Biased Media

NYT’s Executive Editor Admits Left Doesn’t Want Thoughtful Discussion

Published by Papa Giorgio

Larry Elder notes Dean Baquet’s, executive editor of the New York Times (the top position in the newsroom), admission to the Left not wanting to hear thoughtful responses to issues from a counter viewpoint. Here is NEWSBUSTERS comments on the issue:

Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller harped on something New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet said Wednesday at the Recode conference in California. In discussing the Times editorial pages — and the liberal reader anger over signing up right-leaning columnist Bret Stephens from The Wall Street Journal — he used the royal “We” in describing the Left, until he caught himself, and “I’m not ‘we,’ I’m a journalist.”

Recode’s Peter Kafka brought up a New York magazine article by Rebecca Traister reporting Hillary Clinton being angry about the Stephens hire: “Why… would… you… do… that?…66 million people voted for me, plus, you know, the crazy third-party people. So there’s a lot of people who would actually appreciate stronger arguments on behalf of the most existential challenges facing our country and the world, climate change being one of them!”

Baquet insisted Stephens is not a “climate denier,” but that he thinks climate activists have turned their crusade into a “religion that brooks no disagreement.” Baquet liked having a “thoughtful voice” like this in the paper. Kafka shot back “One of the arguments that people have is, look, there’s plenty of places to find news from ‘climate skeptics,’ if you want to call them that,” and if the Times wanted to stand for something, they should “embrace the left side” of the spectrum. Baquet insisted the editorial pages were meant to have more than one side.

Here is the link to the other articles referenced in the above audio:

➤ THE CIVIL HERETIC
➤ CLIMATE OF COMPLETE CERTAINTY

The Media Narrative About the Portland Stabber Crumbles

Published by Papa Giorgio

(The Portland Stabber’s Facebook)

I have a theory that almost all racist/nationalist cults in America vote primarily Democrat for various reasons, but especially white/nationalist groups:

  • “They are typically socialist in their political views, and thus support the welfare state for personal financial reasons (poor) or ideological reasoning (socialist), or for the reason that it is a way of controlling minorities (racist reasoning). A modern plantation so-to-speak.” (Trump Sized Mantras)

I also have a short bio of many of the early accused right-wing violence (shooters and stabbers) that end up being Left leaning individuals, HERE. However, I am going to facetiously continue my idea that most racist/nationalist-cult members vote Left. The PORTLAND MERCURY reports that the suspect was a “known local white supremacist”…

…The man accused of the brutal hate crime slayings of two people at the Hollywood Transit Center on Friday afternoon is a known local white supremacist.

Jeremy Christian, 35, was booked early Saturday morning on two aggravated murder charges, an attempted murder charge, two intimidation (hate crime) charges, and a felon in possession of a restricted weapon charge.

The Portland Police Bureau (PPB) reported that the man “was on the MAX train yelling various remarks that would be best characterized as hate speech toward a variety of ethnicities and religions. At least two of the victims attempted to intervene with the suspect and calm him down. The suspect attacked the men, stabbing three, before leaving the train.”…

Likewise, NPR reported much the same: “White Supremacist Charged With Killing 2 In Portland, Ore., Knife Attack” Okay, let’s say that I believe the media taking the single statement from the Portland Mercury as factual (more on this in a second), the question becomes this — at least for me: was he a supporter of Republicans (say, by voting for Trump)” Or, did he vote like many other racists white nationalists do… supporting the most socialist candidate?

As usual, merely waiting a few days allows the truth to start to kreep to the forefront — in spite of the mainstream media’s (MSM) narrative. Here is one hint at Jeremy Christian’s political leanings grabbed from ARCHIVE:

As people did more digging, some Facebook posts by Jeremy showed a more Left-leaning bent in his politics. Here are a couple of responses to Jill Stein’s Tweet via TWITCHY, the first incorporates the Facebook post (h-t to GAY PATRIOT):

Oh man! Accepting he is a white supremacist and now knowing his politics — this goes a long way to support my earlier claims. Below is a video of Tucker Carlson correcting the lawyer defending the Leftist professor hitting Trump supporters by throwing bike locks at their heads in the name of Antifa (SEEN CLEARLY HERE thanks to 4CHAN):

The above was merely an excerpt of a longer video seen at Donetec’s YOUTUBE HERE. So, another media narrative crumbles… it still is not as hilariously obvious as this one!

