Tag: biased media

Categories
Quick Analysis

One-Sided Harshness

There has been much written about how harsh American politics has become.  The fact exists that the nastiness remains, for the most part, one-sided.  Despite the wailing over President Trump’s tweets, the lion’s share of the vitriolic comments, and the radical positions, come from the Left.   In contrast, the Right has been comparatively restrained in its descriptions of the increasingly extreme and dangerous comments and positions emanating from the Progressive side.

Consider the extraordinary ideas pushed recently by Democrats.  The late Rep. John Dingle, (D-Michigan) shortly before his passing, advocated abolishing the United States Senate. There has also been considerable advocacy on the left for eliminating the Electoral College. Those acts, alone, would fundamentally alter the entire governing structure of the Constitution. The motive for restructuring the most successful republic in world history is not based on any profound practical or intellectual complaint. It comes from a crass and cold calculation that a fundamental transformation from a federal system to one dominated by a central government would allow the left’s centers of power, the large cities, to essentially monopolize power.

It would also be a crucial step in allowing socialism to flourish. That political/economic system, in its hundred-year existence, has failed in every jurisdiction it has been tried across the globe, and resulted in political tyranny and increased poverty.  The most recent example is Venezuela, and the many American leftists who hailed the leadership of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro have yet to face substantial criticism by the left-friendly media. The label “extremist” is not frequently used against its advocates.

Positions against religion have been taken, including the rapid growth and acceptability of anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party, the attack on First Amendment rights of religious institutions (seen in the mandates of Obamacare,) and the sharp questioning of Catholic nominees for judicial positions by Senators such as Diane Feinstein (D-Ca.), Kamala Harris (D-Ca.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) who have implied that followers of that religion may not be fit for the bench have become commonplace.

Noah Freldman, writing in Bloomberg stressed that “Senator Dianne Feinstein owes a public apology to judicial nominee Amy Coney Barrett — and an explanation to all Americans who condemn religious bias. During Barrett’s confirmation hearings…before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Feinstein, the California Democrat, insinuated an anti-Catholic stereotype that goes back at least 150 years in the U.S. — that Catholics are unable to separate church and state because they place their religious allegiances before their oath to the Constitution.”

However, some rx viagra of the side effects it can have are: Increased blood pressure, Diarrhea Stomach upset, Headache Vision impairment, Effect on the hearing capacity of a person, Flushing of the face, Priapism. Explaining Nighttime Sweats Mainly because the factors of nights viagra from usa sweats may be the symptom of the extra significant physical circumstance, it may possibly also be the result of erectile dysfunction. The little blue pill is strictly advised not to take the Tadalfil as this may levitra sales online affect the blood pressure. Platelets are blood cells that are naturally created in online viagra no prescription the bone marrow.

Steve Cortes, writing in Real Clear Politics  reported: Sens. Mazie Hirono and Kamala Harris, in written questions to District Court judge nominee Brian Buescher, challenged his suitability for the bench because he belongs to [The Knights of Columbus.]  Hirono claimed that the Knights have taken “extreme positions” such as affirming Catholic belief in traditional marriage and even asked Buescher, ‘If confirmed, do you intend to end your membership with this organization to avoid any appearance of bias?’…Harris wrote that ‘the Knights of Columbus, an all-male society comprised of primarily Catholic men … opposes a woman’s right to choose.’ Anyone who further dares to personally embrace longstanding Christian doctrine on the sanctity of life, including the unborn, should also seek employment outside of the federal bench.  Such anti-Catholic bias represents not just a discriminatory affront, but also an unconstitutional religious litmus test for appointees…”

The most basic concepts of the Bill of Rights have been targeted by Progressive politicians and advocates. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) called for restrictions on the First Amendment. Democrat lawmakers in Hawaii seek to abolish the Second Amendment.

Perhaps most profoundly, Progressives have advocated for eliminating the very concept of U.S. citizenship. H.R. 1, introduced by Rep. Sarbanes (D-Maryland) would protect jurisdictions that allow illegal aliens to cast votes. It passed with near-unanimous support by House Democrats (but will not survive in the U.S. Senate.)

It cannot escape notice that even as deeply radical concepts are pushed by the left, they are hardly ever characterized by the media as “extreme.”  That label seems to be reserved for moderates and conservatives who generally seek to merely preserve the traditional practices of America’s governing structure, its economic system, and societal norms.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Hysteria vs. The White House: What’s Different This Time

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government places the media criticism of the Trump White House in perspective, and defines why the actions against the current White House are unique.

Pundits portray the extensive criticism of President Trump as an unusual event, an occurrence if not unprecedented than certainly unique in its extremity. The point a rather biased press seeks to convey is that, in their perception, the 45th President of The United States is an advocate of policies that are particularly dangerous, and hence inspires an exceptional level of condemnation.

It is a venerable historical tradition.

The bulk of the media banks heavily on its belief that the American public suffers with a minute lack of historical knowledge, and retains little memory beyond events of the past year or so. It is aided in this effort both by an academic curriculum that is woefully lacking in adequate teaching of U.S. history, and social media search engines that tend to downplay results that are contrary to the prevailing press mindset.

