It is fairly well known that, today, colleges and universities are among the least free places in our country. Left-wing professors teach left-wing ideology, and even express their hatred for any group with whom they disagree - conservatives, Republicans, supporters of Israel, supporters of the police, and so on. The result is a "no tolerance" policy at these schools, meaning no tolerance for contrary viewpoints.
One professor at Fresno State University, Lars Maischak, had this to say on Twitter: "To save American democracy, Trump must hang...the sooner and the higher, the better." Here is some more by this professor: "You fascist Trump-voting white trash scum can wallow in your filthy hell-holes of flyover states. Enjoy." And this: "Justice = the execution of two Republicans for each deported immigrant." He says his quotes should not be taken literally. Really? Trump must hang? Republicans should be executed? Who's the fascist here? This is sick; and worse yet - he is paid by the taxpayers of California.
Heather MacDonald is a Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and a contributing editor to the City Journal. She was scheduled to speak at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California. The college is a small (1347 undergraduates) liberal arts school. Approximately 250 protesters blocked the entrance to where MacDonald was scheduled to speak on the campus. Ms. MacDonald wrote a book entitled "The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe." Not only did these protesters not want to hear Ms. MacDonald speak (which is their right), they did not believe anyone else should be able to hear her (not their right). She said people were chanting "black lives matter," and she was called a "white supremacist." She also heard this chant: "(Expletive) the police, KKK."
The President of the college defended the lack of police action this way: "Based on the judgment of the Claremont Police Department, we jointly concluded that any forced interventions or arrests would have created unsafe conditions for students, faculty, staff, and guests." This is liberal mentality at its worst, yet we have seen it time and again. When those in authority refuse to act against misbehavior, it sends a signal (in this case, to students everywhere) that others can also get away with inappropriate and even violent behavior. The same lack of police action was seen when Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley. There, protesters smashed store windows and an ATM, and set a small fire. This inaction by college administrators and campus police, although on a smaller scale, is no different than Obama's inaction against tyrants during his eight years as President. Obama's failure to take action against Syria for using chemical weapons, after drawing a red line, only encouraged Assad to believe that he could get away with using chemical weapons again. And he did. College students get the same message - nothing will happen to them, even with violent protests.
Middlebury College is a small school (2526 undergraduates) in Vermont. Charles Murray, a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was scheduled to speak at Middlebury. He was being hosted by Professor Allison Stanger. In yet another example left-wing intolerance/fascism, Mr. Murray was prevented from speaking as planned - by a mob of screaming students. He and Professor Stanger were to have had what was to be a public discussion; instead the discussion had to be moved to a different location and then broadcast online. Afterwards, Murray and Stanger left to go to dinner together, along with the college's VP for Communications. According to Murray: "protesters surrounded the car, banging on the sides and the windows and rocking the car, climbing onto the hood."
Professor Stanger got it partly right. Clearly, she believes in the right of free speech - for the speaker and for those who wish to hear. However, like many on the left she does not understand the concept of having consequences for one's actions. Stanger: "We have got to do better by those who feel and are marginalized...especially when our current President is blind to the evils he has unleashed." However the students "feel" does not excuse their misconduct. I am reminded of a scene from an old Woody Allen movie. In a flashback to his childhood, his mother is seen complaining to his father that their black maid is stealing from them. The father replies, more or less to this effect: "She's entitled to steal from us, she's black."
It is what the left does - they make victims of the perpetrators. This same mentality explains how after 9/11 the media - the left-wing media - made Muslims, the perpetrators of 9/11, out to be the victims. And they have done so ever since. Obama looked at the bad actors in the world as being victims of US power, so he did nothing. So they obliged by carrying out more bad acts. College and University administrators have decided to do nothing in the face of illegal conduct by their students. Predictably, we can expect such bad behavior to continue and even increase.
Saturday, April 15, 2017
Sunday, April 9, 2017
The LA Times vs. Trump
This past week, the Los Angeles Times ran daily and lengthy editorials outlining their numerous problems with President Trump. The April 4 editorial was entitled "Why the president lies." The Times claims that Trump has an "apparent disregard for fact so profound as to suggest that he may not see much practical distinction between lies, if he believes they serve him, and the truth." Regular readers of this blog may recall the countless times I have discussed how for the left (people like Obama, Reid and Pelosi) the truth is not a value. Rather, their approach to politics is that the ends justify the means. If lying works, they lie. Of course, when Obama, Reid and Pelosi were in charge, the Times was completely unaware of the concept that for some the ends justify the means. Now that Trump, a Republican, is in charge, they've awakened to the idea that politicians may lie.
My favorite example of the Dems using the approach of the ends justify the means is a quote from Harry Reid. When Romney was running against Obama, then Senate Majority leader Reid spoke on the Senate floor and accused Romney of not paying any federal income tax. It was a total lie, of course. A number of years later, a reporter asked Reid if he wanted to apologize for that comment about Romney. In reply, Reid said this: "Well, he (Romney) didn't win, did he?" A perfect example of Reid demonstrating no moral qualms about the lie, because maybe that lie helped reelect Obama. The ends justify the means.
Another lie, given little attention by the mainstream media, was the claim that a movie/video trailer was responsible for the assault on our consulate in Benghazi. Obama and Clinton told that lie. It was only a couple of months before the 2012 election, and the spin from Obama was that bin Laden was dead, and terrorism was defeated. So, it was felt that the true story would conflict with that spin. And let's not forget that paragon of honesty, Susan Rice, who went on five Sunday talk shows to repeat the lie about the movie trailer. (Which, although unrelated, certainly makes me want to believe everything she now says about the unmasking and leaking of names of Trump campaign officials.)
The April 5 editorial was entitled "His Authoritarian Vision." The Times is shocked by the fact that Trump has called for "agency budgets to be chopped by up to 30%." Imagine, a President who does not want to see the federal bureaucracy, along with the federal debt, continue to grow exponentially. And, shockingly, Trump has "appointed a string of Cabinet secretaries who were hostile to much of their agencies' missions and the laws they're responsible for enforcing." Would that be like Obama failing to enforce the immigration laws he was responsible for enforcing? Or, ignoring those parts of the Affordable Care Act that he decided should not be enforced before his campaign for reelection, lest it negatively affect the vote for him.
