Who Decides Who or What is “Essential”

Editor’s Note: No politician has a right to note which organizations are and are not essential.

From the outset of the COVID-19 crisis, governors told us what were and were not essential businesses. But what criteria were used?

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano provides insights into legal battles over state stay-at-home orders.

Whistleblower Had Help From Schiff Staff (Former CIA Analyst Says)

An op-ed in The New York Post says the Ukraine call whistleblower may have been driven by political motives and possibly even had help from Congress members while writing it. The op-ed’s author, former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz, joined FOX Business to discuss it further. Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz has extensive knowledge of the whistleblower process. Fleitz says the Ukraine call whistleblower is likely driven by political motives, and his sources indicate he had help from Congress members while writing it. (Hat-Tip CONSERVATIVE TREE HOUSE)

Trump’s First 60 and 100 Days of Media Coverage (+ More)

(Jump To EXHIBITS)

Fox Business discusses the issue:

Here is the first 60-days assessment by PEW RESEARCH:

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

For this study, MRC analysts looked at all 505 evening news stories that mentioned President Trump or his administration in January and February. Out of 851 total minutes of airtime devoted to the administration, the networks spent almost one-fourth of it (204 minutes, or 24%) on the Russia investigation, eclipsing other major topics such as the economy, immigration reform, and even the gun debate.

Since Trump took office on January 20, 2017, the three broadcast evening newscasts have spent a combined 1,438 minutes on the Russia investigation, accounting for more than one out of every five minutes (21%) of coverage of the Trump presidency….

(MEDIA RESEARCH – March 2018)

It’s no secret that the media are not President Trump’s loudest cheering section, but a new study released Thursday by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy lends a certain amount of credence to President Trump’s recent claim that “No politician in history” has been “treated worse or more unfairly” by the media.

The report, based on an analysis of “news reports in the print editions of The New York TimesThe Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, the main newscasts of CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC, and three European news outlets (The UK’s Financial Timesand BBC, and Germany’s ARD),” found that media coverage of Trump’s first 100 days “set a new standard for negativity” at 80 percent negative coverage.

Clinton received 60 percent negative coverage during his first 100 days, George W. Bush had 57 percent negative coverage, and Obama had just 41 percent negative coverage.

“Trump’s coverage was unsparing,” the report found. “In no week did the coverage drop below 70 percent negative and it reached 90 percent negative at its peak.”

[….]

“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 found. “Trump’s coverage on CBS also exceeded the 90 percent mark. Trump’s coverage exceeded the 80 percent level in The New York Times (87 percent negative) and The Washington Post(83 percent negative). The Wall Street Journal came in below that level (70 percent negative).”

“Fox was the only outlet where Trump’s overall coverage nearly crept into positive territory—52 percent of Fox’s reports with a clear tone were negative, while 48 percent were positive. Fox’s coverage was 34 percentage points less negative than the average for the other six outlets.”

“Studies of earlier presidents found nothing comparable to the level of unfavorable coverage afforded Trump,” the study’s authors noted, “Should it continue, it would exceed even that received by Bill Clinton. There was not a single quarter during any year of Clinton’s presidency where his positive coverage exceeded his negative coverage, a dubious record no president before or since has matched.”

“Trump can’t top that string of bad news but he could take it to a new level,” they add. “During his first 100 days, Clinton’s coverage was 3-to-2 negative over positive. Trump’s first 100 days were 4-to-1 negative over positive.”….

(TOWNHALL – May 2017)

For example, President Trump’s push to invigorate the economy and bring back American jobs received a mere 18 minutes of coverage (less than one percent of all airtime devoted to the administration), while his moves to renegotiate various international trade deals resulted in less than 10 minutes of TV news airtime.

Eight years ago, in contrast, the broadcast networks rewarded new President Barack Obama with mainly positive spin, and spent hundreds of stories discussing the economic agenda of the incoming liberal administration.

For this study, MRC analysts reviewed all of ABC, CBS and NBC’s evening news coverage of Trump and his new administration from January 20 through April 9, including weekends. Coverage during those first 80 days was intense, as the networks churned out 869 stories about the new administration (737 full reports and 132 brief, anchor-read items), plus an additional 140 full reports focused on other topics but which also discussed the new administration.

Five big topics accounted for roughly two-fifths (43%) of the whopping 1,900 minutes of total network airtime devoted to the Trump administration. But those five topics accounted for a much larger share (63%) of the negative coverage hurled at the administration, as the networks covered each with an overwhelmingly hostile (more than 90% negative) slant….