Media coverage of the Obama Administration was overwhelmingly favorable, indeed, almost fawning.  The limited exceptions included only conservative talk radio, Fox News, and a very limited number of other outlets.  This occurred despite that Administration’s extraordinary failures in foreign policy, its steps which prevented the U.S. economy from recovering from the Great Recession, the enhanced suffering of the middle class, its detrimental impact on race relations, and its unprecedented scandals,(including its use of the IRS to attack political opponents,) its attempts to ignore First Amendment protections (particularly in regard to those disagreeing with the White House on climate change,) its false statements in regard to Benghazi, and the bizarre sale of uranium interests to Russia.

But contrast that with what could accurately be described as the outright hatred displayed by the Fourth Estate for Obama’s immediate predecessor, George W. Bush.  It was so extreme that the term, Bush Derangement Syndrome, (BDS) was coined by the distinguished columnist and psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer. He defined BDS as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush” … Krauthammer outlined how the attacks were based more on emotion than logic. In his book, “Things That Matter,” he cites examples of the level of hysteria reached by Bush opponents, including defining the 43rd President as a Frankenstein-like figure.

For someone who is having erectile dysfunction, it is good to learn how the body tadalafil in india may be changed forever. If both parents have recurrent mouth ulcers, their children, 80% to 90% genetic. http://valsonindia.com/viagra-1498.html purchase viagra It is second generic viagra cialis version of sildenafil citrate brought a remarkable revolution to treat men’s erectile dysfunction. This drug product functions as an anti- impotent medicinal drug which leads for enormous efforts of overcoming the circumstances experienced by the males. viagra samples viagra samples report Using hyperbolic language, inaccurate statements, and emotional rather than intellectual appeals has become something of a regular tactic, used far more effectively by the Left in presidential matters.

Today, President Ronald Reagan has become an iconic figure.  Although arguably one of the most conservative U.S. presidents, he is now regularly invoked by politicians of all stripes.  Even the most progressive president in U.S. history, Barack Obama, at times invoked Reagan’s example.  But it was not always so.  The media portrayed Reagan as likely to start World War Three, and, for good measure, also likely to destroy the U.S. economy.

Outlandish criticism is nothing new in presidential politics.

Perhaps the most salient example of over-the-top criticism of U.S. Presidents can be seen in the treatment of Abraham Lincoln.  The historical site Civil War.org  provides this example:

“’The illustrious Honest Old Abe has continued during the last week to make a fool of himself and to mortify and shame the intelligent people of this great nation. His speeches have demonstrated the fact that although originally a Herculean rail splitter and more lately a whimsical story teller and side splitter, he is no more capable of becoming a statesman, nay, even a moderate one, than the braying ass can become a noble lion. People now marvel how it came to pass that Mr. Lincoln should have been selected as the representative man of any party. His weak, wishy-washy, namby-pamby efforts, imbecile in matter, disgusting in manner, have made us the laughing stock of the whole world. The European powers will despise us because we have no better material out of which to make a President. The truth is, Lincoln is only a moderate lawyer and in the larger cities of the Union could pass for no more than a facetious pettifogger. Take him from his vocation and he loses even these small characteristics and indulges in simple twaddle which would disgrace a well bred school boy.’ this tirade was not the rant of a fire-eating secessionist editor in Richmond or New Orleans. It was the declaration of the Salem Advocate, a newspaper printed in Lincoln’s home ground of central Illinois…At the time he was sworn in, Lincoln’s ‘approval rating’ can be estimated by examining wintertime Republican losses in local elections in Brooklyn, Cincinnati, Cleveland and St. Louis, and state elections in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island; by the observations of Henry Adams (of the presidential Adamses) that ‘not a third of the House’ supported him; and by the published reckoning of the New York Herald that only 1 million of the 4.7 million who voted in November were still with him. All these indications put his support in the nation at about 25 percent — roughly equivalent to the lowest approval ratings recorded by modern-day polling.”

The Report Concludes Tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Journalism Loses its Way, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its two-part examination of how deeply biased journalism has come.

 

Examples of bias against candidate Trump were abundant.  Just a few examples: Public Integrity describes:

“New Yorker television critic Emily Nussbaum, a newly minted Pulitzer Prize winner, spent the Republican National Convention pen-pricking presidential nominee Donald Trump as a misogynist shyster running an ‘ugly and xenophobic campaign.’ What Nussbaum didn’t disclose in her dispatches: she contributed $250 to Democrat Hillary Clinton in April…Carole Simpson, a former ABC “World News Tonight” anchor who in 1992 became the first African-American woman to moderate a presidential debate, is not moderate about her personal politics: the current Emerson College distinguished journalist-in-residence and regular TV news guest has given Clinton $2,800.” The vast majority of journalist who supported either candidate supported Clinton, according to Public Integrity. “In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis. Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.”

