RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/11/the-media-holds-a-massive-double-standard-about-naming-whistleblowers/

As for the media, can we attribute its devotion to respecting the privacy of the Ukraine whistleblower to anything other than politics? The evidence suggests not.

Does the public have a right to know the name of the man who commenced the current effort to impeach the president of the United States? The Trump-hating media, following the lead of Trump-hating House Democrats, seems to think not. It seems they believe he should be held to a different standard than other whistleblowers.

Indeed, many legacy media refuse to run the presumed name of the so-called Ukraine whistleblower in spite of ample evidence as to his identity. Likewise, Twitter is trying to deter users from divulging his name by punishing select accounts that have done so. YouTube has similarly banned mentions of his name across their entire site.

Such entities appear to have fallen in line with Rep. Adam Schiff, leader of the illegitimate impeachment inquiry. Schiff was prepared to give the complainant a public hearing before doing an abrupt about-face after it was revealed the congressman and his staff had coordinated with the whistleblower prior to the complaint being filed, and then lied about it.

Revelations about the ties of both the presumed whistleblower, as well as one of his lawyers, to Russiagate and the broader apparent rolling coup against the president only further undermine the credibility of the impeachment process and its underlying substance. Consequently, it is unclear whether the whistleblower will even respond to written questions from House members.

Dems Have No Good Reason to Hide the Whistleblower

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2019/11/cnn-controversially-claims-israeli-cable-cars-are-daniel-greenfield/

The media slur for anything it doesn’t like is “controversial”. This old bias technique maintains a modicum of the facade of journalism while priming its audience to view the thing that the media doesn’t like in a negative fashion.

And the media really hates Israel. So everything Israeli is “controversial”. Even its cable cars.

And thus, according to CNN, and its usual balance of correspondents with Jewish last names who hate Israel and a Muslim correspondent, “Israel approves controversial cable cars in Jerusalem”.

What’s controversial about the cable cars?

Do they run on the oil of baby seals? Do they scream obscenities at you when you get inside? Do they play FOX News all day?

The controversial CNN news network, which has been described as an “enemy of the people” by the President of the United States, controversially describes Israeli cable cars as “controversial” 4 times in its article. 

“Large infrastructure projects in Jerusalem are often controversial due to the city’s disputed status, and the cable car is no exception,” CNN controversially claims.

Are cable cars a “large infrastructure project”? 

Also this means that building roads, paving roads, providing electricity, and taking out the trash are all controversial because Israel does it.

This is the definition of bias. And that’s the kind of controversial behavior that makes CNN so controversial.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/abcs-excuse-for-failing-to-report-on-jeffrey-epstein-makes-absolutely-no-sense/

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, a group that has often infiltrated news organizations to uncover liberal bias, has released an explosive “hot mic” video of Good Morning America co-host Amy Robach venting about ABC’s decision to spike a story about Jeffrey Epstein’s nefarious activities three years ago.

“I had this interview with [Epstein victim] Virginia Roberts,” Robach is seen saying in the video, “we would not put it on the air. The [British royal] Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways. We were afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will that we, that also quashed the story.”

Robach now claims, through a network statement, that she was caught “in a private moment” of frustration over the lack of progress on a story. “I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts didn’t air because I could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations.”

Sorry, but Robach’s response to the firestorm doesn’t square with her initial comments, in which she states that “Roberts had pictures, she had everything . . . it was unbelievable what we had. [Bill] Clinton, we had everything.”

“Everything” sure sounds like sufficient corroborating evidence. Even if employing the most scrupulous journalistic standards, a giant news organization wouldn’t need three years to substantiate — or dismiss — a story with pictures, dates and a credible witness.

We certainly know that ABC didn’t need “everything” — or much of anything, for that matter – when it was running scores of pieces online and on television, highlighting every risible accusation against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/29/media-self-immolates-over-baghdadi-death-to-smear-trump/

Media once again showed their relentless attempt to isolate the president, portraying him as a standalone blip in the universe without presidential precedent. It blew up in their faces.