But it exposes the Left’s propensity to shape false American opinion through the MSM. Take note as well that he affiliated with paganism and hated theism apparently… what I term as “theophobia”

  • “Fuck all you Christians and Muslims and fucking Jews,” he says. “Fucking die. Burn you at the stake, just like you did to my pagan ancestors.” (WILLAMETTE WEEK)

TOWNHALL makes a great point in regard to the above hatred for theism:

…On his Facebook wall, Christian called for a “Monotheist Holocaust,” the “Final Solution to the Monotheist Question.” He wrote that he wants to “put an end to the Monotheist Question.  All Zionist Jews, All Christians who do not follow Christ’s teaching of Love, Charity, and Forgiveness And All Jihadi Muslims are going to Madagascar or the Ovens/FEMA Camps!!!”

In another post, he wrote: “I want a job in Norway cutting off the heads of people that Circumsize Babies…Like if you agree!!!”

Judging from what we know, it would seem that Christian equally disdains all three of the Earth’s great monotheistic traditions, or at least those of their forms that Christian takes to be their perversions (Zionist Judaism, Jihadi Islam, Christians who do not follow Christ).  Police have confirmed that Christian was hardly the obsessed “Islamophobe” that the media is making him out to be, instead ranting about all sorts of matters.

Yet the Christophobes in the media, always on the hunt for the Big, Bad White Supremacist—who they want for the public to at least subconsciously associate with Christianity—ignore Christian’s “Christophobia” to make it sound as if he has a singular obsession with Muslims. 

I also note he is into “Info Wars”/”Prison Planet” type stuff as well. I have a section rebutting the FEMA camps/coffins here. He was a “Misanthropic Nihilist” — which he described online as combining elements of Norse mythology, a disdain for women and minorities, and the right-wing “patriot” movement that wants to overthrow the federal government.

Okay…

Earlier, I promised more on an aspect of believing a narrative about his racism. And this is more of a commentary on a point (a threshold really) made by someone in discussion with me that the four people arrested for kidnapping and torturing that disabled white kid NOT BEING CHARGED with a racially motivated or politically motivated hate-crime (even thought they said “fuck white people” and “fuck Donald Trump” as they kicked him) — was because the young black male teens dated white girls. Newt Gingrich was right, BTW, when he said: “If this had been done to an African-American by four whites, every liberal in the country would be outraged and there would be no question it is a hate crime.”

So, using that threshold of black people in one’s life to be the determiner of whether an attack is racially motivated, I submit this:

…Tomica Clark is black and the pair became friends in elementary school.

Clark told The Oregonian Christian had many black friends.

“He never disrespected me,” Clark said. “Prison took the real him away.”

On his Facebook posts, the six-foot, 235-pound accused killer said he likes comics, reefer and heavy metal…

(TORONTO SUN)

Granted, he changed during his time in prison according to his friend Tomica Clark… which having been to jail I could see this changing a person not grounded in some sort of Judeo-Christian values vs. “comics, reefer and heavy metal.” But, going for my Leftist friends threshold, Jeremy wasn’t a racist… right?

So let’s recap a bit… He:

  1. had many black friends;
  2. was a Pagan;
  3. hated Christians, Jews, and Muslims (of all colors);
  4. smoked weed;
  5. was a criminal;
  6. was a segregationist (like most nationalist groups and many Democrats [Cal State L.A.; Harvard; University of Connecticut]);
  7. called Timothy McVeigh (an atheist) a “true patriot”;
  8. supported Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders;
  9. hated Hillary Clinton and Trump…
  10. etc.

Nope, no right-wing Christians here stabbing people.