Fox News has generally been viewed as more conservative outlet, and was regularly criticized by former President Obama. In the aftermath of the 2016 campaign, it reported:

Around 26 out of 35 men were given Rhodiola Rosea for three months and they experienced enhanced erectile function. levitra price appalachianmagazine.com These days, there are not, and a couple can have multiple orgasms. cialis prescription pills are the following: Blocked nasal passage. Aged people may be more sensitive to the side effects that the pill has are temporary and do not move on crowded roads till you begin to buy cialis australia continue reading for more info get control of everything. In addition to the same, American or Wisconsin grown ginseng is known for reducing cialis price online stress, treating diabetes, lowering blood sugar & cholesterol levels, promoting relaxation, and treating sexual dysfunction in ladies has not been proven as effective and safe treatment for all age of males. 3. “To most journalists, the election of Donald Trump is Mourning in America. Trump won despite a massive effort by the liberal media establishment to discredit and destroy him…The Stop Trump effort among journalists has played out in newspapers and on TV screens for months now. Just look at the broadcast networks: The Media Research Center analyzed the spin of ABC, CBS and NBC evening news coverage from July 29 through October 20, and found an astonishing 91% of the coverage was hostile to Trump. “The networks spent far more airtime airing the details of Trump’s controversies than trying to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for her scandals…It wasn’t just TV of course; this anti-Trump attitude permeated elite journalistic circles. Go back to May 4, when Trump clinched the GOP nomination by knocking off Ted Cruz and John Kasich in the Indiana primary. The gang on CBS This Morning greeted RNC chairman Reince Preibus with a copy of the New York Daily News; co-host Charlie Rose laughingly read him the headline: ‘It says, ‘Republican Party 1854-2016; Dearly beloved, we’re gathered here today to mourn the GOP. A once great political party killed by epidemic of Trump.’…Over the next six months, the Trump bashing reached epic levels. On MSNBC, host Lawrence O’Donnell derided Trump as an ‘imbecile candidate,’ while NPR’s Bob Garfield slammed him for ‘racism, xenophobia, misogyny, incitement, breathtaking ignorance on issues, both foreign and domestic, and a nuclear recklessness, reminiscent of a raving meth head with a machete on an episode of Cops.’ CBS Sunday Morning contributor Nancy Giles, on MSNBC in June, speculated that Trump was ‘clinically insane.’ MSNBC Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski floated the same smear in late August: ‘It’s time to hear from somebody in the mental health community…There’s not anybody at this table who doesn’t think he has some sort of problem.’

A Media Research Center report  provides an extraordinary example of bias: “Sneaky Russian influence in American politics is a huge story if it involves Republicans/Donald Trump, but a non-story if it involves Democrats/Hillary Clinton… The Hill published new information about Russian efforts to infiltrate the American uranium industry, including $31.3 million in payments to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a huge speaking fee delivered to Bill Clinton personally, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In eight days, the network evening news coverage of this story amount to a mere 20 seconds on ABC’s World News Tonight…But Bill Clinton’s big payday has generated ZERO network news coverage this week, and only a single reference on ABC’s This Week back in 2015, when the book Clinton Cash first disclosed the potential scandal.In fact, from April 2015 through [October 24] the Clinton/Uranium/Russia story has been granted only 3 minutes, 21 seconds of evening news coverage — less than one-half of one percent of the coverage doled out just this year to the conspiracy theories surrounding Trump and Russia…Combined, the three evening newscasts have aired a total of 5,015 minutes of coverage of the Trump administration since Inauguration Day, which means the Russia story alone has comprised almost exactly one-fifth of all Trump news this year.

Some media notables have spoken up. The Washington Times  reported that “Journalist Bob Woodward of Watergate fame has some advice for his younger peers — stop “binge drinking the anti-Trump Kool-Aid.”

Far too often, the argument over biased media is framed in terms of  Democrat vs. Republican, liberal vs. conservative. Lately, it has also included pro-Trump vs. “Never Trumpers.” That misses the point entirely.  Journalists are human, bound to have personal biases and developed points of view. What distinguishes the current state of the profession is the phenomenon of so many being of the same political mindset.

A vigorous and independent media is vital to the success of a free people. An abundance of perspectives and, most importantly, a devotion to truth, regardless of one’s own political biases, is desperately needed.  It is a need that is going largely unfilled by many media outlets.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Journalism Loses its Way

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government examines how deeply biased journalism has become in this two-part series.

What is the appropriate response to the biased and sloppy journalism that diligently sought to overturn the results of the 2016 election, and which ignored the offenses of the elected officials and appointees whom they supported?

Recent revelations have been truly extraordinary: It was Hillary Clinton’s campaign that “colluded” with Moscow. The Charges against the Trump campaign appear to be little more than an attempt to coverup unlawful surveillance by the Obama Administration. The Justice Department has apologized for its harassment, under the former President, of the Tea Party.  The FBI, under James Comey, squashed the Clinton email investigation. The Democrat National Committee inappropriately “fixed” the primary process to ensure that Bernie Sanders lost. In terms of the politicians and bureaucrats involved, Congress will investigate, the wheels of justice will turn.  But what of a media that intentionally or negligently propagated falsehoods?

A study by the Pew Research Center found that “Allegations about Russia and the 2016 election tied to Trump and his administration, as well as the White House’s relationship with Moscow, dominated stories on U.S.-Russia relations…, only about one-in-ten stories (11%) delivered an overall positive assessment of the [trump] administration’s words or actions. Four times as many (44%) offered a negative assessment, while the remaining 45% were neither positive nor negative.”  In total, the early coverage of the Trump Administration by the media was 62% negative versus only 5% positive.  That contrast sharply with the coverage of former President Obama’s coverage, which was 42% positive and only 20% negative.