(MEDIA RESEARCH – April 2017)

FACEBOOK CONVERSATIONS

In a discussion on Facebook, a person noted the following:

That said, I also know that the first step in indoctrination of a population is to demonize the press. Look at any fascist, communist, autocratic, dictatorial government and you will find the same element.

All of the far-right Trump supporters love to scream “fake news” whenever they hear something they don’t like. That’s not how the world works: Truth is truth, whether we like it or not.

If the only “sources” these people consult are Fox News, Breitbart, InfoWars, er. al, then they are simply getting a reinforcement of their narrative.

— Robin HB

(Notice how broad brush strokes are used, no examples given… you will see that I give examples of why often times the label “Fake News” should be used. But if one needs approval by “specialists,” the ATLANTIC says it’s okay to use the term. I would like to say as well that Robin used ad hominem attacks in describing anything that veered off of a Leftist point of view.)

This neither noted the fact that FOX NEWS has the most balanced audience of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Nor did it respond to the idea that FOX NEWS is actually fair and balanced. Nor does it deal with the idea out of the television news shows that FOX is the only slightly right leaning broadcast. (You see, this cannot be allowed to happen without Fox being lumped in to Info Wars or Prison Planet!)

Here is my response specifically to her statement I posted, some of the above may be repeated. Note as well that the idea here is that there really is #FakeNews, and that Pulitzer Prizes are won because of it:

Firstly, “FAKE NEWS” as a term was used by Hillary before Trump used it… so its etymology predates Mr. Hotel. Second, states like those of Communists and Fascists (Italy) and the neo-Pagans in Germany use the media. And in fact, many Leftists that visited Venezuela praised Hugo in “federalizing” the media.

Here is another example of the bias in media, and so, #fakenews in what it omits and admits (I can show hundreds):


★ EXHIBIT ONE ★


Of 141 stories on the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening and morning shows that mentioned the efforts of the House Freedom Caucus and their Senate counterparts during the ObamaCare repeal/replacement debate, and discovered that while congressional conservatives were overwhelmingly given ideological labels, those that opposed them were rarely, if ever, labeled by journalists.

(More can be found in my post, here: MEDIA SHOWS THEIR BIAS BY LABELING)


★ EXHIBIT TWO ★


  • “There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be.” –New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1
  • “Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.” –New York Times, August 23, 1933
  • “Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin’s program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding.” –New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6
  • “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” –New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 18
  • “There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition.” –New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13

(More in my post here: JEFF FLAKE’S STALIN COMPARISON #FAKENEWS)


★ EXHIBIT THREE ★


PBS’s American Experience documentary About Clinton

In a great example of how the media guides it’s listeners down a path full of narratives they [said media] wish were true… we find in a touted “honest” Clinton documentary many lies and missteps (Clinton | American Experience). Larry Elder is in his element here as he excoriates the depths of this false narrative. His article is a must read for those interested. Near the back-half of the audio Larry offers other media silence on issues surrounding Democrats. They [Democrats] apparently have a no fly zone in regard to honest reporting.


★ EXHIBIT FOUR ★


Chuck “Sleepy Eyes” Todd  admits to using “Alternative Facts.” [Hear him say as much!]


★ EXHIBIT FIVE ★


A week from the 2000 Presidential Race

Rush Limbaugh discusses journalistic “parroting” talking points. He takes us back to June of 2000 when “Dubya” announced Dick Cheney as his VP — the montage is from 2:00-to-2:55, and the voices heard in it are listed on Rush’s site as well as belolw. Great stuff, I missed this montage from soo many years ago, even Conan O’Brian used it (January 2014). See more at NEWSBUSTERS.

Here are the montage voices:

  • AL HUNT: He meets all of George W’s weaknesses, lack of gravitas.
  • JUAN WILLIAMS: We see the son, who is seeking some gravitas.
  • CLAIRE SHIPMAN: They were looking at candidates with gravitas.
  • STEVE ROBERTS: But he has the gravitas and you can sum it up in one word, stature.
  • VIC FAZIO: It may go to the gravitas.
  • JEFF GREENFIELD: We’re to use the favorite phrase, gravitas.
  • LESTER HOLT: This is a vice president who brought gravitas.
  • WOLF BLITZER: This will give some gravitas, add some credibility.
  • ED ROLLINS: I think the gravitas that Cheney brought to the ticket.
  • JONATHAN ALTER: What he gets is gravitas, a sense of weight.
  • BOB KERREY: He does not need anybody to give him gravitas.
  • MARGARET CARLSON: It means that, you know, gravitas.
  • MIKE MCCURRY: I think he also needs some gravitas.
  • SAM DONALDSON: To give gravitas.
  • ELEANOR CLIFT: Well, he brings gravitas.
  • WALTER ISAACSON: He does seem to bring some gravitas.
  • AL HUNT: It’s called gravitas.
  • MARK SHIELDS: A little gravitas!
  • JUDY WOODRUFF: You certainly have gravitas tonight.
  • SAM DONALDSON: He displayed tonight a certain gravitas.
  • MARIO CUOMO: I think gravitas is the word. Unfortunately for the Governor, you can’t graft gravitas. … He has gravitas.