Americans learned over the weekend that serial rapist, murderer, and ISIS terrorist chieftain Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi went up in a blaze of vainglory as he fled in fear from American special operations forces and detonated a suicide vest, blowing up himself and three children.

Reactions split along predictable lines. One side praised President Trump, U.S. military and intelligence operatives, and allies who assisted in the mission. They declared the world safer with Baghdadi dead.

The other side, however, lost its collective, freaking mind.

President Trump had hinted at “something very big” in a Saturday night tweet, setting off speculation that it had to do with Baghdadi. In his Sunday morning announcement to the nation, Trump explained what happened, who was involved, who was notified, and his expectations moving forward. He identified by name the Americans killed by Baghdadi and his men. He spoke for eight-and-a-half minutes and then answered questions from the press for another 40. He was accessible, transparent, and candid.

He was particularly clear about his reasons for authorizing the mission, and they were entirely consistent with what he has said and published in the past. With characteristic frankness and purpose, he described the manner of Baghdadi’s death:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/boot_meet_mouth_again.html

Kneejerk #NeverTrumper Max Boot monopolized the bottom of the cesspool in his response to the successful raid that killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, easily edging out Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and the rest  of his media peers.

In his response to the death of al-Baghdadi, a vicious cult leader who specialized in the murder of helpless civilians (particularly young women), Boot chose to concentrate on a single statement made by President Trump in his speech announcing the successful mission: “[al-Baghdadi] died like a coward… whimpering and crying and screaming all the way.” 

Not so, insists the judicious Boot:

Trump could not possibly have heard “whimpering and crying” on the overhead imagery because there was no audio, and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pointedly refused to confirm those details. The assertion that Baghdadi died as a coward was, in any case, contradicted by the fact that rather than be captured, he blew himself up.

Well, now we do have a complete description of al-Baghdadi’s last moments. It seems that he fled into a tunnel while being chased by a dog. A very fierce, well-trained, and courageous dog, yes, but still a dog. Not a Terminator or a Predator. Al-Baghdadi dragged three children along with him, said to be his own. When he reached the dead end of the tunnel, he triggered the suicide vest he was wearing, killing, in a last act of nihilistic viciousness, all three of the children.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-new-york-times-slanders-israel-again/

From an e-pal Craig C. “For those who may still subscribe to, or purchase weekly, the NY Times you may wish to read the brilliant column by Meir Soloveichik in the current Commentary Magazine.  After reading it, you may wish to cancel your subscription to the NY Times if you still have one.”

In the summer of 1920, Herbert Samuel, the high commissioner of British Mandate Palestine, made his way to the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City to mark the Sabbath with his fellow Jews. He entered the Hurva Synagogue, one of the most exquisite edifices in the Jewish world, with its marble floor and its dome adorned with designs that imitated the starry sky. As the guest of honor, Samuel was invited to read the hafatarah, the prophetic portion, from the magnificent bima, or podium, in the center of the synagogue.

It was the Sabbath immediately following the Ninth of Av, when the destruction of the Temple had been mourned. His Majesty’s representative opened the Bible and proclaimed to the assembled Isaiah’s immortal words: “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people…O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!” On the heels of the 1917 Balfour declaration promising a Jewish home in Palestine, the messianic era almost appeared to be at hand.

Yet the very name of the synagogue in which these Jews found themselves, the Hebrew word “hurva,” means “ruin,” and would seem to have been a strange description of this beautiful building. It reflected the fact that it had been constructed at the site of a synagogue destroyed a century before, burned to the ground by an Arab mob along with 40 sacred Torah scrolls inside. Calling it “Hurva” emphasized that the structure was built on the ashes of what had been before, a vindication of the Jewish love for Jerusalem. Yet the name also hinted at the hatred some may have for Jews who chose to dwell in Jerusalem—even as Jews celebrated the arrival of a Jewish high commissioner to the bima.

In this, the word “Hurva” proved eerily prophetic. The heady days of Samuel’s visit to the synagogue were followed by a series of British “White Papers” limiting Jewish immigration. In 1942, some of Jerusalem’s most important rabbis gathered in the sanctuary to pray for the doomed Jews of Europe who had been left by the British to die.