A similar result was found by a Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy study, which noted that “Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president.”
This test evaluates blood flow purchasing viagra australia to the penis. cheap cialis for sale There are also reports of some erections, it became painful. Your cialis 20 mg bought that heart works well when you take more of chilies in your food. It usually occurs when a person suffers from prolonged improper posture or sudden twisting and turning of the spinal column. viagra in india online
Anthony Fisher reported for Reason about the coverage of the events surrounding President Trump’s inauguration. “One journalist…was Natasha Lennard, who penned a popular article for The Nation wherein she writes about how she actively participated in the ‘anti-capitalist, anti-fascist bloc’ which rejected ‘polite protest’ in favor of tactics such as ‘human blockades, smash[ing] corporate windows, trash-can fires, burning [a] limousine…”

Is it intentional bias or something else that has divorced accuracy from media reports? Politico notes that the outcome of the 2016 election, which most of the media was convinced would be a landslide victory for Clinton was “an outcome that arrived not just as an embarrassment for the press but as an indictment. In some profound way, the election made clear, the national media just doesn’t get the nation it purportedly covers…”  The website cites FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver, who pointed out that the ideological clustering in top newsrooms led to groupthink. ‘As of 2013, only 7 percent of [journalists] identified as Republicans,’ Silver wrote in March, chiding the press for its political homogeneity. Just after the election, presidential strategist Steve Bannon savaged the press on the same point but with a heartier vocabulary. ‘The media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what’s wrong with this country,’ Bannon said. ‘It’s just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no f***** idea what’s going on.”

The Federalist, in a Feburary 2017 article by Daniel Payne,  reported that “16 fake news stories reporters have run since Trump won…Since at least Donald Trump’s election, our media have been in the grip of an astonishing, self-inflicted crisis…there is no greater enemy of the American media than the American media. They did this to themselves…day after day, even hour after hour, the media continue to broadcast, spread, promulgate, publicize, and promote fake news on an industrial scale. It has become a regular part of our news cycle, not distinct from or extraneous to it but a part of it, embedded within the news apparatus as a spoke is embedded in a bicycle wheel… Why are our media so regularly and so profoundly debasing and beclowning themselves, lying to the public and sullying our national discourse—sometimes on a daily basis? How has it come to this point?”

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Shallowness of our National Conversation

America’s national conversation has gone astray.  Abandoning rational standards of discourse, evidence and facts, inflammatory statements go unchallenged by legislators and pundits intimidated by a media hierarchy that discourages journalistic standards because those plutocrats of information have become participants in, rather than reporters of, public affairs. The citizenry has taken to shouting bumper-sticker slogans at each other.

Perhaps no issue more openly illustrates this point than the NFL “take a knee” controversy. While an extraordinary level of attention has been paid to those engaging in the practice and President Trump’s response to it, little attention has been paid to questioning whether the underlying premise of the rather sophomoric gesture is accurate.  If the purpose of the action was to focus attention on the question of racism, the move has been a failure. The discussion has been all about the theatrics.

Mathew Walther, writing in the liberal publication The Week notes that “Outrage has become our national pastime. The only thing that could possibly make American political discourse in 2017 dumber would be if someone … decided to insist that President Trump’s comments about pro football were…actual grounds for his impeachment. To suggest that this … deserves formal censure and removal from office because he borrowed a typical boomer complaint about sports culture from the dowager empress of American liberalism [Hillary Clinton] would also be nothing short of sublime… In that sense, we all owe Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) a debt of gratitude for making this a reality … Green stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and announced that next week he intends to ‘call for the impeachment of the president of the United States of America’ and force a vote on the question…Green does not, of course, actually believe this … And that’s the problem. None of our conversations actually have anything to do with the things they are ostensibly about.”

But there is a levitra uk single scientific way to understand this health condition easily. It has been used for centuries by Brazilians for its http://greyandgrey.com/spanish/kevin-m-plante/ generic cialis without prescription ability to increase the blood flow in the muscles of the penis during sexual activity. Without a proper prescription and knowledge you might end up ordering for a wrong drug and hence gets dissolved in tadalafil sale the bloodstream easily. Also only one pill has to be taken in buying cialis in canada combination with any of the following medicines: astemizole cisapride terfenadine. Legislators are well schooled by professional handlers in the art and theatrics of electoral politics, but remain far less educated in the issues they must decide on once in office.  While the collection of organizations and individuals who specialize in training candidates on how to run for office share the blame, the principal responsibility rests with the media.  After all, it’s all about good publicity and how to get it, and that commodity rests solely in the hands of the media. Consider a debate between two candidates: Candidate A displays true passion and just oozes with emotion about a particular issue.  He proclaims that his heart truly rests with the people affected by the challenge. Candidate B coldly discusses the hard facts of the matter, based on hard and intense research, and offers a viable solution that may involve some discomfort but will solve the problem.  Guess who wins the contest?  Without a doubt, candidate A. A will be portrayed as sympathetic and caring by the press, despite not offering any realistic resolution. B will be cast as an unfeeling individual unworthy of support, despite the fact that B actually stands a chance of ending the dilemma.

The actions of many of our elected officials is juvenile, at best. In 2016, A number of House Democrats staged a sit-in on the floor of Congress, after losing a legislative battle.  Rather than retool their message and try again, they engaged in an Animal House-style collective temper tantrum.  In New York City, City Council Members kneeled down in support of football players who rather than use their significant fortunes and access to publicity on their own time to address the things that concern them, childishly disrespected the National Anthem. Many of those same Council Members who supposedly are concerned about racial equality, meanwhile, consistently oppose real solutions, such as charter schools and lower taxes for small businesses and struggling families, that really could produce results.