The April 6 editorial was entitled "The War on Journalism." The Times takes great offense at Trump referring to "fake news," and referring to journalists as the "enemies of the people." Calling journalists the "enemies of the people" is not something he should have said. Yes, reporters are almost always going to be biased against Republicans. And when Trump calls out specific instances of bias, I have no problem with it. But the words of Trump apparently upset the Times far more than the actions of Obama. The Times apparently realized how it would look if they completely ignored the ways Obama mistreated the press, and therefore noted: "President Obama's press operation tried to exclude Fox News reporters from interviews, blocked many officials from talking to journalists and, most troubling, prosecuted more national security whistle-blowers and leakers than all previous presidents combined."
Let's not forget the words of Obama and his top advisers early on, as they all appeared on mainstream and cable news channels, asserting that Fox News was not a real news organization. Or how Obama had Fox News reporter James Rosen surveilled - watching his comings and goings, and collecting his emails and phone records. Or how the Obama Administration seized telephone records of AP reporters and editors. No, for the Times it's all about some of the words Trump has said; words Trump says because he actually fights back, instead of taking the abuse - like this series by the Times.
My favorite example of the Dems using the approach of the ends justify the means is a quote from Harry Reid. When Romney was running against Obama, then Senate Majority leader Reid spoke on the Senate floor and accused Romney of not paying any federal income tax. It was a total lie, of course. A number of years later, a reporter asked Reid if he wanted to apologize for that comment about Romney. In reply, Reid said this: "Well, he (Romney) didn't win, did he?" A perfect example of Reid demonstrating no moral qualms about the lie, because maybe that lie helped reelect Obama. The ends justify the means.
Another lie, given little attention by the mainstream media, was the claim that a movie/video trailer was responsible for the assault on our consulate in Benghazi. Obama and Clinton told that lie. It was only a couple of months before the 2012 election, and the spin from Obama was that bin Laden was dead, and terrorism was defeated. So, it was felt that the true story would conflict with that spin. And let's not forget that paragon of honesty, Susan Rice, who went on five Sunday talk shows to repeat the lie about the movie trailer. (Which, although unrelated, certainly makes me want to believe everything she now says about the unmasking and leaking of names of Trump campaign officials.)
The April 5 editorial was entitled "His Authoritarian Vision." The Times is shocked by the fact that Trump has called for "agency budgets to be chopped by up to 30%." Imagine, a President who does not want to see the federal bureaucracy, along with the federal debt, continue to grow exponentially. And, shockingly, Trump has "appointed a string of Cabinet secretaries who were hostile to much of their agencies' missions and the laws they're responsible for enforcing." Would that be like Obama failing to enforce the immigration laws he was responsible for enforcing? Or, ignoring those parts of the Affordable Care Act that he decided should not be enforced before his campaign for reelection, lest it negatively affect the vote for him.
The April 6 editorial was entitled "The War on Journalism." The Times takes great offense at Trump referring to "fake news," and referring to journalists as the "enemies of the people." Calling journalists the "enemies of the people" is not something he should have said. Yes, reporters are almost always going to be biased against Republicans. And when Trump calls out specific instances of bias, I have no problem with it. But the words of Trump apparently upset the Times far more than the actions of Obama. The Times apparently realized how it would look if they completely ignored the ways Obama mistreated the press, and therefore noted: "President Obama's press operation tried to exclude Fox News reporters from interviews, blocked many officials from talking to journalists and, most troubling, prosecuted more national security whistle-blowers and leakers than all previous presidents combined."
Let's not forget the words of Obama and his top advisers early on, as they all appeared on mainstream and cable news channels, asserting that Fox News was not a real news organization. Or how Obama had Fox News reporter James Rosen surveilled - watching his comings and goings, and collecting his emails and phone records. Or how the Obama Administration seized telephone records of AP reporters and editors. No, for the Times it's all about some of the words Trump has said; words Trump says because he actually fights back, instead of taking the abuse - like this series by the Times.
The Californians
"The Californians" was a recurring segment on Saturday Night Live, depicting the shallowness of people in California. Of course, it was an exaggeration, and the real emphasis should have been on the left-wing kooky ideas generated by the state. With the state being overwhelmingly Democratic, not surprisingly, it has elected an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature. What follows are some of the wacky proposals that may be enacted into law by the far left state.
While various cities within the state have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities, there is now a proposal to make the entire state a sanctuary state. SB 54 has already passed the state Senate by a vote of 27-12. A request by ICE to local or state law enforcement, asking that they detain people in custody, can be ignored. There are exceptions permitting local law enforcement to notify ICE before convicted or violent felons are released. According to Republican Jeff Stone, Republican State Senator, the bill does not require notification to ICE when human traffickers, child abusers or others about to be released - absent a court order. Said Stone: "How many more Kate Steinle's do we need?" Steinle was shot and killed by an illegal alien in 2015. California is estimated to have 25% of the country's illegal aliens. If the bill is enacted into law we can expect that percentage to grow.
Here's a good one. A bill was proposed in the State Assembly to deal with the issue of "fake news." The bill would make it unlawful to "knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on either of the following: (a) Any issue submitted to voters at an election, (b) Any candidate for election to public office." The measure is obviously unconstitutional. It does not apply to the print media, as apparently even the drafters must have suspected that the measure was of questionable constitutionality. They may have overlooked the fact that virtually all mainstream newspapers also operate online. But the real issue is this - just who gets to decide what is "false or deceptive" under the law? A government bureaucrat? Would they categorize any of the posts in this blog as being "false or deceptive?" Of course, there would be no chance that only right-wing sites would be targeted, right? Thankfully, this measure has apparently been tabled.
Perhaps my "favorite" of the many ridiculous proposals to come out of the California State Legislature is one reported in the March 16, 2017 Wall Street Journal. This proposal would exempt teachers in California from paying any state income tax, if they have been teaching for five years or more. The first problem with this proposal is the sheer arrogance of legislators not being the least bit embarrassed by the enormity of their corruption. This would be yet another example of the teachers' unions, contributing millions to Democratic coffers, then being rewarded by those same Democrats in Sacramento, with taxpayer money. Let's be honest, if one segment of society, teachers, pays zero income tax, everybody else will have to make up the difference.
Here's another problem. If teachers get this tax break, imagine what those who risk their lives for the public - the police, firefighters and corrections officers - will have to say. The argument is simple, if anyone deserves such relief from paying taxes, they do. The next argument will be from the rest of the state and local government employees. And why not? All the public employee unions overwhelmingly contribute to Democrats, barely at all to Republicans. So, why shouldn't the corrupt Democrats reward them as well? Does everybody understand why the ability of public employees to unionize and contribute to elected officials is contrary to the interests of the rest of the people in the state?
