘Trump, Trump, Trump!’ How a President’s Name Became a Racial Jeer

And what would a Times story be without quoting a couple of its favorite Morning Joe “experts”?

According to several scholars of American history, the invocation of a president’s name as a jaw-jutting declaration of exclusion, rather than inclusion, appears to be unprecedented. “If you’re hunting for historical analogies, I think you’re in virgin territory,” said Jon Meacham, the author of several books about presidents, including a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Andrew Jackson.

Michael Beschloss, a presidential historian, agrees. “If you’re looking at modern presidents, fill in the blank and see if it can be used in the same way,” he said. “You will see it has not. Hoover? Or Eisenhower? Can you imagine a situation like that?”

Shortly after the election, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes, published a report called “The Trump Effect: The Impact of the 2016 Election on Our Nation’s Schools.” Based on a survey of more than 10,000 educators, it detailed an increase in incidents involving swastikas, Nazi salutes and Confederate flags.

It is a far cry from wearing a button that says “I Like Ike.”

“The message here,” Mr. Beschloss said, “is ‘Trump is going to come and get you — and we support that.’” CONTINUE AT SITE

CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times have ignored sexual harassment allegations against Democratic Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings, whose alleged sexual harassment of a staffer resulted in a $220,000 taxpayer-funded settlement in 2014.http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/15/cnn-wapo-nyt-ignore-top-democrats-220k-sexual-harassment-settlement/

The three outlets have yet to report on the massive settlement to Hastings’ accuser, former committee staffer Winsome Packer, which Roll Call first revealed a week ago on December 8. Packer accused Hastings of making sexual advances, touching her legs and threatening her job. The former staffer said she was “blackballed” for speaking out.

Hastings claimed that he was unaware of the settlement and called the sexual harassment allegations “ludicrous” on Friday.

Two Florida Democrats, Rep. Frederica Wilson and Rep. Lois Frankel, have said they are standing by Hastings, who was cleared by an ethics committee investigation in 2014. Democratic New York Rep. Kathleen Rice previously said that ethics committee investigations are not “real” accountability.

Other Democrats have been able to avoid talking about Hastings’ allegations, thanks to a lack of interest from news organizations like WaPo, the NYT and CNN.

Hastings is one of four congressmen (including three Democrats) who have indicated that they will remain in Congress, despite allegations that they engaged in or covered up sexual harassment or assault.

Democratic New York Rep. Gregory Meeks has similarly avoided scrutiny from the establishment media after The Daily Caller revealed that he allegedly fired a staffer in retaliation after she reported being sexually assaulted at a campaign donor’s business.

Meeks fired the staffer just weeks after she filed a complaint with the Office of Compliance. Meeks admitted that Payne’s firing was unrelated to the quality of her work, according to her lawsuit. The staffer, Andrea Payne, settled with Congress in 2006 after suing over her firing.

Few things are better than watching the media weep in despair as President Trump continues to deliver on his promises. One of those things, however, is watching as the intellectually honest among them are forced to admit that he is winning.

And that is exactly what has been happening in recent weeks. Two of the largest and most biased media outlets, marching through vales of tears, admitted that President Trump, arguably, has kept more of his promises than any President in modern history.

The first of these delicious offerings is CNN’s “Donald Trump — Keeper of Promises.” Then, like an early Christmas present, came the second piece in the Huffington Post: “Sadly, Trump is Winning.”

Both articles highlight all of Trump’s major accomplishments and track how closely they line up to his promises on the campaign trail. And both delineate his accomplishments as occasion for lamentations which, of course, cannot ring as anything other than delightful music in the ears of Trump supporters.

CNN talks about how Trump has made good on his word to withdraw from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Paris Agreement, while also swiftly moving to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and de-certify the Iran Deal. These were all bad deals for our country that Trump promised supporters he would renegotiate, and he is doing that. After fighting the courts for months, his travel ban has finally been fully implemented. Most recently, of course, he made the bold move of declaring Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel, much to the chagrin of the globalist elite and Islamists around the world. GDP growth has been soaring at levels of 3 percent or higher for the last several quarters, and the stock market continues to reach for the sky, with its latest milestone being 24,000.

The Huffington Post piece makes clear, even in the title, that Trump’s success is an occasion for their mourning; yet even they can no longer deny that by Trump’s metrics, he is winning. HuffPo focuses on how Trump recently succeeded in having his OMB Director, Mick Mulvaney, take over the controversial, Obama-era Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), after its former director Richard Cordray resigned. Mulvaney quickly acted and removed many of the Obama-appointed CFPB personnel. Trump himself continues to fill up judicial vacancies with judges who, on average, are rather young and very conservative, from the same mold as Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Most recently, the GOP’s tax cut bill advanced through the Senate, and now faces the last few hurdles in the conference committee as it appears fairly likely to head over to President Trump’s desk.

Turn on CNN at any hour of the day and there will be frowning talking heads reading teleprompter conspiracy theories about President Trump.

Where do all these theories even come from?

Some of them are generated by the small number of media outlets, CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times, that still have enough staff on their payrolls to carry on their mockery of journalism.

But mostly they come from Twitter.

If you’ve seen one self-righteous tantrum about the sacred fire of journalism, you’ve seen them all. The dirty truth is that the media mostly just puts a professional gloss on trending Twitter topics. That’s why CNN did a story about a dog whose ear, according to the nation’s top news network, looks like Trump’s face. (Yes, this really happened.) It’s also where a lot of the media’s political stories come from.

When President Trump recognized Jerusalem, the mainstream media take offered ‘expertese’ twaddle about it being a rash move that will destabilize the process by giving Islamic terrorists the idea that they can’t get everything they want by killing Jews and walking away from peace negotiations.

But lefty Twitter, a boiling cauldron of frustrated celebrities, conspiracy theories and seething rage, wasn’t looking for policy critiques. It trained its hate laser on the announcement, noticed a few slurred words and decided that President Trump had dementia and should be removed from office.

A day later the media was on it.

The media’s experts had once again been made irrelevant. Their spin was sidelined for a Twitter conspiracy theory that showed how the centers of power in mainstream media journalism had shifted.

The rash of media stories speculating about President Trump’s health shows not only how biased the media is (we already knew that), how unprofessional it is (we knew that one too), but that it spends most of its time pandering to its own social media echo chamber. The media repackages conspiracy theories from Cher, Debra Messing or Mark Ruffalo so that a #Resistance celeb will retweet them.

The same strategy has made the Washington Post and the New York Times into profitable operations as the media’s social media strategy has narrowed down to making stories go viral in a leftist echo chamber. And that means playing into their obsessions and conspiracies about President Trump.