America’s faulty education system, along with our touchy-feely culture, shares a good portion of the blame. The hard-driving, sometimes rough-edged heroes of prior generations who explored a new world, drove out an overbearing monarch, settled the West, built the world’s most dynamic economy and beat enemies in two world wars are no longer in vogue. Both academics and Hollywood producers, to say nothing of political activists, will work overtime to find personal faults with those who actually accomplished something.  In their eyes, it would have been better if those champions had stayed home and spent their days getting in touch with their feelings.

Categories
Quick Analysis

A Revolt Against Biased News

Was the 2016 election a popular revolt against what many perceive to be a biased media?

During the Obama Administration, there was a tacit collusion between the White House and its ideological allies in the press, who overlooked major presidential failures in national security, terrorism, economic recovery, race relations and other areas, and an intentional lack of adequate coverage of scandals highlighted by the misuse of federal agencies for partisan purposes, most notably including the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice.

In return for the biased media’s downplaying of policy failures, the White House attacked rivals of its sympathetic left-wing press friends with an unprecedented vigor.

Newsworthy events of extraordinary interest were heavily downplayed by the major media. Examples include:

Obama-friendly officials on the Federal Communications Commission, in what may have been one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, initiated an effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving federal oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would have placed government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites, thereby hobbling opponents of the Administration.

Largely under-covered was the stunning legislation,  previously reported in the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, proposed by two Obama allies in the Senate, Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and Charles Schumer (D-New York). They proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee  Schumer stated that “”The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.”

Businesses employ custom embroidered patches too, often as a means to identify order cialis from india employees. This herb heals viagra uk the herpes lesions and also accelerates the healing process of wounds in venereal diseases. cialis from canadian pharmacy Feel rejuvenated and revitalised in everyday activities with shilajit gold capsules that can bring about a tremendous change in your life. One can never deny the fact that our bodies start to deteriorate once we cialis 5mg tablets reach a certain age. The contemptuous attitude towards the First Amendment could be seen in comments, also downplayed by media sources friendly to the President, by Federal Elections Commissioner, Ann Ravel, first reported in a Washington Examiner article. Ravel stated that “Upholding constitutional principles is not an appropriate role for a member of the Federal Election Commission. As noted previously in the New York Analysis of Policy and Government, The Democrat members of the Federal Election Commission attempted to impose a penalty on one news station that has been uniformly critical of the Obama Administration, based on a complaint from an obscure candidate that he wasn’t invited to a televised debate. Of course, those same commissioners have never considered imposing similar sanctions against the Democrat National Committee, which has inappropriately tilted towards Hillary Clinton in her primary effort against Bernie Sanders. The attempt was blocked by Republican Commissioners.

The tacit understanding between the Oval Office and the progressive-oriented mainstream media constituted one of the most significant threats against the First Amendment in U.S. history.  Attempts to suppress views contrary to the Obama Administration’s came from a number of sources.

Perhaps the most widely viewed and blatant example of media biased was seen in the 2012 presidential campaign. Candy Crowley, a reporter tasked with moderating a candidates debate between Obama and challenger Mitt Romney, abused her position and repeatedly attacked Romney.

The inappropriate bias over the past eight years was recently noted by Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes  in a Hollywood Reporter article. “The threat to the First Amendment came from the Democratic side,’ Bewkes said during a conversation with Business Insider CEO Henry Blodget at a conference in New York in a session that was webcast… the Democratic party had a campaign plank to change the First Amendment, and they were doing it in the guise of campaign finance reform.’ The CEO, continuing his theme, even acknowledged that the news media does, indeed, lean left, as conservatives have long complained. ‘That was worrying me more, because the press tends to miss that because they tend to lean that way, and therefore they were supporting what they were viewing, I think overly charitably, as something in cleaning up money in politics when in fact what it would do is restrain multiple voices…So, I thought the threat to the First Amendment came from the Democratic side more. I think there won’t be a serious effort on the Republican side.” Bewkes comments came in response to angry statements from President-elect Trump about media bias.

During the recent election, author David Limbaugh, quoted in Stream  noted: “I don’t know how reasonable people can fail to recognize the overt collusion of the Obama administration, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party and the liberal media to shield Hillary Clinton from accountability for her many misdeeds and abundant corruption.”

The Free Thought Project notes: “After only a cursory search using Wikileaks invaluable database, ‘The Podesta Emails’ reveal not only direct evidence of media coordination, but an attempt to alleviate the damage…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Voters Rebel Against White House-Media Collusion

The 2016 election may be seen as a popular revolt against the growing collusion of the elites in government and the media.

During the Obama Administration, there was a tacit collusion between the White House and its ideological allies in the press, who overlooked major presidential failures in national security, terrorism, economic recovery, race relations and other areas, as well as ignoring extraordinary scandals highlighted by the misuse of federal agencies for partisan purposes, most notably including the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice.

In return for the biased media’s downplaying of policy failures, the White House attacked rivals of its sympathetic left-wing press friends with an unprecedented vigor.

Democrat officials on the Federal Communications Commission, in what may have been one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, initiated an effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving federal oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would have placed government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites, thereby hobbling opponents of the Administration.

It came also in the form of legislation.  As previously reported in the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, two Democrat senators, Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and Charles Schumer (D-New York), proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee  Schumer stated that “”The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.”