Kathy Griffin’s Jihad (Plus Flashbacks)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(POWERLINE >>) Remember how Sarah Palin was blamed for the Gabby Giffords shooting because her Facebook page featured “targets” over congressional districts Republicans wanted to pick up in the next election, and President Obama’s subsequent speech calling for more “civility” in our political discourse? Yeah, apparently that’s another liberal theme with an expiration date. Always worth remembering that if liberals didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.

These tolerant, peace loving Democrats seem to call for the killing of Republicans often. Here is another comedian posting a horrid scenario:

Of course, in similar fashion to the spoofed video above… people got to work to “bagging” Lopez… but this runs counter to the CLAIMS of the Left but fits perfectly with the HISTORY of the Left:

FLASHBACK:

  • Joe Scarborough: “You can draw a straight line from Republican candidates thinking that sort of behavior is okay when you have Donald Trump berating reporters, throughout the entire campaign, suggesting terrible things, calling them – using the Stalinist term ‘enemy of the people.’ A term so offensive even in the Soviet Union that Khrushchev outlawed it after Stalin died…This is not a big leap from what the head of the Republican Party is saying every day and what happened last night in Montana.”
  • Don Lemon: Mr. Lemon suggested that Mr. Gianforte’s behavior is somehow linked to the “guy who’s in office now” who has “said very horrible things about reporters and has said that the reporters are the enemy of the American people.” | Mr. Dennard disagreed, stating plainly, “No, Don.” | “That has nothing to do with anything?” Mr. Lemon continued. “That people feel that they can get away with it, because I don’t believe that you actually believe that. There’s no way you believe what you’re saying.

But think about this for a second. The Giffords shooting sent the media elite in this country into a bout of St. Vitus’s dance that would have warranted an army of exorcists in previous ages. Sarah Palin’s Facebook map was an evil totem that forced some guy to go on a shooting spree. The New York Times, the Washington Post, all three broadcast networks — particularly NBC whose senior foreign-affairs correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, devotes, by my rough reckoning, ten times as much air time to whining about Sarah Palin as she does about anything having to do with foreign affairs — flooded the zone with “Have you no shame” finger wagging. A memo went forth demanding that everyone at MSNBC get their dresses over their heads about the evil “tone” from the right. Media Matters went into overdrive working the interns 24/7 to “prove” that Republicans deliberately foment violence with their evil targets on their evil congressional maps. 

Everyone “knew” the shooter was a tea partier. Except he wasn’t. He wasn’t even a conservative. He was a sick, demented, nutball. And it still didn’t matter! More bleating and caterwauling about the “tone” followed. More chin stroking and tut-tutting from Meet the Press roundtables and “very special segments” on the Today Show. More pizzas were ordered for the Media Matters galley slaves.

[….]

Tom Friedman — who knows a bit about Hezbollah — calls the tea partiers the “Hezbollah faction” of the GOP bent on taking the country on a “suicide mission.” All over the place, conservative Republicans are “hostage takers” and “terrorists,” “terrorists” and “traitors.” They want to “end life as we know it on this planet,” says Nancy Pelosi. They are betraying the Founders, too. Chris Matthews all but signs up for the “Make an Ass of Yourself” contest at the State Fair. Joe Nocera writes today that “the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests.” Lord knows what Krugman and Olbermann have said.

Then last night, on the very day Gabby Giffords heroically returns to cast her first vote since that tragic attack seven months ago, the vice president of the United States calls the Republican party a bunch of terrorists.

(NATIONAL REVIEW)

First Impulse: Let’s Blame Conservatives

Arizona Daily Star columnist/cartoonist David Fitzsimmons: “I must tell you as a columnist who has covered politics in this state, it was inevitable, from my perspective.”
Anchor Martin Savidge: “Why do you say that?”

Fitzsimmons: “Because the right in Arizona, and I’m speaking very broadly, has been stoking the fires of a heated anger and rage successfully in this state….The politics of the state does tend to be far to the right. I would say even rabid right.”

— Exchange at about 2:30pm ET during CNN’s live coverage of the Giffords shooting, January 8. Fitzsimmons later conceded his remarks were “inappropriate.”

