Displaying posts categorized under

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION

50 STATES AND DC, CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT

Term Limits for the Media? They’re not “hacks.” They’re “flacks.” By Roger L Simon

Now that Donald Trump has reopened the subject of term limits for Congress in his Gettysburg speech, it’s time to turn to the subject of term limits for a group that may need them even more — the media.

The moment couldn’t be more auspicious since WikiLeaks has just exposed 65 “journalists”–coming from such august names in the field as The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, Reuters, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC– who were at some level in cahoots with the Hilary Clinton presidential campaign.

Does anyone doubt this number will grow? Of course not, although it already encompasses almost all the prominent brands in the mainstream media.

But, you might ask, just because many of the reporters, broadcasters and pundits involved have worked, in many instances, for the same organizations for decades, far longer than most politicians have been in office and certainly longer than even two-term presidents, how can we “term limit” them? They are not, after all, government workers employed by the taxpayer and this is a capitalist country, at least for the moment.

Well, it’s quite simple, really. We simply call them what they are. They are not journalists in any real sense. They are public relations people — sometimes known, pejoratively, as flacks.

Now having spent a fair number of years writing books and movies, I am quite familiar with how PR people work, having had more than a few of them, some quite good and some not.

Thus reading through the WikiLeaks emails, the behavior of these PR folks (formerly known as journalists) was quite familiar to me. For example, when Glenn Thrush of Politico sent his article about Clinton to her campaign manager John Podesta in advance of publication, he was acting in the grand tradition of the public relations man, submitting his copy to his client for approval. In one of his emails to Podesta, Thrush goes so far as to call himself “a hack.” But he is not. He is a flack.

Megyn Kelly Deserved Newt Gingrich’s Smackdown By Daniel John Sobieski

Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones, among the many victims of sexual predator William Jefferson Clinton and his serial enabler, Hillary Rodham Clinton, welcomed Newt Gingrich’s smackdown of the star of Fox News’ “The Kelly File” on Tuesday night. As Gingrich pointed out, Kelly, along with other mainstream media talking heads, was beating the Trump “Access Hollywood” tape into the ground while reciting the Clinton mantra that Bill’s sexual assaults while holding public office were “old news” and no longer relevant.

Gingrich rightly felt Bill’s escapades were relevant, as well as Hillary’s handling of his “bimbo eruptions” as she looked the other way and rode his coattails to power. Hillary, along with Kelly, has attacked Trump’s attitudes toward women, even as Hillary, apart from being Bill’s serial enabler, once laughed about getting the accused rapist of a 12-year-old girl off, and as the Clinton Foundation accepted money from governments and private donors that support Sharia law and its serial abuse of women. As far as we know, Trump has accepted not a single drachma from those who endorse marital rape, the stoning of women for adultery, and other barbarities. Trump versus Bill Clinton? Close, but no cigar.

The exchange, as reported by the New York Times, went as follows, with Kelly arguing that Trump’s dirty talk in a trailer was worse than Bill Clinton’s turning of the Arkansas governor’s mansion and the Oval Office into a personal Playboy penthouse:

“You are fascinated with sex and you don’t care about public policy,” he told Ms. Kelly.

Ms. Kelly: “Me? Really?”

Mr. Gingrich: “That’s what I get out of watching you tonight.”

Ms. Kelly: “You know what Mr. Speaker, I’m not fascinated by sex, but I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we’re getting in the Oval Office and I think the American voters would like to know …”

Mr. Gingrich then began to talk about how Mrs. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, would return to the White House “because you, after all, are worried about sexual predators,” an apparent allusion to Mr. Clinton’s affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.

“Listen, it’s not about me. It’s about the women and men of America,” Ms. Kelly replied. She said polls showed that voters were concerned about the allegations against Mr. Trump and believed they were an issue.

As the interview progressed, Mr. Gingrich turned to baiting Ms. Kelly.

“Do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?” Mr. Gingrich said, adding: “I just want to hear you use the words, ‘Bill Clinton, sexual predator.’ I dare you. Say, ‘Bill Clinton, sexual predator.’”