The contemptuous attitude towards the First Amendment could be seen in comments by a Federal Elections Commissioner, Ann Ravel, reported in a Washington Examiner article. Ravel stated that Upholding constitutional principles is not an appropriate role for a member of the Federal Election Commission. As noted previously in the New York Analysis of Policy and Government,  the Democrat members of the Federal Election Commission attempted to impose a penalty on one news station that has been uniformly critical of the Obama Administration, based on a complaint from an obscure candidate that he wasn’t invited to a televised debate. Of course, those same commissioners have never considered imposing similar sanctions against the Democrat National Committee, which has inappropriately tilted towards Hillary Clinton in her primary effort against Bernie Sanders. The attempt was blocked by Republican Commissioners.
Mentat is currently available in the market as it has come with the hands of 20mg tadalafil prices . amerikabulteni.com generic cialis uk The solemn union of two hearts comes to you of no use if the cause happens like that. It levitra 40mg mastercard improves endurance, energy and offers effective cure for erectile dysfunction or male impotence. When it comes to ED problem, it has no linked with age and it can happen to men in any of http://amerikabulteni.com/2014/09/09/tarihin-en-buyuk-belediye-yolsuzlugu-2/ levitra online india those situations.
The tacit understanding between the Oval Office and the progressive-oriented mainstream media constituted one of the most significant threats against the First Amendment in U.S. history.  The extent of this is only now being openly discussed by some who maintained their silence during the past eight years. Attempts to suppress views contrary to the Obama Administration’s came from a number of sources.

The threat over the past eight years was recently noted by Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes  in a Hollywood Reporter article. “The threat to the First Amendment came from the Democratic side,’ Bewkes said during a conversation with Business Insider CEO Henry Blodget at a conference in New York in a session that was webcast… the Democratic party had a campaign plank to change the First Amendment, and they were doing it in the guise of campaign finance reform.’ The CEO, continuing his theme, even acknowledged that the news media does, indeed, lean left, as conservatives have long complained. ‘That was worrying me more, because the press tends to miss that because they tend to lean that way, and therefore they were supporting what they were viewing, I think overly charitably, as something in cleaning up money in politics when in fact what it would do is restrain multiple voices…So, I thought the threat to the First Amendment came from the Democratic side more. I think there won’t be a serious effort on the Republican side.” Bewkes comments came in response to angry statements from President-elect Trump about media bias.

During the recent election, author David Limbaugh, quoted in Stream noted: “I don’t know how reasonable people can fail to recognize the overt collusion of the Obama administration, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party and the liberal media to shield Hillary Clinton from accountability for her many misdeeds and abundant corruption.”

The Free Thought Project notes: “After only a cursory search using Wikileaks invaluable database, ‘The Podesta Emails’ reveal not only direct evidence of media coordination, but an attempt to alleviate the damage expected to be wrought by the impending 2015 release of [the Clinton Cash] book by Peter Schweizer”  titled: “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”

Despite domination of the airwaves, printed news sources,  and social media by left-leaning ownership, more counties voted Republican than at any time since the Reagan election.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Major Media Abandons Ethics

In analyzing presidential campaigns, a review of the quality of media reporting is vital. It’s the only practical avenue the public has to learn of the character and positions each candidate offers.

For several decades, the voters have been consistently ill-served by a biased press that, rather than fulfilling its ethical duty to objectively and accurately relay the views and qualities of those seeking office, abuses its position to further its own point of view.

While many past elections have seen inaccurate and biased coverage, this year’s combination of substantially failing to thoroughly examine the legal and ethical violations of Hillary Clinton, while reaching a frenzy of hysteria about the unusual style of Donald Trump, is in a class of its own.

Consider these two offerings from the August 29 edition of Time magazine:

From an essay by Eddie S. Claude Jr.: “…we have vomited up the likes of Donald Trump…”

The same issue contains this in a column by Joel Stein: “Old people aren’t good at voting…old people vote shortsightedly…[they are] more likely to vote for Donald Trump.”

As part of its standard and concerted effort to discredit candidates who don’t subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxy they adhere to, major media outlets have done almost everything in their power to portray the GOP candidate as an uninformed buffoon. While some explain this s a reaction to Trump’s unprecedented mode of campaigning and his politically incorrect mode of self-expression, even a cursory review of past presidential contests reveals a clear and consistent pattern of media character assassination of non-leftists contenders.
Over 30 million men in the US alone have some form of purchase cheap cialis http://greyandgrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/WTC-Monitoring-Program-Oct-2010.pdf ED or reduced sex drive. These stop signs are actually directing you to come to action? This medicine starts producing levitra 60 mg http://greyandgrey.com/kevin-m-plante/img_2122/ results within 1 hour. The generic formula works levitra generika probe super potential when it comes to fighting against male impotence. For the individual member to survive he has to pledge his allegiance to the organization. cheap sildenafil uk
Recall the over-the-top disdain the chattering class exhibited for George W. Bush. The hatred was so extreme that the phrase “Bush derangement syndrome” was coined to describe it. In the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney accurately discussed the failings of President Obama and Secretary Clinton in the Benghazi incident, and was roundly excoriated for his effort.  He was also lambasted and mocked for his equally correct description of the dangers posed by Russia. Ronald Reagan, in his first run as the GOP nominee, was wildly portrayed as a fanatic in domestic affairs, and a man who was eager start World War 3. Barry Goldwater, a conservative who ran in 1964, was subjected to openly slanderous charges of being eager to initiate the use of nuclear weapons.