“Remember, this is the deepest fear that was in the back of everybody’s mind going through the health care debate. A lot of members were threatened. Congresswoman Giffords’ windows at her district office were broken….There is [sic] a lot of fringe groups that were very upset with the health care law, felt that the federal government was overstepping its bounds, and that was in — within everyone’s mind. It looks sadly like it’s come to fruition today.” 

— NBC/MSNBC correspondent Luke Russert during MSNBC live coverage at about 3:30pm ET January 8.

“We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before….Her father says that ‘the whole Tea Party’ was her enemy. And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous ‘crosshairs’ list. Just yesterday, Ezra Klein remarked that opposition to health reform was getting scary. Actually, it’s been scary for quite a while, in a way that already reminded many of us of the climate that preceded the Oklahoma City bombing….Violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.”

— New York Times columnist Paul Krugman in a 3:22pm ET January 8 blog posting, less than two hours after news broke of Giffords’ shooting.

Smarmily Singling Out Sarah Palin

“You know, Congresswoman Giffords had received threats before. That’s something that we might have overlooked here. Her office was trashed during the health care debate. When she showed up on Sarah Palin’s political action committee Web site as one of those who had been targeted for defeat, it shows her in the crosshairs there. She warned herself that this kind of thing could have serious repercussions.”

— CBS’s Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation, January 9.

Whatever the Shooter’s Motive, We’re Going to Bash Palin

“While the exact motivations of the suspect in the shootings remained unclear, an Internet site tied to the man, Jared Lee Loughner, contained anti-government ramblings. And regardless of what led to the episode, it quickly focused attention on the degree to which inflammatory language, threats and implicit instigations to violence have become a steady undercurrent in the nation’s political culture….Ms. Giffords was also among a group of Democratic House candidates featured on the Web site of Sarah Palin’s political action committee with crosshairs over their districts, a fact that disturbed Ms. Giffords at the time.”

— New York Times reporters Carl Hulse and Kate Zernike in a January 9 front-page item, “Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol in Politics.”

The Tucson Shooting: Let’s Blame Talk Radio

“What’s been the role of talk radio in fueling the heated language?…People like Mark Levin, Michael Savage, for example who every time you listen to them are furious, furious at the Left with anger that just builds and builds in their voice, and by the time they go to commercial, they’re just in some rage, every night, with ugly talk. Ugly sounding talk. And it never changes. It never modulates…. They do see the other end of the field as evil, as awful. Not just disagreeable but evil. And they use that language, when they talk about the other side, isn’t that part of the problem? And my question is doesn’t that give the moral license to people who have crazy minds to start with?”

— MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Hardball, January 11.

New York Times Double Standard on Jumping to Conclusions

“It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge….That whirlwind has touched down most forcefully in Arizona, which Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described after the shooting as the capital of ‘the anger, the hatred and the bigotry that goes on in this country.’”

— January 10 New York Times editorial, “Bloodshed and Invective in Arizona.”

vs.

“In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East. President Obama was right when he told Americans, ‘we don’t know all the answers yet’ and cautioned everyone against ‘jumping to conclusions.’”

— From a November 7, 2009 New York Times editorial after the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas.

(NEWSBUSTERS)

Kimberley Strassel Destroys Narrative on NBC’s Meet the Press

Published by Papa Giorgio

…“I think we are having a discussion that is absolutely divorced from reality this week. It is astonishing,” she quipped as she reminded them of how then candidate Obama (not President-elect Obama) set up a highly covert back channel with the Iranians:

Let me set the scene for you: It’s 2008, we are having an election and candidate Obama, he’s not even president elect, sends William Miller over to Iran to establish a backchannel, and let the Iranians know should he win the election they will have friendlier terms. Okay? So this is a private citizen going to foreign soil, obviously in order to evade U.S. intelligence monitoring and establishing a backchannel with a sworn enemy of the United States who was actively disrupting our efforts in the military in the Middle East.

(NEWSBUSTERS)

Of course there is more to this issue than the MSM has led on to… such as this BLOOMBERG (2014):

President Barack Obama’s administration has been working behind the scenes for months to forge a new working relationship with Russia, despite the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown little interest in repairing relations with Washington or halting his aggression in neighboring Ukraine.