THE DOMINATRIX IN THE FOX HOUSE

Megyn Kelly Seeks Salary North of $20 Million in Contract Talks With Fox News ‘The Kelly File’ host is in active negotiations; keeping her at the network is a priority for management, including Rupert Murdoch. ‘It’s up to her’ and others ‘would give their right arm for her spot,’ he says. Joe Flint

Fox News star Megyn Kelly has changed agents and publicity teams since last year. Now the question is if she will change TV networks.

Host of “The Kelly File,” one of the cable-news channel’s most popular shows, Ms. Kelly is in active talks over her contract, which expires next July. Her profile has been rising during the presidential election cycle, in part thanks to a dust-up with Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Keeping Ms. Kelly is a priority for senior management, including Rupert Murdoch, chief executive of Fox News and co-executive chairman of its parent company, 21st Century Fox.

Asked if Ms. Kelly would stay at the channel, Mr. Murdoch said in an interview that she is important to the network and he hopes to get a contract signed “very soon,” but noted, “it’s up to her.”

Mr. Murdoch said he is kept abreast of the talks “every minute of the day.” While he doesn’t want to lose her, he said, “we have a deep bench of talent, many of whom would give their right arm for her spot.”

Thank You, Blue A new Gallup survey finds a surge in support for local police.

The Black Lives Matter movement has fascinated the media for more than two years by pretending that violence against blacks is principally the work of racist cops. But most Americans, regardless of color, know better. Support for police is now at its highest level in decades.

A new Gallup survey out this week finds that a full 76% of Americans say they have “a great deal” of respect for the police in their area, up from 64% in 2015. Another 17% in this year’s survey say they have some respect for local cops, and only 7% say they have “hardly any.”

Strong support for local police cuts across racial lines. Whites have historically been the most supportive in Gallup surveys and that’s true again this year, with 80% expressing great respect for their local cops. But support is also surging among nonwhites, 67% of whom say they have great respect for the police in their area, up from 53% last year.

Politicians like Hillary Clinton have responded to the message of Black Lives Matter by vigorously agreeing that all Americans have a problem of “implicit bias,” if not worse. But on this issue the politicians seem to be way out of step with the people. While Gallup finds rising support for local police across all demographics, the biggest surge in respect for America’s men and women in blue is occurring among political liberals. People in this category expressing a great deal of respect for police shot up to 71% this year from 50% in 2015.

Perhaps they have come to realize that blue lives matter a lot in any successful campaign to save black lives.

The State Taxathon Public unions are behind tax increase initiatives from coast to coast.

State government revenues have swelled 30% in the last five years. That’s a bigger raise than most workers have received, but public unions and their friends are asking voters for more at the ballot box on Nov. 8.

In California unions are seeking to extend a 2012 ballot referendum that raised taxes on individuals making more than $250,000 and bumped the top rate on income above $1 million to 13.3% from 10.3%. Proposition 55 would postpone the income surtax’s scheduled sunset by 12 years to 2030. Ergo, another “temporary” tax increase becomes permanent.

A mere 1% of California earners account for about half of the state’s income-tax revenues and a third of the budget. Since 2012 California’s coffers have grown by nearly 40% thanks to large capital gains. About two-thirds of the new revenues have gone to schools, but for the teachers union it’s never enough.

A recent Field Poll shows voters favoring the tax extension by two to one. Opponents have raised $3,000. Labor groups and hospitals—Medicaid would get a dedicated share of the revenues—muzzled the opposition by vilifying donors to the antitax campaign in 2012 and dumping $60 million into this year’s initiative.

Maine is following California’s leftward lead with an initiative to impose a three-percentage-point surcharge on household income exceeding $200,000 per year—regardless of whether the taxpayer files as an individual or jointly. If enacted, Maine would lay claim to the second highest top individual rate in the country at 10.15% after California’s 13.3%

The Maine Heritage Policy Center estimates that the tax would cost 4,000 private jobs and $265 million in real disposable income by reducing economic activity. Some would shift next door to New Hampshire where the income tax is zero. The Pine Tree State was one of only five states last year to lose population, and the tax hike would make it harder to recruit and retain professionals in high-demand fields like health care. The average salary of a physician in Maine is $210,760, and about half of pass-through business income was reported on returns with income greater than $200,000.