★ EXHIBIT SIX ★


How about the 157 journalists making stories up in order to divert attention away from Obama’s racism? Known as “JournoList” There is a “JournoList 2.0” as well. THEY ARE LIBERALS FIRST, JOURNALISTS SECOND.


★ EXHIBIT SEVEN ★


(Back to how print and media LABEL guests)

Dennis Prager discusses a recent example of bias in how the media reports issues, here is an example from the article, “… becoming the second candidate from the city’s political right to launch their candidacy Monday. Swain, outspoken and polarizing…” (TENNESSEAN)

Cities Fight Back Against California’s Crazy Democrats

Sheriff’s take an oath to the Constitution. They HAVE to follow what the Constitution clearly enumerates:

TAMMY BRUCE (via Fox News) has this article about the crazy leftists in California dividing it’s own state. A civil war of sorts.

Poor California. Its politicians thought they were declaring war on the federal government, but now the state is embroiled in a war with itself, as at least one county has said enough is enough with the scourge of being part of a sanctuary state for criminal illegal immigrants.

“Orange County will now join a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions that argues California’s SB-54, which restricts local law enforcement agencies from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in matters related to undocumented immigrants, is unconstitutional,” United Press International reported.

California’s Democrats don’t like President Trump, so they decided to punish their own citizens by becoming a “sanctuary state.” The sponsor of the legislation made his impetus clear, stating: “California is building a wall – a wall of justice – against President Trump’s xenophobic, racist and ignorant immigration policies.”

When Gov. Jerry Brown signed the bill that transformed California into a haven for illegal immigrant criminals, California State Sheriffs’ Association President Bill Brown said that as the result of the new law, “people who are chronic or serial criminals that just haven’t risen to a particular level of crime yet are going to go back out into the community, and people are going to be victimized.”

  • It’s now undeniable that liberal policies have destroyed the quality of life in one of our most beautiful states.

[….]

If the chaos surrounding the protection of criminal illegal immigrants wasn’t enough, Californians are dealing with the results of Proposition 47, which was passed by the voters in 2014. Californians were told the measure would allow them to put fewer people in jail and save the state tens of millions of dollars, which could be invested in diversion programs. In other words, the state decriminalized certain drug and property crimes.

Instead of rainbows and unicorns, what actually happened was a disaster.

“Proposition 47 downgraded a variety of ‘non-serious, nonviolent crimes’ that had previously been considered felonies to misdemeanors…. A thief may now steal something under (a $950 limit) on a daily basis and it will never rise to felony status.… In the event that a perpetrator is pursued and apprehended, the consequence can be a small fine or a brief stay in jail. In reality, these repercussions are rare,” reported National Review.

“Outrage in these circumstances is apolitical…. ‘Every bicycle in our building has been stolen,’ says Karen Burns, president of a San Francisco condo association. ‘I’ve caught so many people stealing packages. They don’t care. They know nothing will happen to them. It’s crazy. It’s horrible. I feel like these people need to go to jail.’”

Proposition 47 also downgraded personal use of illegal drugs to misdemeanor status. The result is the destruction of any semblance of safety and quality of life. In San Francisco, National Review notes: “Now more than ever, residents and merchants are living with a proliferation of addicts who roll up their sleeves, inject, and then nod off on the sidewalks or careen down the street and into traffic.… Why not shoot up wherever you want, leave bloody syringes in piles, steal, and deal when there are few if any consequences?”

With policy like this, it wasn’t a surprise when the FBI reported in September that violent crime was up in California for the second straight year. Housing and wage crises are also gripping the used-to-be Golden State.

It’s now undeniable that liberal policies have destroyed the quality of life in one of our most beautiful states. This isn’t hyperbole, it’s an objective assessment by US News and World Report’s “Best States” ranking, which places California dead last in the “Quality of Life” category.

Not at all distracted by the dumpster fire their policies have created – including explosions in homelessness, drug abuse, crime, and criminal illegal immigrants enjoying state protection – California’s Democrats have decided their next big mission is to sue the federal government over the citizenship question being included again on the U.S. census form.