This month, Obama’s National Security Council finished an extensive and comprehensive review of U.S policy toward Russia that included dozens of meetings and input from the State Department, Defense Department and several other agencies, according to three senior administration officials. At the end of the sometimes-contentious process, Obama made a decision to continue to look for ways to work with Russia on a host of bilateral and international issues while also offering Putin a way out of the stalemate over the crisis in Ukraine.

[….]

Kerry has been the point man on dealing with Russia because his close relationship with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov represents the last remaining functional diplomatic channel between Washington and Moscow. They meet often, often without any staff members present, and talk on the phone regularly. Obama and Putin, on the other hand, are known to have an intense dislike for each other and very rarely speak….

Funny that “back-channels were an Obama thing… for reals!

Media Bias Exemplified… AGAIN! (Plus: More CNN #fakenews)

Published by Papa Giorgio

FOX NEWS ends up being the most “Fair and Balanced,” as usual. Now, some of it may be explained away by this analogy: “The Lions [NFL] get bad press because they do poorely.” Okay, I cannot argue against nor defend Trump’s insane Tweets and foot-n-mouth disease. But many of the major networks and papers show their bias towards the issues thus:

  • …immigration coverage received 96 percent of negative coverage. (NEWSBUSTERS)

In a previous NEWSBUSTERS study, they pointed out the same biased media coverage (see graphic to the right).

I WILL INCLUDE some similar graphics I have collected over the years, at the end of this post.

Here is the

How negative was press coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office? Far more than that of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, according to a new report from the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.

The Harvard scholars analyzed the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the main newscasts (not talk shows) of CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Trump’s initial time in office. They found, to no one’s surprise, that Trump absolutely dominated news coverage in the first 100 days. And then they found that news coverage was solidly negative — 80 percent negative among those outlets studied, versus 20 percent positive.

The numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.

Accusations of bias aside, it’s simply a fact that a number of negative things happened in Trump’s opening 100 days. The Russia investigation, for example, was a source of endless criticism from Democrats and other Trump opponents. The travel ban executive order led to intense argument and losses for the administration in the courts. The healthcare debacle created more negative coverage because it was a major screwup and a setback for both Trump and House Republicans.

That said, the coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN’s Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.

Others were slightly less negative. The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive. Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

Ninety-three percent negative — that’s a lot by anybody’s standards. “CNN and NBC’s coverage was the most unrelenting — negative stories about Trump outpaced positive ones by 13-to-1 on the two networks,” the study noted. “Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity.”……

(WASHINGTON EXAMINER)

What is funny is CNN produced some #fakenews from the study — of course they did!

A Couple Older “Bias” Graphics

Articles of Impeachment (Nixon v. Trump)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Larry Elder covers the articles of impeachment for Nixon. Many pundits are saying that what Trump did is Nixon-like or worse, “the Sage” notes what Nixon would have been impeached for — he stepped down before that. Jonathan Turley, Leftist legal scholar and professor, notes that so far Trump’s actions don’t even come close. Enjoy!

Impeachment? Nah… Even Comey Responded “NO” To Obstruction

Published by Papa Giorgio

Comey Responded “NO” (Under Oath) To Obstruction — https://youtu.be/I-GkLXNZcDoLarry Elder takes us on a tour-de-force of Comey saying — prior to the “memo,” he was not asked to stop the investigation[s]. BTW, no one has seen this memo… even the reporter who wrote the article. This is mainly a quick upload to show that “impeachment” cannot be a level reached – legally. EVEN DENNIS KUCINICH is worried about the Democratic machine [i.e., the “deep state”] left in the administration that wants to undermine Trump:

➤ “ Well, you have a politicization of the agencies. That is resulting in leaks from anonymous unknown people and the intention is to take down a president. This is very dangerous to America. It is a threat to our republic. It constitutes a clear and present danger to our way of life. What is the motive of these people? Who’s putting these leaks out? Why isn’t somebody coming forward to make that charge and put their name and their reputation behind it instead of attacking through the media and not substantiating their position?”