WikiLeaks Exposes Podesta-Steyer Climate McCarthyism How the Center for American Progress campaigned to suppress speech By Robert Bryce

The latest WikiLeaks dump contains plenty of insider dirt on John Podesta, the founder of the Center for American Progress and the campaign manager for Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the tawdriest story to be exposed by Podesta’s pilfered e-mails is the bragging by an employee of ThinkProgress, an arm of the Center for American Progress, about how they got Roger Pielke Jr.’s scalp.

A July 2014 e-mail from Judd Legum, an editor at ThinkProgress, to billionaire Democratic climate activist (and former coal-mine investor) Tom Steyer exposes the climate-change McCarthyism that the Left — and its myriad allies in the liberal media — use to discredit or silence anyone who doesn’t adhere to the orthodoxy of the climate catastrophists.

In the e-mail, Legum boasted to Steyer about how ThinkProgress had silenced Pielke by preventing him from publishing at Nate Silver’s then-new website, fivethirtyeight.com, on the issue of climate change. Legum was also asking Steyer, indirectly, for more money. Steyer and Podesta both sit on the board of the Center for American Progress. Between 2008 and 2014, Steyer gave the Center for American Progress some $3.85 million. I’ll come back to the specifics of that e-mail shortly.

First, some background. Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado since 2001, holds degrees in mathematics, public policy, and political science. He has authored or co-authored seven books. He has won several awards for his academic work. For about two decades, he was a prolific writer and speaker on climate issues. In 2013, he testified before Congress and declared that there is “exceedingly little scientific support for claims found in the media and political debate that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and drought have increased in frequency or intensity on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.” During that same testimony, he said that global weather-related losses have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP. He went on, saying that there were also no observable increases in floods, tornadoes, or droughts.

Hillary and Weaponized Immigration How international terrorists would turn Clinton’s “compassionate” immigration proposals against us. Michael Cutler

Hillary Clinton clearly shares the views and ideology and goals of open-borders/immigration anarchists.

On October 23, 2016 Breitbart reported, “Hillary Clinton and the United Nations on the Same Open Borders Page.”

That disconcerting report included this excerpt:

In a private, richly-paid speech that Hillary delivered to a Brazilian bank on May 16, 2013, she said: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future, with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

The section of Hillary’s address to the foreign bankers was confirmed by a release from the hacker site WikiLeaks.

For her part, Hillary claimed that she doesn’t want completely open borders and pointed to the segment of her speech where she mentioned energy and claimed she was only talking about sharing an electric grid across international boundaries.

“If you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy,” she said during the last debate. “We trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined.”

But this seeming obfuscation doesn’t reflect many of her past claims nor even the policy proposals on her own website.

Is The University Of Chicago A Safe Space? A phony champion of campus free speech destroys Freedom Center posters. David Horowitz

There are many ways to suppress free speech, the right to which is the foundation of all our other rights, and our democracy as well. Many leftists would like to outright suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree. But given the fact that most Americans still believe that the First Amendment is important, they are forced to resort to other measures. One of these is to obstruct speakers who challenge them by disrupting their events and shouting them down. An even more effective and more common tactic is to slander those whom they disagree with and call them “extremists” and “racists” and the whole bag of “deplorables” that Hillary Clinton so imprudently identified.
Across the country campus activists are seeking to make universities “safe spaces” for facts and ideas that make them uncomfortable and which they can’t refute. The University of Chicago recently took a small but brave step to oppose the regressive environment of the university culture by announcing it did not support “trigger warnings” or “safe spaces” – both of which are antithetic to a university education and to a democratic society in general.