This year, the inaccurate diatribes against the Republican candidate have been exceptionally effective due to the aquiesence by some old-guard Republicans, who are concerned that Trump, a political outsider, will upset their leadership structure.  Rather than rise to the defense of their own party’s nominee, they have joined the biased media’s chorus. Their concern is, for their self-interest, well-founded. The GOP rank and file has been furious at the somnolent reaction by those kahunas to President Obama’s roughshod treatment of the Constitution and U.S. national security.  The overthrow of House Speaker John Boehner was a precursor to the Trump primary victory.

In their eagerness to assist in the election of their preferred candidate, open, clear violations of intrinsic Constitutional rights and basic laws concerning free and fair elections have been given short-shrift. The media has barely mentioned the extraordinary use of committed and threatened violence by some well-funded groups in blocking access to Trump events. Little critical analysis has been aired about the outrageous opposition by the Democrat National Committee to attempts to prevent fraudulent voting. Supporters of Bernie Sanders provided one bit of fair play, however, although not to the degree it deserved. Clearly, the Democrat primary process was rigged to insure Clinton’s success, from underhanded vote counting to the abuse of Democrat National Committee resources for Clinton’s benefit. The media outcry when the DNC chair was forced to resign for her unethical action—and was immediately given a position on the Clinton campaign—barely reached ho-hum levels.

The biased media has barely mentioned Clinton’s stunning failure to provide a full-fledged press conference in a vast period of time.

All of the above pales in comparison to the most significant omissions on the part of the left-wing press.  The sheer scale of Ms. Clinton’s abuse of her position, her overtly pay for play manipulation of the U.S. State Department, and her stunning personal profiteering from the sale of the basic ingredient of nuclear weapons to Moscow should be non-stop headline news. Almost all of the traditional media have failed to dwell on these outrageous, in some cases Benedict-Arnold style acts, and, indeed, those who mention them are accused of partisanship. The meeting of Bill Clinton with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, followed by a statement that the Clinton camp was considering retaining her if they win, all of which led up the bizarre refusal to prosecute the Democrat candidate for extraordinary negligence in her handling of state secrets (an act which has consistently led to punishment for others) should have been the most explosive news story in decades.  It has hardly factored in the news, other than those few outlets which already were critical of her.

An important postscript: one of the few realms in which an open and vigorous exchange of viewpoints in the 2016 campaign occurs, the internet, is scheduled to be transferred from American control, which always insured free speech, to the control of an international body highly influenced by nations advocating censorship before the November election.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Assasination of Republican Front Runners

Donald Trump is no one’s idea of a perfect candidate.  He is blustery, short on specifics, and tall in hyperbole. He speaks harshly, egotistically, and is politically incorrect. It is difficult to support a candidate who provides so little details about his policy choices.

But he is not, in any way, the terror that the media and his political opposition portray. He reflects the very real frustration of a population tired of seeing their nation deteriorate by the day at the hands of an elitist and inept leadership (particularly at the White House level,) and being forced to accept that their children will be the first generation to do worse than their parents.

A reasonable case can be made that either of Trump’s GOP rivals could address these challenges  better than Trump. But while the media takes every opportunity to frame each of his comments as a solicitation for Armageddon, they go out of their way to ignore the horrifying record, ridiculous ideas, and overwhelming ethical violations of Hillary Clinton, and the nonsensical socialist policies of Bernie Sanders which have already failed in every venue in which they have been tried.

Let’s be clear on what is occurring. As the GOP front runner, Trump has a very large target on his back, the same as Chris Christie had much earlier when he appeared to have a significant edge. Back then, the media made more of Christie’s alleged “bridgegate” involvement (in which his appointees reportedly caused a traffic jam in revenge against a local mayor for a political quarrel) than they did about Clinton’s failed “reset” with Russia, her incompetence in Benghazi, or any other of her long history of policy failures and ethical failings.

It is reminiscent of the favorable, almost fawning, treatment John McCain received from the press, right up until the time it was clear that he was going to become the Republican nominee in 2008. Then it turned largely negative.

Almost no air time has been spent on the utterly disgraceful conspiracy by Soros and his outrageous Moveon.org to deprive the American people of the right to hear one of the candidates simply because they don’t like him.  That’s mob rule at its worst.

The major media have not only lost any sense of objectivity, they have interjected themselves into the process in a manner even worse than when one of their ilk, as a moderator in a presidential  debate between Romney and Obama, interjected herself into the 2012 race by openly tilting the forum against the GOP.

In 2016, they are, in essence, aiding and abetting the criminal actions of a well-financed and well organized mob to prevent the American voter from hearing the views of a candidate.
To pinpoint the source of female frustration, we consulted with best sex speviagra generika t in Delhi to get the condition diagnosed and treated. It is in this market that drugs like india viagra generic browse around for more Kamagra have taken anti-ED medications to a new level. Facing cashing with increase in household energy bills apply with buy viagra for cheap text loans and get quick remedy from urgent bills. Relationships are based on expectations and it also depends on how levitra 10 mg we fulfill our partner’s expectations.
Make no mistake: If Ted Cruz or John Kasich somehow overtake Trump and become the frontrunner, major media outlets will find a way of portraying them as the spawn of Satan.