Lastly, there is a proposal by certain groups to have California secede from the United States. Maybe not such a bad idea. The Californians could go in their own crazy direction. The rest of the country would benefit greatly. The USA would have millions of fewer Democrats. California's 55 electoral college votes would disappear, instead of automatically going to any Democratic Presidential candidate. Those 55 electoral votes give Democrats 20% of the total needed to win, and the Democrats do not even need to campaign here. They only come to raise money. The only downside is for those of us who are conservative. Many of us would probably decide to leave and move to a different state. Still, it might be a small price to pay...
While various cities within the state have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities, there is now a proposal to make the entire state a sanctuary state. SB 54 has already passed the state Senate by a vote of 27-12. A request by ICE to local or state law enforcement, asking that they detain people in custody, can be ignored. There are exceptions permitting local law enforcement to notify ICE before convicted or violent felons are released. According to Republican Jeff Stone, Republican State Senator, the bill does not require notification to ICE when human traffickers, child abusers or others about to be released - absent a court order. Said Stone: "How many more Kate Steinle's do we need?" Steinle was shot and killed by an illegal alien in 2015. California is estimated to have 25% of the country's illegal aliens. If the bill is enacted into law we can expect that percentage to grow.
Here's a good one. A bill was proposed in the State Assembly to deal with the issue of "fake news." The bill would make it unlawful to "knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on either of the following: (a) Any issue submitted to voters at an election, (b) Any candidate for election to public office." The measure is obviously unconstitutional. It does not apply to the print media, as apparently even the drafters must have suspected that the measure was of questionable constitutionality. They may have overlooked the fact that virtually all mainstream newspapers also operate online. But the real issue is this - just who gets to decide what is "false or deceptive" under the law? A government bureaucrat? Would they categorize any of the posts in this blog as being "false or deceptive?" Of course, there would be no chance that only right-wing sites would be targeted, right? Thankfully, this measure has apparently been tabled.
Perhaps my "favorite" of the many ridiculous proposals to come out of the California State Legislature is one reported in the March 16, 2017 Wall Street Journal. This proposal would exempt teachers in California from paying any state income tax, if they have been teaching for five years or more. The first problem with this proposal is the sheer arrogance of legislators not being the least bit embarrassed by the enormity of their corruption. This would be yet another example of the teachers' unions, contributing millions to Democratic coffers, then being rewarded by those same Democrats in Sacramento, with taxpayer money. Let's be honest, if one segment of society, teachers, pays zero income tax, everybody else will have to make up the difference.
Here's another problem. If teachers get this tax break, imagine what those who risk their lives for the public - the police, firefighters and corrections officers - will have to say. The argument is simple, if anyone deserves such relief from paying taxes, they do. The next argument will be from the rest of the state and local government employees. And why not? All the public employee unions overwhelmingly contribute to Democrats, barely at all to Republicans. So, why shouldn't the corrupt Democrats reward them as well? Does everybody understand why the ability of public employees to unionize and contribute to elected officials is contrary to the interests of the rest of the people in the state?
Lastly, there is a proposal by certain groups to have California secede from the United States. Maybe not such a bad idea. The Californians could go in their own crazy direction. The rest of the country would benefit greatly. The USA would have millions of fewer Democrats. California's 55 electoral college votes would disappear, instead of automatically going to any Democratic Presidential candidate. Those 55 electoral votes give Democrats 20% of the total needed to win, and the Democrats do not even need to campaign here. They only come to raise money. The only downside is for those of us who are conservative. Many of us would probably decide to leave and move to a different state. Still, it might be a small price to pay...
Monday, March 27, 2017
Israel, Hamas, Trump, the Democrats, Anti-Semitism and the Jews
Today, Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, spoke at the annual AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) convention. Dermer: "For the first time in many years, perhaps even many decades, there is no daylight between our two governments." That was, perhaps, an oblique reference to President Obama's 2009 comment about relations between Israel and the U.S over the prior eight years: "When there is no daylight (between the U.S. and Israel), Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with Arab states." It was, of course, a total lie as Israel offered a state to the Palestinians in 2000 and 2008. But that was simply the beginning of Obama creating as much daylight as possible between the U.S. and Israel, including the enabling of Iran's nuclear weapons program, and ending with Obama's selling out of Israel at the U.N. in December, 2016.
In the March 20, 2017 Wall Street Journal, Andrew Stein and Douglas Schoen, jointly penned an opinion piece entitled "Democrats Turn Against Israel." As these two Democrats wrote: "The Democrats used to be the pro-Israel party." They continued: "President Obama created an atmosphere of outright hostility between the U.S. and Israel." They concluded by asserting that they, along with many other Jewish Democrats, "may decide that the time has come to find new political affiliations," if the Democrats do not reaffirm support for Israel. I don't see it.
The current Palestinian leader of Hamas in Gaza recently said this: "Hamas will continue in the path of Yassin (Hamas founder, killed in an Israeli airstrike) for the liberation of all of Palestine - we will not surrender even a morsel" of the land. By "Palestine," he means all of the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. They will never give up their terror attacks and wars against Israel as long as the Jews possess even one "morsel" of land.
Yet, 187 of the 193 voting Democrats in the House, with two non-voting Democrats and two Republicans, signed off on a letter to President Trump urging him to stand with the two-state solution. Twenty of the twenty-one Jewish members of the House signed the letter. What two-state solution do these people have in mind? There's Israel, Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in parts of the West Bank, along with Israel in parts of the West Bank. So, a three-state solution? And why continue to push a fantasy? Given the quote from the leader of Hamas in Gaza, can the idea of a two-state solution be characterized as anything but a fantasy?
Anti-Semitism continues to grow on college campuses here in the U.S., and throughout the Western world. When the student newspaper at McGill University in Montreal refused to print a pro-Israel article by visiting professor Gil Troy, he decided to post it online. The paper, according to the professor, has a policy of not publishing any article promoting a "Zionist worldview." As for the intolerance of the left to contrary views, Professor Troy said it best: "...you wrap your bigotry in a mantle of self-righteousness, mocking the progressive thought you claim to embrace." For the Left, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attitudes are central to their worldview - liberalism, tolerance to opposing views and open debate are not.
As for Zionism, Professor Troy again said it best: "Zionism has three fundamental propositions: that the Jews are a people; that the Jewish people have one historic homeland, the land of Israel; and that like all other peoples they have collective rights to establish - and now perfect - a country in that homeland." As much as I would like to believe that Stein and Schoen are right - that the Democrats leftward shift away from support for Israel will result in Jews abandoning that party - I just don't see it. I see Jews clinging to their leftist ideology, and showing total contempt for Donald Trump, even when he expresses his strong support for Israel.