Larry Elder discusses the non-evidence so far regarding Comey’s firing and the “obstruction” charge. Larry Elder includes audio from a debate between Jeffrey Toobin (a lawyer and liberal/progressive blogger as well as CNN legal analyst) and Jonathan Turley (lawyer, legal scholar, legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism, as well as currently a professor at George Washington University). Later in the segment “The Sage” includes some audio (I insert the video) of Peter King wondering why Comey stayed silent if he feared instruction.

WaPo – Did Trump Spills the Beans to the Russians? No

Published by Papa Giorgio

Of course the talk this morning is about the Washington Post story, highlighted at HOTAIR, where Trump was suppose to have given classified information to the Russians during a meeting. A friend asked me about this and I responded in part:

Okay, my thoughts are the same as I relayed to a friend (before the above McMaster audio was watched): ” the bottom line is in a discussion between two powers fighting a common enemy, what the President decides to declassify is his prerogative, not WaPo’s. The main issue is when are these leakers going to be prosecuted?”

To which my compatriot wisely noted: “…agreed, how many secrets were shared between FDR and Stalin?”

General McMaster also said something similar later in the day:

As well as Trump laying down Presidential authority via Twitter (not so Presidential medium):

Larry Elder Ruminates On Trump, Comey, and Watergate

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is the WASHINGTON POST article by Bill Clinton’s former Attorney General:

….It is true, as I pointed out in a Post op-ed in October, that Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, after her tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, had left a vacuum by neither formally recusing herself nor exercising supervision over the case. But the remedy for that was for Comey to present his factual findings to the deputy attorney general, not to exercise the prosecutorial power himself on a matter of such grave importance.

Until Comey’s testimony last week, I had assumed that Lynch had authorized Comey to act unilaterally. It is now clear that the department’s leadership was sandbagged. I know of no former senior Justice Department official — Democrat or Republican — who does not view Comey’s conduct in July to have been a grave usurpation of authority.

Comey’s basic misjudgment boxed him in, compelling him to take increasingly controversial actions giving the impression that the FBI was enmeshed in politics. Once Comey staked out a position in July, he had no choice on the near-eve of the election but to reopen the investigation when new evidence materialized. Regrettably, however, this performance made Comey himself the issue, placing him on center stage in public political discourse and causing him to lose credibility on both sides of the aisle. It was widely recognized that Comey’s job was in jeopardy regardless of who won the election.

It is not surprising that Trump would be inclined to make a fresh start at the bureau and would consult with the leadership of the Justice Department about whether Comey should remain. Those deliberations could not begin in earnest until the new deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, to whom Comey would report, was confirmed and in a position to assess Comey and his performance. No matter how far along the president was in his own thinking, Rosenstein’s assessment is cogent and vindicates the president’s decision.

Rosenstein made clear in his memorandum that he was concerned not so much with Comey’s past arrogation of power, as astonishing as it was, but rather with his ongoing refusal to acknowledge his errors. I do not dispute that Comey sincerely believes he acted properly in the best interests of the country. But at the same time, I think it is quite understandable that the administration would not want an FBI director who did not recognize established limits on his powers.

It is telling that none of the president’s critics are challenging the decision on the merits. None argue that Comey’s performance warranted keeping him on as director. Instead, they are attacking the president’s motives, claiming the president acted to neuter the investigation into Russia’s role in the election.

The notion that the integrity of this investigation depends on Comey’s presence just does not hold water. Contrary to the critics’ talking points, Comey was not “in charge” of the investigation….

(Read It All)

Wonder What Fake News Is? Benjamin Netanyahu Tells Us (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(NEWSBUSTERS) Better not show the latest video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan. She has already revealed that she is triggered just by the term “fake news” and the video of Netanyahu accusing CNN and the New York Times of reporting fake news about Hamas would probably cause her to wilt from such a macroaggression. Netanyahu not only clearly explains why CNN and the Times were reporting fake news but provides a nice finishing touch by tossing the Hamas report into a trash bucket.