Unfortunately, the U of C’s ham-fisted response to the poster campaign conducted by my organization represents a giant step backwards. It is an indefensible attempt to make the university a safe space for supporters of terrorists in the Middle East and their hateful propaganda. To justify destroying our posters, the university administration said, “While the University of Chicago encourages the free exchange of diverse ideas and perspectives concerning a wide range of issues, these flyers are defamatory and inconsistent with our values and policies.” This is hypocrisy at its worst. The student government supported by the U of C recently passed a resolution to boycott the only democracy in the Middle East, and the only inclusive and tolerant state there. The BDS resolution was designed to isolate, delegitimize and strangle the Jewish state.

Even liberals like Hillary Clinton and Larry Summers have denounced the BDS resolutions as anti-Semitic – Jew hatred. Evidently, the university is okay with that defamatory campaign. It even provides university facilities and funds to the campus hate groups that sponsored the resolution. Yet it condemns and destroys our posters whose sole purpose is to hold the individuals who did this accountable. What can a reasonable person conclude but that Jew-hatred is consistent with the U of C’s values and policies while opposing it is not?

Ten Soldiers Demand U.S. Army Recognize Their New Gender

Following the Pentagon’s announcement that transgendered members will be allowed to serve in the U.S. military openly, ten soldiers have formally asked to be recognized as their new gender.

The small number represents only those who have publicly said they are transgender, and doesn’t include soldiers who may be considering or beginning gender transition or those who don’t yet want to make an official paperwork change.

Gen. Mark Milley, chief of staff of the Army, said the key now is to educate the force, particularly commanders who will have to make decisions about soldiers in their units who request a gender change.

“Is the Army ready? Well, we are educating ourselves, and we are trying to get ready,” Milley said in an interview with The Associated Press. “We’re well-past the issue of debating and arguing about transgender. We are now into execution, to make sure the program is carried out with diligence, dignity, respect.”

New transgender guidelines were approved earlier this month.

Transgender troops are now able to receive medical care and begin changing their gender identifications in the Pentagon’s personnel system. Next year, the military services will begin allowing transgender individuals to enlist, as long as they meet required standards and have been stable in their identified gender for 18 months.

“We’re monitoring implementation closely, and everything we’ve seen so far points to a military organization fully committed to treating everyone equally and providing medically necessary care to all troops, not just some,” said Aaron Belkin, director of the California-based Palm Center, an independent research institute. “My conclusion, so far, is that implementation has proceeded smoothly and successfully.”

Milley, along with other military leaders were concerned the move was coming too fast.

“We’re monitoring implementation closely, and everything we’ve seen so far points to a military organization fully committed to treating everyone equally and providing medically necessary care to all troops, not just some,” said Aaron Belkin, director of the California-based Palm Center, an independent research institute. “My conclusion, so far, is that implementation has proceeded smoothly and successfully.”

Oh, No, Virginia: There Is No Such Thing As Voter Fraud Do the Democrats know something we don’t? Kenneth R. Timmerman

Democrats tell us all the time: there is no such thing as voter fraud. Show them the evidence – such as this report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation that found more than 1,000 non-citizens registered to vote in Virginia -– and they reply, well that is just anecdotal.

And if Project Veritas captures the Democrat Commissioner on the New York City Board of Elections admitting in an undercover video that Democrats “bus people around to vote” all the time, why, that’s just gonzo journalism by a “convicted felon.”

Rest assured, Virginia: our elections are secure. There is no organized voter fraud, and to suggest otherwise – as Donald Trump did last week – is just downright un-American. How do we know this? Because President Obama just told us so.

Of course, when Obama first ran for President in 2008, he expressed concern that hackers could gain access to electronic voting machines to alter the results, and told supporters he wanted to set up a non-partisan election integrity division at the Justice Department “that is serious about investigating cases of vote fraud.”

That division has been extremely active over the past eight years investigating – sorry. Obama never established the voter integrity division at DoJ. Instead, he had his attorney general quash the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of Top Secret classified information on her private email server.

Should we be concerned about the integrity of the electronic voting machines in use by many states around the country?

You bet we should.