After Obama lied about Israel sitting on the sidelines, after he enabled the Iranian nuclear program, and after he sold Israel out at the U.N. as a lame-duck President, I believe the same percentages of Jews who voted for Obama twice would vote for him a third time, if they could. Not only is the Democratic party not reaffirming their support for Israel, they nearly elected the radical leftist/socialist, Bernie Sanders, to head the Democratic ticket. They nearly elected the radical leftist and Muslim anti-Israel Congressman, Keith Ellison, to be the head of their party. He is now vice chair of the party. In no way do I view the party as moving back towards support of Israel. It is a party moving further and further to the left. As with the rest of the Left, it is leftism over Zionism, and leftism over Judaism. For the Democrats to again become the party that supports Israel, they would need to return to classical liberalism. The trend, however, as noted above, is in the opposite direction.
In the March 20, 2017 Wall Street Journal, Andrew Stein and Douglas Schoen, jointly penned an opinion piece entitled "Democrats Turn Against Israel." As these two Democrats wrote: "The Democrats used to be the pro-Israel party." They continued: "President Obama created an atmosphere of outright hostility between the U.S. and Israel." They concluded by asserting that they, along with many other Jewish Democrats, "may decide that the time has come to find new political affiliations," if the Democrats do not reaffirm support for Israel. I don't see it.
The current Palestinian leader of Hamas in Gaza recently said this: "Hamas will continue in the path of Yassin (Hamas founder, killed in an Israeli airstrike) for the liberation of all of Palestine - we will not surrender even a morsel" of the land. By "Palestine," he means all of the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. They will never give up their terror attacks and wars against Israel as long as the Jews possess even one "morsel" of land.
Yet, 187 of the 193 voting Democrats in the House, with two non-voting Democrats and two Republicans, signed off on a letter to President Trump urging him to stand with the two-state solution. Twenty of the twenty-one Jewish members of the House signed the letter. What two-state solution do these people have in mind? There's Israel, Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in parts of the West Bank, along with Israel in parts of the West Bank. So, a three-state solution? And why continue to push a fantasy? Given the quote from the leader of Hamas in Gaza, can the idea of a two-state solution be characterized as anything but a fantasy?
Anti-Semitism continues to grow on college campuses here in the U.S., and throughout the Western world. When the student newspaper at McGill University in Montreal refused to print a pro-Israel article by visiting professor Gil Troy, he decided to post it online. The paper, according to the professor, has a policy of not publishing any article promoting a "Zionist worldview." As for the intolerance of the left to contrary views, Professor Troy said it best: "...you wrap your bigotry in a mantle of self-righteousness, mocking the progressive thought you claim to embrace." For the Left, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attitudes are central to their worldview - liberalism, tolerance to opposing views and open debate are not.
As for Zionism, Professor Troy again said it best: "Zionism has three fundamental propositions: that the Jews are a people; that the Jewish people have one historic homeland, the land of Israel; and that like all other peoples they have collective rights to establish - and now perfect - a country in that homeland." As much as I would like to believe that Stein and Schoen are right - that the Democrats leftward shift away from support for Israel will result in Jews abandoning that party - I just don't see it. I see Jews clinging to their leftist ideology, and showing total contempt for Donald Trump, even when he expresses his strong support for Israel.
After Obama lied about Israel sitting on the sidelines, after he enabled the Iranian nuclear program, and after he sold Israel out at the U.N. as a lame-duck President, I believe the same percentages of Jews who voted for Obama twice would vote for him a third time, if they could. Not only is the Democratic party not reaffirming their support for Israel, they nearly elected the radical leftist/socialist, Bernie Sanders, to head the Democratic ticket. They nearly elected the radical leftist and Muslim anti-Israel Congressman, Keith Ellison, to be the head of their party. He is now vice chair of the party. In no way do I view the party as moving back towards support of Israel. It is a party moving further and further to the left. As with the rest of the Left, it is leftism over Zionism, and leftism over Judaism. For the Democrats to again become the party that supports Israel, they would need to return to classical liberalism. The trend, however, as noted above, is in the opposite direction.
Sunday, March 12, 2017
The Deposing of an American President
I have never been a conspiracy theorist. But what is being done to undermine, and even bring down, a sitting American President, should be frightening to everyone. It did not start with the women's march on January 21, the day after Trump's inauguration; although the posters being carried reflected many marchers really had no interest in seeing what policies Trump would put in place. It was not just the constant media attacks on virtually every Trump associate and adviser: from Steve Bannon (calling him an anti-Semite with no proof of same) to Stephen Miller to Michael Flynn to Kellyanne Conway (how horrible that she sat on the couch in the Oval Office with her legs folded back under her - but not horrible when Obama put his feet on the Resolute Desk on multiple occasions) to Jeff Sessions, and on and on. This is more than the left-wing hypocrisy, which I have demonstrated in many of my recent posts. What we are witnessing, less than two months into his Presidency, is an attempt to get Trump removed from office. It is unprecedented.
When the Watergate scandal was initially being investigated by the Washington Post about 45 years ago, most of the stories were buried somewhere deep in the paper. Now, notwithstanding no conclusive evidence of any wrongdoing or criminal activity by Trump or his people, the stories (allegations) are readily splashed across the front pages of most major newspapers. Why? Question: what motivated the Obama Administration, only days before Obama left office, to allow the sharing of raw intelligence data gathered by the NSA with all the other (16) intelligence agencies. The greater the access to that data, the greater the likelihood of leaks. And, not surprisingly, leaks there have been: from our President's telephone conversations with the Mexican President and the Australian Prime Minister, to the illegal release of Michael Flynn's name, while Flynn had a telephone conversation with the Russian Ambassador. The surveillance of foreign government officials on US soil is no surprise. However, the names of Americans involved in such conversations are to be redacted - it is illegal to release American's names.
On January 20, the day of Trump's inauguration, the front page of the New York Times had this headline: "Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry Of Trump Aides." What an interesting headline. The article found no evidence of wrongdoing; and the Times subsequently deleted "wiretapped" from the headline. But, why was this a front page story? If there was no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, and no actual wiretapping of Trump aides, what point was the Times trying to make here? Or, was it just part of a concerted effort to bring an abrupt end to the Trump Presidency? Was it just coincidental that the day after Trump's well received speech to Congress that the Washington Post prints the story about Jeff Sessions communications with the Russian Ambassador?