GATESTONE INSTITUTE has an excellent piece about the renewed vigor against Israel and America:

As U.S. President Donald Trump prepares to hold his second meeting with Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem next week, two Palestinian terror groups have announced that the new U.S. administration is planning to “liquidate the Palestinian cause.” The warning by Hamas and Islamic Jihad is directed not only against Trump and his new administration, but also against Abbas and any Arab leader who dares to “collude” with the U.S.

The two Palestinian terror groups, which control the Gaza Strip and its two million residents, also renewed their pledge to pursue the armed fight against Israel; they said they would not give up one inch of Palestine, from the (Mediterranean) sea to the (Jordan) river.

Trump and his administration would do well to heed the warning issued by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, especially in the wake of Abbas’s recent statements concerning a two-state solution and peace with Israel. Abbas controls only parts of the West Bank, and how he intends to establish a Palestinian state when he cannot even set foot in the Gaza Strip is anyone’s guess. Recently, Hamas announced that if and when the 82-year-old Abbas shows up in the Gaza Strip, he will be hanged in a public square on charges of “high treason.”

The warning by the Palestinian terror groups was made during a joint rally in the Gaza Strip on May 14. Leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad vowed to “preserve the Palestinian rifle and Palestinian rights in the face of any schemes and attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause.”

Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar stated that Palestinian “principles are part of our [Islamic] religion, and we cannot make any concessions on them. We will not give up one inch of our land and holy sites. We will continue to work until the liberation of each inch of Palestine.”

Zahar also warned Abbas against signing any agreement with Israel that includes relinquishing Palestinian rights. “Anyone who gives up our rights and holy sites will betray Allah and his Prophet Mohammed,” Zahar cautioned.

Notably, Zahar’s statement to “liberate every inch of Palestine” comes amid false claims in the Western media to the effect that Hamas has abandoned its dream of eliminating Israel.

The claims are based on a new policy document recently published by Hamas; it says that the Islamic terror movement accepts a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, but without recognizing Israel’s right to exist. Translation: Hamas seeks a Palestinian state that would be used as a launching pad to destroy Israel.

Zahar and other Hamas leaders have taken advantage of every available platform to clarify that their acceptance of a Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines does not mean abandoning their plan to eliminate Israel.

They have also explained, at length, that the new policy document does not replace Hamas’s original charter, which explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel.

Hamas’s honesty with respect to its true intentions stands in utter contrast to the deceit with which the policy document is being treated by others.

For instance, some Western media outlets and Palestinian affairs “experts” and “analysts” deceptively describe the document as a sign of moderation and pragmatism on the part of Hamas.

While Hamas leaders proudly proclaim that there is no real change in their ideology and charter, some Westerners seem to have a sort of hearing disability when it comes to the truth of the terror movement.

Another Hamas leader, Ahmed Bahr, said at the rally that his movement remains strongly opposed to security coordination between Abbas’s Palestinian Authority and Israel in the West Bank.

Bahr described the security coordination and the crackdown on Hamas supporters in the West Bank as a new Palestinian “Nakba” (Catastrophe) — the term used by Palestinians and Arabs to describe the establishment of Israel in 1948…..

(Read It All)

Muslim Student Honestly Notes Islamic Law and “Compulsion”

Published by Papa Giorgio

MUHAMMAD SAID: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57). The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law according to all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

TEXT of the above:

And some, this, that you’re referring to, killing non-Muslims, that [to be a non-believer] is only considered a crime when the country’s law, the country is based on Koranic law — that means there is no other law than the Koran. In that case, you’re given the liberty to leave the country, you can go in a different country, I’m not gonna sugarcoat it. So you can go in a different country, but in a Muslim country, in a country based on the Koranic laws, disbelieving, or being an infidel, is not allowed so you will be given the choice [to leave].

JIHAD WATCH notes correctly about the above:

The Muslim student is right, and unusually honest. The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law. It’s based on the Qur’an: “They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (Qur’an 4:89)

A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57). The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law according to all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated: “The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-‘ashriyyah, Al-Ja’fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.”

Qaradawi also once famously said: “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today.”

After the above response, a Portland State paper reporter Tweeted video of the above… and was fired for this. NATIONAL REVIEW has the story.