In addition to a lower census count possibly costing California a seat in the House of Representatives, Newsweek reported that California’s attorney general complained “that depressed participation (in the census by illegal immigrants) would ‘deprive California and its cities and counties of their fair share of billions of dollars in federal funds.’” 

And with that, we finally found something California liberals want from the federal government – everyone else’s money.

“Paybacks a Bitch!” ~ Neil Cavuto vs. CNN

(YOUNG CONS H-T)

PJ-MEDIA notes some of this contentious past:

…Did the New York Times fear freedom of the press had been eradicated? No, the headline was simply that “Fox’s Volley With Obama” was … “Intensifying.”

Ironically, current CNN host and Trump critic Brian Stelter wrote the article.

It begins:

Attacking the news media is a time-honored White House tactic but to an unusual degree, the Obama administration has narrowed its sights to one specific organization, the Fox News Channel, calling it, in essence, part of the political opposition.

We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, in a telephone interview on Sunday. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

In 2009, the White House’s position on Fox News was that it was “an opponent,” at “war(!)” with the White House. And that they were not, in fact, a legitimate news organization.

They were to be treated as fake news. It was White House policy.

INDEPENDENT JOURNAL REVIEW continues the dossier of Obama’s attack on free speech:

…In the Obama team’s eyes, Fox News was a right-wing propaganda machine. As Anita Dunn, the White House communications director at the time, put it in an appearance on CNN:

“What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it’s the way we view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party. They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”

Ouch. (An early version of the “fake news” attack?)

That wasn’t all. The White House used its official blog to publicly call out what it labeled “Fox lies.” Politico referred to the sharp attack from the executive branch on a news organization as “unusual.” The White House also deliberately excluded Fox News from a round robin of presidential interviews in September 2009.

Dan Pffeifer, the White House deputy communications director, defended the administration’s stance towards Fox this way:

“We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional news organization.”

The New York Times wrote an entire piece about the war between the government and the network. In fact, this attitude was so prevalent, and was escalated with such ferocity, that the White House press pool (the five-network rotation that shares the costs and duties of daily coverage) finally united behind Fox News and put an end to it:

The Treasury Department on Thursday tried to make “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the network pool except Fox News….

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

That didn’t stop President Obama from airing his disdain for Fox News Channel. In 2010, he said in an interview that Fox News was “destructive.” In 2013, he made a joke in a speech to students at Fox News’ expense. In 2014 he told Bill O’Reilly that the network was “unfair” to him. And most recently, last year, he blamed Fox News and its viewers for Hillary Clinton’s loss….

Is Obama a Jobs President? Dissecting a White House Graph

A friend showed this graphic to me and I uploaded a response to it by Larry Elder for him. And another acquaintance of mine on FaceBook also responded to the above graph, I will include his commentary as well. Enjoy the excoriation of a White House graph/talking point. Here is what my friend said — sarcastically — with the graphic.:

  • You can’t argue with statistics Sean… Obama the job creator!

Firstly, you underestimate my ability Scott H. Secondly, job growth IS good… but it is how you define “is” and “good.” Did Obama stifle majorly what our engine of the free market is capable of? There are two link below that are worth taking some time rummaging through… especially Amity’s work:

From the video description of the above video:

Larry Elder talks about the harm in having government meddle in the recovery of our free-market systems. Other topics on this from history can be found here:

✦ Uncommon Knowledge: The Great Depression with Amity Shlaes (http://youtu.be/lLeAqbOUt4c);
✦ The History of Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression (http://tinyurl.com/qdgf6eo)

For more clear thinking like this from Larry Elder… I invite you to visit: http://www.larryelder.com/

And here is some input from Brian C.

Scott says you cannot argue with statistics, oh yes I can! You can make statistics say anything you want! That is what Obama does with the jobs numbers and the GDP! Sean those numbers are not the real job numbers. Those are the fixed job numbers that politicians use to make themselves look good, when in fact they are crappy! In fact, every month we have been loosing jobs. They do not count the people who lost their job or left the work force in those numbers. Last month they reported a net loss of over 100,000 jobs in the private sector. We have been loosing around that and more since Obama took office. That is why the number of people working has gone down every year since Obama took office! This is why we have record number of people on the government dole! There have been jobs created but when you take the jobs that have been lost, it is a net loss! Obama is a private sector job destroyer! Even the jobs that are created are mostly low paying jobs! These are the things liberals and the news media will not tell you!

Just wanted to give the reader a few avenues in responding to the above propaganda.