During Sessions' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Al Franken tells Sessions that CNN just published a report that "Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump," and that "there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government." Franken: "If it's true it's obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?" So, in that context, relating to the campaign, Senator Sessions answers as follows: "I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communication with the Russians." It turns out that Mr. Sessions, as a Senator, did have two conversations with the Russian Ambassador. One, at the Republican convention, where they had a brief conversation. The other was in Sessions' Senate office, with two of his aides present - hardly the place to have a surreptitious meeting; and nothing like the basements of parking structures where Woodward and Bernstein would meet with "deep throat" during their investigation of the Watergate scandal. Nevertheless, it clearly would have been preferable if Sessions had simply said "as a Senator, I speak with many foreign officials, and as a Senator I did speak twice with the Russian Ambassador."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said: "Because the Department of Justice should be above reproach, for the good of the country, Attorney General Sessions should resign." It's a shame that Schumer did not feel that way when Obama was President and Loretta Lynch was the Attorney General. When asked about Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton, while her department had Hillary Clinton under investigation, Schumer opined: "She (Lynch) has said nothing was discussed related to the investigation. So you have two choices - to say this didn't matter, or she's lying. I think it didn't matter. I don't think she's lying." Of course, lying is not the issue now. No, it's "above reproach." Two AGs, two standards. And yet another attempt to have another Trump appointee removed from his post.
The 3/3/17 USA Today printed an opinion piece by Jason Sattler, described as a member of the paper's Board of Contributors. The headline was: "Democrats, Time to Talk Impeachment." I have already seen Democratic Congressmen on TV, calling for Trump's impeachment. One member of the Democratic National Committee (Gilda Cobb-Hunter) apparently said this: "You have someone (Trump) trying to erase your (Obama's) legacy. You have to do all that you can to make sure that doesn't happen." "...do all that you can..." Is it just a coincidence that the Obamas are leasing a house in Washington, D.C., in addition to the home they purchased in Rancho Mirage, California? Is it just a coincidence that "Obama for America" is now "Organizing for America?" Did anyone really believe that Obama would not interfere with Trump, the way Bush refused to criticize or speak out against Obama?
But Obama is not alone. His last Attorney General, the aforementioned Loretta Lynch, recently made a video. Here is what she said: "I know that this is a time of great fear and uncertainty for so many people. I know it's a time of concern for people, who see our rights being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back. I know that this is difficult, but I remind you that this has never been easy. We have always had to work to move this country forward to achieve the great ideals of our Founding Fathers. It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who have made the difference. They've marched, they've bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again."
What is she talking about? It was Obama who spied on reporter James Rosen and his family. It was Obama who spied on the AP. It was Obama who used the IRS to target conservative individuals and groups. And it was Lynch who threatened to prosecute otherwise protected speech - if directed against Islam or Muslims. Does it not sound like Lynch is now calling for violence in the streets? Because of what? What has Trump done that would warrant this type of reaction?
Another former official in the Obama Administration, Rosa Brooks, who worked at the D.O.D., just recently wrote a piece for Foreign Policy magazine. Brooks: "Donald Trump's first week as President has made it all too clear: yes, he is as crazy as everyone feared." After Trump was President for only one week she was prepared to ask: "Are we truly stuck with Donald Trump?" Then, she gave the options. One, wait for the 2020 elections. Two, impeachment. Three, invoke the 25th Amendment. That Amendment allows the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to declare the President unfit for office, with the result being that the VP becomes Acting President. And the last option given by Brooks: "The fourth possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders." A military coup. Like Lynch, Brooks is also an attorney, and is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
No, I do not need to be a conspiracy theorist at all to see that something very serious is happening. The constant barrage of news stories filled with innuendo and allegations, but little hard facts. The premature calls for Trump's impeachment - by the media and Democratic officials. And the call for what seems like rioting in the streets and a military coup by two lawyers who worked for Obama. Does Trump, at times, say some crazy things? Yes, but not as crazy as what appears to be a call for a civil war in this country.
When the Watergate scandal was initially being investigated by the Washington Post about 45 years ago, most of the stories were buried somewhere deep in the paper. Now, notwithstanding no conclusive evidence of any wrongdoing or criminal activity by Trump or his people, the stories (allegations) are readily splashed across the front pages of most major newspapers. Why? Question: what motivated the Obama Administration, only days before Obama left office, to allow the sharing of raw intelligence data gathered by the NSA with all the other (16) intelligence agencies. The greater the access to that data, the greater the likelihood of leaks. And, not surprisingly, leaks there have been: from our President's telephone conversations with the Mexican President and the Australian Prime Minister, to the illegal release of Michael Flynn's name, while Flynn had a telephone conversation with the Russian Ambassador. The surveillance of foreign government officials on US soil is no surprise. However, the names of Americans involved in such conversations are to be redacted - it is illegal to release American's names.
On January 20, the day of Trump's inauguration, the front page of the New York Times had this headline: "Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry Of Trump Aides." What an interesting headline. The article found no evidence of wrongdoing; and the Times subsequently deleted "wiretapped" from the headline. But, why was this a front page story? If there was no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, and no actual wiretapping of Trump aides, what point was the Times trying to make here? Or, was it just part of a concerted effort to bring an abrupt end to the Trump Presidency? Was it just coincidental that the day after Trump's well received speech to Congress that the Washington Post prints the story about Jeff Sessions communications with the Russian Ambassador?
During Sessions' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Al Franken tells Sessions that CNN just published a report that "Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump," and that "there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government." Franken: "If it's true it's obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?" So, in that context, relating to the campaign, Senator Sessions answers as follows: "I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communication with the Russians." It turns out that Mr. Sessions, as a Senator, did have two conversations with the Russian Ambassador. One, at the Republican convention, where they had a brief conversation. The other was in Sessions' Senate office, with two of his aides present - hardly the place to have a surreptitious meeting; and nothing like the basements of parking structures where Woodward and Bernstein would meet with "deep throat" during their investigation of the Watergate scandal. Nevertheless, it clearly would have been preferable if Sessions had simply said "as a Senator, I speak with many foreign officials, and as a Senator I did speak twice with the Russian Ambassador."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said: "Because the Department of Justice should be above reproach, for the good of the country, Attorney General Sessions should resign." It's a shame that Schumer did not feel that way when Obama was President and Loretta Lynch was the Attorney General. When asked about Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton, while her department had Hillary Clinton under investigation, Schumer opined: "She (Lynch) has said nothing was discussed related to the investigation. So you have two choices - to say this didn't matter, or she's lying. I think it didn't matter. I don't think she's lying." Of course, lying is not the issue now. No, it's "above reproach." Two AGs, two standards. And yet another attempt to have another Trump appointee removed from his post.