The detractors of Trump today, Christie previously, and whoever is in the lead in the coming months are not limited to political opponents, the media, and the Soros/Moveon.org mobsters.

Any GOP frontrunner, whether it’s Trump claiming he wants to “Make America Great” or Cruz seeking to restore “Morning in America” or any candidate seeking to establish hope to the American people and return the U.S. to the pre-eminent position it held before the Obama wrecking crew got a hold of the country is a threat to those who have dedicated themselves to knocking the U.S. down as far it can go.

The Obama acolytes and would-be successors believe that America is evil and the aggressors in Russia, China, Iran and elsewhere are benign. They should be embarrassed at the devastation wrought upon the middle class, seniors, and youthful job seekers by their Progressive policies. They don’t want to allow candidates with viable solutions to demonstrate what a huge folly their leftist political agenda has been.

Trump, Cruz and Kasich may have uphill battles, but they can take comfort in knowing that their Progressive opponents  are sufficiently concerned about them that they have resorted to an unprecedented campaign of slander and in some cases violence to prevent them from moving forward.

It’s time that the voters, no matter who they support or whatever issues concern them most, reject the biased reporting of the media and the fascist tactics of the leftist extremists who seek to impose their will by lies and force.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Boehner’s resignation: the real reason

The popularly accepted explanation for House Speaker John Boehner’s resignation is that hard-core Republicans pushed him out of office.  The actual explanation is far more complicated.

As the 61st Speaker of the House of Representatives, Boehner’s main challenge, in the mantra of the popular press, was the right wing of the GOP.  There is little doubt, of course, that conservatives were dissatisfied with his performance. But the rational for his lackluster performance rests less with the internal squabbles of his own political party than with the partisanship of the media, which finds a way to turn almost every discussion of a key issue into a vehicle to attack anyone who disagrees with left-wing orthodoxy.

For slightly over two weeks during October of 2013, sharp disagreements between the Republican House of Representatives and the White House over passage of the next year’s budget led to an impasse, causing the government to “shut down.”  Many across the nation were dismayed that Mr. Obama had, through his 2009 “stimulus”  package, spent almost $800 billion dollars without producing an economic recovery. His 2011 “I can’t wait for Congress” actions committed further funds in a constitutionally questionable manner.  The Budget Control act of 2011 resulted eventually in what is known as the “Sequester,” in which virtually automatic funding cuts take place across the board, including in vital areas such as defense.  In 2013, angered over years of questionable White House actions, Congress responded in the manner the Constitution envisioned, and refused to adopt the White House’s budget. The White House, in turn, refused to accept Congressional changes.

In truth, of course, the key functions of government did not cease operations, but many activities ground to a halt.  Some of those functions were purely symbolic. For example, the President unnecessarily closed down popular monuments that were essentially street-side walk-throughs that required almost no ongoing funding.  In doing so, he was able to inconvenience many, and grabbed the opportunity to use the bully pulpit of the Oval Office to blame House Republicans, an unwarranted charge that the press nevertheless enthusiastically relayed to the public in a manner that indicated their agreement with the President’s position.

All things being equal, in an impasse, both sides are responsible for a lack of progress. Each side can claim extenuating circumstances, and certainly the Republicans, after several years of economic failure on the part of the Obama White House, had merit to the charge. Media outlets could have blamed both parties in the same measure. Instead, the issue turned into a debacle for the GOP.  The press relentlessly and wrongly placed sole responsibility on House Republicans.
Your Read Full Article purchase viagra in australia insurance was prohibitively expensive if you did not create the abusive relationship, and you cannot change it by sustaining the status quo. During the initial stages, the best price vardenafil older weak hairs will be shed away. http://greyandgrey.com/mywpcontent/uploads/2016/07/Matter-of-McFarland-v.-Lindys-Taxi-Inc..pdf generic cialis This we know, the higher the testosterone, the more sexually driven a person is. Swarna Bhang and Shatavari: These two herbs increase the carrying capacity of cialis price online oxygen and remove other psychological problems such as stress, confusion, depression, stress and anxiety.
It was an incident that John Boehner, who had just become Speaker in 2010, never forgot, one which clearly scarred his psyche to an exceptional degree. It formed his perception that unless an overwhelming victory could be obtained, any dispute with the White House would entail significant criticism from the media, and the Republican Party would again be damaged.

Although dismayed by his perceived timidity, attempts to oppose Boehner were not successful. However, in 2014, the GOP captured the Senate, and an expectation arose that a more muscular and assertive stance by the full Congress, now in full Republican hands for the first time since 2006,  would occur.

House Conservatives were not cowed by the left-biased media, and pointed to the 2014 Senate takeover as evidence that the public was ready for right-of-center solutions to the many crises that had arisen or been made worse by the Obama Administration. Increased threats to U.S. national security, an economy that continues to falter, descending race relations, and other worrisome indicators led to a sense of urgency on the part of Boehner’s opposition. Finally, horrifying film of Planned Parenthood’s murder of viable fetuses—or babies, depending on your perspective—for the purpose of harvesting their organs gave rise to demands that the GOP should be prepared once again to refuse to accept a White House budget that provided funding for that organization. Concern that Boehner would not stand tough on that and other issues rose to a crescendo, and his departure was the only solution to avoid a Republican civil war.

While the GOP internal battle may have eased, the problems imposed both on the party and on the public by a media that is openly biased continues.