The 3/3/17 USA Today printed an opinion piece by Jason Sattler, described as a member of the paper's Board of Contributors. The headline was: "Democrats, Time to Talk Impeachment." I have already seen Democratic Congressmen on TV, calling for Trump's impeachment. One member of the Democratic National Committee (Gilda Cobb-Hunter) apparently said this: "You have someone (Trump) trying to erase your (Obama's) legacy. You have to do all that you can to make sure that doesn't happen." "...do all that you can..." Is it just a coincidence that the Obamas are leasing a house in Washington, D.C., in addition to the home they purchased in Rancho Mirage, California? Is it just a coincidence that "Obama for America" is now "Organizing for America?" Did anyone really believe that Obama would not interfere with Trump, the way Bush refused to criticize or speak out against Obama?
But Obama is not alone. His last Attorney General, the aforementioned Loretta Lynch, recently made a video. Here is what she said: "I know that this is a time of great fear and uncertainty for so many people. I know it's a time of concern for people, who see our rights being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back. I know that this is difficult, but I remind you that this has never been easy. We have always had to work to move this country forward to achieve the great ideals of our Founding Fathers. It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who have made the difference. They've marched, they've bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again."
What is she talking about? It was Obama who spied on reporter James Rosen and his family. It was Obama who spied on the AP. It was Obama who used the IRS to target conservative individuals and groups. And it was Lynch who threatened to prosecute otherwise protected speech - if directed against Islam or Muslims. Does it not sound like Lynch is now calling for violence in the streets? Because of what? What has Trump done that would warrant this type of reaction?
Another former official in the Obama Administration, Rosa Brooks, who worked at the D.O.D., just recently wrote a piece for Foreign Policy magazine. Brooks: "Donald Trump's first week as President has made it all too clear: yes, he is as crazy as everyone feared." After Trump was President for only one week she was prepared to ask: "Are we truly stuck with Donald Trump?" Then, she gave the options. One, wait for the 2020 elections. Two, impeachment. Three, invoke the 25th Amendment. That Amendment allows the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to declare the President unfit for office, with the result being that the VP becomes Acting President. And the last option given by Brooks: "The fourth possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders." A military coup. Like Lynch, Brooks is also an attorney, and is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
No, I do not need to be a conspiracy theorist at all to see that something very serious is happening. The constant barrage of news stories filled with innuendo and allegations, but little hard facts. The premature calls for Trump's impeachment - by the media and Democratic officials. And the call for what seems like rioting in the streets and a military coup by two lawyers who worked for Obama. Does Trump, at times, say some crazy things? Yes, but not as crazy as what appears to be a call for a civil war in this country.
Saturday, March 4, 2017
A "Renewal of the American Spirit"
That is what President Trump called for in his speech to a Joint Session of Congress on 2/28/17. The speech was positive and uplifting, and for the first time in eight years I felt like I was listening to a President who truly loves this country. The speech focused primarily on domestic policy issues.
Trump started with a condemnation of "hate and evil in all its forms." Some Democrats did not see fit to applaud or stand up for that sentiment. He spoke of having an aggressive strategy to dismantle the cartels and criminal gangs in this country. I have no idea why that would not be a non-partisan issue. He talked about defending the country from "radical Islamic terrorism," three words that never left the mouth of Barack Obama during his eight years in office.
Whereas Obama spoke of wanting to "degrade and defeat" ISIS, Trump wants the DOD to develop a plan to "demolish and destroy" ISIS. He reaffirmed our support for NATO, as well for the "unbreakable bond" that exists between the United States and Israel. Trump said that he was forming an alliance with Canada to help women entrepreneurs "gain access to the "networks, markets and capital" needed to start a business.
He asked Congress to develop legislation that would fund school choice, specifically mentioning millions of African-American and Latino children. Such a proposal is not supported by the Democrats, because much of their support comes from the teachers' unions, who oppose such proposals. While this writer supports teachers, I do not feel the same about teachers' unions. Many Democrats failed to stand for much of the above proposals, which can only be a result of their ongoing attempt to undermine the Trump Presidency and effectuate a coup. (See the next post.)
More controversial was the expected proposal to repeal and replace the ACA/Obamacare. Some argue that the Republicans should simply allow Obamacare to fail on its own. However, the Republicans made a promise to the people who elected them, and now they need to follow through on that promise. Of course, Trump also talked about improving the economy and bringing back jobs and businesses. More controversial from conservatives' point of view is his plan to invest one trillion dollars on infrastructure. Also, Trump wants to rebuild our military, starting with 54 billion dollars in additional defense spending.
In one of the most moving movements of any Presidential address, Trump introduced Carryn Owens, widow of Navy Seal William "Ryan" Owens, who was killed in a recent operation in Yemen. I understand that there are people who believe that no President should bring any individual to their speeches to Congress, allowing them to tell that person's story, and in the process getting sympathy and support for the President's proposed policies. However, this brave woman was there, and it was understandably a difficult moment for her. The sacrifice made by her, her family and, of course, her husband in the service to this country was deserving of complete and total respect.
That some Democrats were unwilling to stand and show respect and support for this woman was unimaginable. That some commentators later mocked her for being "used" by Trump...well, there is something very wrong with people like that. This blog is an intellectual discussion of issues, without the use of four-letter words or name calling. (I have, rarely, said "moron.") But the people who disrespected Carryn Owens and her husband's service to our country are, simply, disgusting human beings.
Needless to say, the mainstream media was not impressed. Many did give Trump credit for having a more uplifting speech than his inaugural speech. Otherwise, total criticism. The New York Times editorial about the speech was entitled "The Missing Commander in Chief." In case you thought they would give credit to Trump for wanting to help minority children, for wanting to help women entrepreneurs and for wanting to make our country safer, well, you were dreaming. The NY Times complained that Trump did not sufficiently discuss the threat from ISIS - apparently they need more details about "demolish and destroy," but were perfectly fine with Obama's plan to "degrade and defeat." They wanted Trump to talk about Russia and China and Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria.
Let's be perfectly clear. If Trump had focused on foreign policy, the NY Times would have complained that he ignored all the social and domestic issues affecting our country. And is it not ironic that the Times is focused on foreign policy now that Obama is out of office. Obama, who told the Russians he would have more "flexibility" after his reelection, after which Putin took over the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Obama, whose Secretary of State had her ridiculous "reset" button with Russia. Obama, who drew a red line in the sand with Syria, then denied he ever did so. Obama, who prematurely withdrew American forces from Iraq, allowing for the rise of ISIS. Obama, who sold out our main Middle East ally, Israel, at the United Nations. Obama was one Commander in Chief that the country will not miss.
The Los Angeles Times had a different, albeit still critical, take on the speech. For them, Trump shifted from domestic needs to a focus on growing the military. In other words, these two news outlets looked for something they could criticize, while seeing nothing they could praise, in Trump's speech. There was one thing upon which these two papers could agree: Trump "has no clue" as to the nation's best interests (LA Times), and is "clueless" as to America's role in the world (NY Times). Actually, it was Obama who developed the "lead from behind" strategy, not believing in America's leadership role in the world. It was Trump who said "our allies will find that America is once again ready to lead." But maybe these newspapers forget. More likely, they are lacking in intellectual honesty, with their emphasis being on their left-wing agenda, not a fair and truthful analysis.
Trump started with a condemnation of "hate and evil in all its forms." Some Democrats did not see fit to applaud or stand up for that sentiment. He spoke of having an aggressive strategy to dismantle the cartels and criminal gangs in this country. I have no idea why that would not be a non-partisan issue. He talked about defending the country from "radical Islamic terrorism," three words that never left the mouth of Barack Obama during his eight years in office.
Whereas Obama spoke of wanting to "degrade and defeat" ISIS, Trump wants the DOD to develop a plan to "demolish and destroy" ISIS. He reaffirmed our support for NATO, as well for the "unbreakable bond" that exists between the United States and Israel. Trump said that he was forming an alliance with Canada to help women entrepreneurs "gain access to the "networks, markets and capital" needed to start a business.
He asked Congress to develop legislation that would fund school choice, specifically mentioning millions of African-American and Latino children. Such a proposal is not supported by the Democrats, because much of their support comes from the teachers' unions, who oppose such proposals. While this writer supports teachers, I do not feel the same about teachers' unions. Many Democrats failed to stand for much of the above proposals, which can only be a result of their ongoing attempt to undermine the Trump Presidency and effectuate a coup. (See the next post.)
More controversial was the expected proposal to repeal and replace the ACA/Obamacare. Some argue that the Republicans should simply allow Obamacare to fail on its own. However, the Republicans made a promise to the people who elected them, and now they need to follow through on that promise. Of course, Trump also talked about improving the economy and bringing back jobs and businesses. More controversial from conservatives' point of view is his plan to invest one trillion dollars on infrastructure. Also, Trump wants to rebuild our military, starting with 54 billion dollars in additional defense spending.
In one of the most moving movements of any Presidential address, Trump introduced Carryn Owens, widow of Navy Seal William "Ryan" Owens, who was killed in a recent operation in Yemen. I understand that there are people who believe that no President should bring any individual to their speeches to Congress, allowing them to tell that person's story, and in the process getting sympathy and support for the President's proposed policies. However, this brave woman was there, and it was understandably a difficult moment for her. The sacrifice made by her, her family and, of course, her husband in the service to this country was deserving of complete and total respect.
That some Democrats were unwilling to stand and show respect and support for this woman was unimaginable. That some commentators later mocked her for being "used" by Trump...well, there is something very wrong with people like that. This blog is an intellectual discussion of issues, without the use of four-letter words or name calling. (I have, rarely, said "moron.") But the people who disrespected Carryn Owens and her husband's service to our country are, simply, disgusting human beings.
Needless to say, the mainstream media was not impressed. Many did give Trump credit for having a more uplifting speech than his inaugural speech. Otherwise, total criticism. The New York Times editorial about the speech was entitled "The Missing Commander in Chief." In case you thought they would give credit to Trump for wanting to help minority children, for wanting to help women entrepreneurs and for wanting to make our country safer, well, you were dreaming. The NY Times complained that Trump did not sufficiently discuss the threat from ISIS - apparently they need more details about "demolish and destroy," but were perfectly fine with Obama's plan to "degrade and defeat." They wanted Trump to talk about Russia and China and Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria.
Let's be perfectly clear. If Trump had focused on foreign policy, the NY Times would have complained that he ignored all the social and domestic issues affecting our country. And is it not ironic that the Times is focused on foreign policy now that Obama is out of office. Obama, who told the Russians he would have more "flexibility" after his reelection, after which Putin took over the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Obama, whose Secretary of State had her ridiculous "reset" button with Russia. Obama, who drew a red line in the sand with Syria, then denied he ever did so. Obama, who prematurely withdrew American forces from Iraq, allowing for the rise of ISIS. Obama, who sold out our main Middle East ally, Israel, at the United Nations. Obama was one Commander in Chief that the country will not miss.
The Los Angeles Times had a different, albeit still critical, take on the speech. For them, Trump shifted from domestic needs to a focus on growing the military. In other words, these two news outlets looked for something they could criticize, while seeing nothing they could praise, in Trump's speech. There was one thing upon which these two papers could agree: Trump "has no clue" as to the nation's best interests (LA Times), and is "clueless" as to America's role in the world (NY Times). Actually, it was Obama who developed the "lead from behind" strategy, not believing in America's leadership role in the world. It was Trump who said "our allies will find that America is once again ready to lead." But maybe these newspapers forget. More likely, they are lacking in intellectual honesty, with their emphasis being on their left-wing agenda, not a fair and truthful analysis.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Trump and the Press
The latest controversy involving President Trump concerns his comments about "fake news" being the enemy of the people. Is the left overreacting yet again, or do we have a serious issue? In blog posts last month and this month, I have shown the overreaction, and/or application of the double standard, to all things Trump - his "dark" inaugural speech, his "un-American" immigration policy, and his "illegitimate" ability to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, having "stolen" that seat from Obama.
Let's start with this - most (all?) Presidents have had issues the press. And for those who may not recall it, the Obama Administration attacked Fox News from the very beginning of Obama's term in office. Obama sent his top advisers to the Sunday talk shows in an effort to delegitimize Fox News. Obama's Communications Director, Anita Dunn, said Fox was an "arm of the Republican Party," and not a legitimate news organization. Top political adviser, David Axelrod, said Fox was "not really a news station," telling George Stephanopolous of ABC that "other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way."
Then, we had Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, assert that Fox "is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." Emanuel added: "more importantly is not to have the CNNs and others in the world basically be led by Fox." Obama's Executive Pay Czar (yes, there was such a position), Ken Feinberg, gave interviews to the White House "pool" news organizations - but would not invite Fox. Anita Dunn, again: "We're going to treat them (Fox) the way we would an opponent...As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."
Obama: "I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my Administration." And on the White House web site at the time: "For even more Fox lies, check out the latest 'Truth-O-Meter' feature from Politifact..." The Obama Administration was sufficiently successful in its attacks on Fox, that this writer would frequently see bumper stickers with these words: "Ban Fox News." So, let's be honest. That was the goal of Obama - if he could not ban Fox, he could, at times, have his Administration exclude them, and seek to convince the American people that Fox was an enemy of his Administration.
The questions we ought to be asking need to consider this - Obama had virtually the entire mainstream media behind him, all the major newspapers, the network television stations, cable stations CNN and MSNBC. So why did he care about one station that did not support him? Was he that thin-skinned that he could not tolerate any criticism? Was it a dictatorial urge to shut down the one station that opposed him? Now, compare that to what Trump is facing - he has one station (Fox) that only partly supports him. It is clear that not all Fox hosts and commentators support Trump. But all the mainstream media outlets (the newspapers, the network television stations, the other cable stations) that supported Obama, now take daily aim at Trump and his Administration and policies.
The above does not suggest that Trump should get a free pass on everything he says about the media. Trump: "They (the media) shouldn't be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody's name. Let their name be put out there." Totally wrong! Anonymous and unnamed sources often provide valuable background to a story. Hopefully, today's media will not go forward with major news stories absent verification from a second or even third source (something we saw Woodward and Bernstein having to do in "All The President's Men"). But any suggestion that the media should somehow be regulated to require all sources be named would be a direct violation of the First Amendment, and any effort to impose such a rule must be vigorously fought.
Trump: "Fake news media knowingly doesn't tell the truth. A great danger to our country." This blog has made a similar point. I have commented that the "Fourth Estate," which holds a special, Constitutionally protected status, becomes a danger to our democracy when it consistently sides with one party, while consistently attacking and demonizing the other side. But when each new batch of journalists come from the same left-wing academic institutions, how much hope is there that we can expect them to hold both sides accountable when they abuse their power and positions? Obama and his people saw one news organization, Fox News, as an arm of the Republican Party. Those of us who are conservative view most of the mainstream media as an arm of the Democratic Party. And much of the American public agrees.
Trump also called "fake news" an "enemy" of the people. Would I have counseled that he use such language? No. Do I wish Trump was more circumspect and less careless in his use of language? Obviously. (See the first paragraph of the last post for confirmation of that.) But a large part of Trump's appeal is his willingness to fight back. He is not going to just sit there and take it when the mainstream media either lies, or applies the double standard against his policies - after previously praising the same or similar policies coming from Democrats. To borrow from Anita Dunn's comment, and replacing "Trump" for "Obama": "As they are undertaking a war against Donald Trump and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave." Fake news?
Let's start with this - most (all?) Presidents have had issues the press. And for those who may not recall it, the Obama Administration attacked Fox News from the very beginning of Obama's term in office. Obama sent his top advisers to the Sunday talk shows in an effort to delegitimize Fox News. Obama's Communications Director, Anita Dunn, said Fox was an "arm of the Republican Party," and not a legitimate news organization. Top political adviser, David Axelrod, said Fox was "not really a news station," telling George Stephanopolous of ABC that "other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way."
Then, we had Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, assert that Fox "is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." Emanuel added: "more importantly is not to have the CNNs and others in the world basically be led by Fox." Obama's Executive Pay Czar (yes, there was such a position), Ken Feinberg, gave interviews to the White House "pool" news organizations - but would not invite Fox. Anita Dunn, again: "We're going to treat them (Fox) the way we would an opponent...As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."
Obama: "I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my Administration." And on the White House web site at the time: "For even more Fox lies, check out the latest 'Truth-O-Meter' feature from Politifact..." The Obama Administration was sufficiently successful in its attacks on Fox, that this writer would frequently see bumper stickers with these words: "Ban Fox News." So, let's be honest. That was the goal of Obama - if he could not ban Fox, he could, at times, have his Administration exclude them, and seek to convince the American people that Fox was an enemy of his Administration.
The questions we ought to be asking need to consider this - Obama had virtually the entire mainstream media behind him, all the major newspapers, the network television stations, cable stations CNN and MSNBC. So why did he care about one station that did not support him? Was he that thin-skinned that he could not tolerate any criticism? Was it a dictatorial urge to shut down the one station that opposed him? Now, compare that to what Trump is facing - he has one station (Fox) that only partly supports him. It is clear that not all Fox hosts and commentators support Trump. But all the mainstream media outlets (the newspapers, the network television stations, the other cable stations) that supported Obama, now take daily aim at Trump and his Administration and policies.
The above does not suggest that Trump should get a free pass on everything he says about the media. Trump: "They (the media) shouldn't be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody's name. Let their name be put out there." Totally wrong! Anonymous and unnamed sources often provide valuable background to a story. Hopefully, today's media will not go forward with major news stories absent verification from a second or even third source (something we saw Woodward and Bernstein having to do in "All The President's Men"). But any suggestion that the media should somehow be regulated to require all sources be named would be a direct violation of the First Amendment, and any effort to impose such a rule must be vigorously fought.
Trump: "Fake news media knowingly doesn't tell the truth. A great danger to our country." This blog has made a similar point. I have commented that the "Fourth Estate," which holds a special, Constitutionally protected status, becomes a danger to our democracy when it consistently sides with one party, while consistently attacking and demonizing the other side. But when each new batch of journalists come from the same left-wing academic institutions, how much hope is there that we can expect them to hold both sides accountable when they abuse their power and positions? Obama and his people saw one news organization, Fox News, as an arm of the Republican Party. Those of us who are conservative view most of the mainstream media as an arm of the Democratic Party. And much of the American public agrees.
Trump also called "fake news" an "enemy" of the people. Would I have counseled that he use such language? No. Do I wish Trump was more circumspect and less careless in his use of language? Obviously. (See the first paragraph of the last post for confirmation of that.) But a large part of Trump's appeal is his willingness to fight back. He is not going to just sit there and take it when the mainstream media either lies, or applies the double standard against his policies - after previously praising the same or similar policies coming from Democrats. To borrow from Anita Dunn's comment, and replacing "Trump" for "Obama": "As they are undertaking a war against Donald Trump and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave." Fake news?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)