Michael Medved discusses the Democrats bad strategy to continuously discuss impeachment, and doing so, giving the Republicans a hot button issue to increase GOPers voters in 2018 as well as raising more money during the lead-up to 2018 and 2020. For more information on “locking the Donald up” go to the WASHINGTON FREE BEACON.
HOT AIR helps out in this regard with video of Ted Cruz’s Democratic challenger saying what will drive Republican voters to the polls:
The most recent attacks by the Left and the Left leaning media against Steve Bannon (sounds like a superhero name) is so off the reservation that it really shouldn’t be responded to. But lies — allowed to fester — become more than a harmless fib. So, here is my quick rejoinder to assist those who want an answer to this silliness and continued convulsions of the Left. Here is an interview with Joel Pollak who himself is a very observant Orthodox Jew who has worked with Bannon for 5-years:
Firstly, it was Hillary that said “F**king Jew Bastard” of a Jewish man. Secondly, Trump is the most Jew loving man around. Thirdly, David Horowitz, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Joel Pollak, Alan Dershowitz, Mark Levin, and many other Jews reject the claim that Steve Bannon is an anti-Semite white nationalist. In fact, Bannon will probably be one of the most pro-Israeli chief White House strategist and senior counselor – EVA!
GAY PATRIOT notes:
Alan Dershowitz, a staunch Democrat and emeritus law professor at Harvard University, notes how awful this attack on Bannon is:
“But it is not legitimate to call somebody an anti-Semite because you might disagree with their policies. Or because in one instance, like in the Bannon case, an aggrieved wife in a divorce may have said something which he himself has denied having said. I think you always have to have a presumption of innocence and of good faith. And so, I am not prepared to accept those conclusions based on the evidence that I have now seen.” — Alan Dershowitz (via BREITBART JERUSALEM)
(The above video is also from BREITBART)
Another prominent leader in Israel said this in regards to Steven Bannon and the loathsome accusations (BREITBART):
Yossi Dagan, chair of Israel’s Shomron Regional Council, has released an open letter to incoming White House Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor Stephen K. Bannon, offering his support and congratulations.
[….]
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on the amazing election results for President-Elect Donald Trump and the United States of America. I would also like congratulate you personally on being appointed as Chief Strategist.
We know that you are a strong supporter of Israel and a true friend to the Jewish people and we look forward to your leadership in the White House.
It saddened me to hear about the uncalled for smear campaign against you by political opponents who refuse to accept the reality of losing a fair and democratic election. I am pleased that we in the Shomron, were first to openly support Donald Trump’s campaign and also opened a campaign headquarters here.
I, as leader of the second largest group with-in Israel’s Likud party central committee and Chairman of the Shomron Regional Council, am glad that after 8 hard years we now have decent minded people like yourself, coming to power in Washington DC.
[….]
Blessing from the people and Land of Israel,
Yossi Dagan
Chairman
Shomron Regional Council
Here Rabbi Shmuley Boteach in THE HILL also weighs in on the Issue:
…I barely know Mr. Bannon, having met him for the first time last week at The New York Hilton. But I do know Joel Pollak, an orthodox Jew who is my friend of many years and is a senior editor at Breitbart. Joel is one of the proudest Jews I know and one of the premier fighters for Israel in the national media.
He tells me that Steve Bannon has shown him, and the many other Jewish employees at Breitbart, especially those who are observant, incredible sensitivity and flexibility in helping them always keep the Sabbath and observe the Jewish holidays.
In addition, Breitbart has served as one of the leading publications in The United States that strongly opposed the Iran nuclear agreement, with its $150 billion given to the murderous Mullahs and their genocidal promise to perpetrate a second holocaust of the Jewish people.
I know this is close to both our hearts. Your wife was forced to flee the bloodthirsty Khomeini regime as a teenager. My father and his family were lucky to leave Iran well before Khomeini came to power.
In light of this fact, why would you immediately assume that Breitbart is anti-Semitic? Some of the world’s leading publications — including The New York Times — extolled the virtues of the Iran deal even though it never even punished the Iranian regime for being in constant violation of the 1948 UN Anti-Genocide Convention which expressly forbids genocidal incitement.
Even the ADL opposed the Iran deal and Breitbart stood with the pro-Israel community in making the argument against an agreement that legally gives Iran nuclear weapons in little over a decade.
Breitbart also defends Israel constantly against the anti-Semitic BDS movement whose goal is the economic destruction of the State of Israel.
That does not mean that we need agree with everything published on Breitbart or that there will not be columns we find offensive.
I write for many publications, some more on the left, like The Daily Beast and The Huffington Post, some considered in the middle like CNN, The Washington Post, and The Hill, and some more to the right like The Wall Street Journal and Breitbart. I also write for Israel-based publications like The Jerusalem Post and The Times of Israel, with their differing editorial slants. In all those publications there are those with whom I agree and disagree with strongly.
I have published hundreds of columns in The Huffington Post and consider Arianna Huffington a personal friend. I can tell you that I shared the home page many times with people who vilified Israel in pretty extreme terms. I never took offense. And I certainly never called the editors there anti-Semitic. Rather, I saw the attacks on Israel as an opportunity to respond intelligently and forcefully….
BREITBART’S Jerusalem Bureau Chief
TEL AVIV – Steve Bannon is a staunch supporter of the Jewish state who is committed to fighting anti-Semitism, asserted Aaron Klein, Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief.
Klein was reacting to the baseless smears of anti-Semitism against Bannon, Breitbart’s former executive chairman who was named by President-elect Donald Trump earlier this week as the chief strategist of the new White House administration.
Klein told BuzzFeed: “These smears are laughable to anyone who knows Bannon, a committed patriot who is deeply concerned about the growing threats to Israel. He has been particularly concerned with the dangerous trend of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiment on U.S. college campuses. While at Breitbart, he pitched countless articles on these and other themes in defense of the Jewish state.”…
Jerry Bowyer, author of “The Free Market Capitalist’s Survival Guide: How to Invest and Thrive in An Era of Rampant Socialism,” and Michael Medved discuss Obama’s motivation for steering the country in the direction he is.
“Ed. Its wonderful to hear you taking the deficit seriously. See, this is the point, right now you have both sides of the Democratic Party… each one is taking a Republican [position]” ~ Medved
(Click to Watch MSNBC Interview)
NewsBusters will start out this little test of fact versus fiction. As all the facts reveal, Islamophobia seems to have NOTHING to do with this knifing.
CNN’s Deborah Feyerick joined the media guessing game as to the motivation behind the stabbing of Muslim taxicab driver in New York City, emphasizing the possibility it may have been “connected to this big Ground Zero controversy, where we’re hearing so much anti-Muslim sentiment.” Feyerick raised this hypothesis during reports on Thursday’s Rick’s List and The Situation Room.
The correspondent’s first report on the attack aired 12 minutes into the 4 pm Eastern hour of Rick’s List. Anchor Rick Sanchez played a clip from victim Ahmed Sharif’s press conference on Thursday before introducing Feyerick. She began by stating that when “Michael Enright, the suspect, was arrested, he had numerous journals and notebooks on him, all of them filled with writings, some of it completely illegible. That is now with authorities, all of that being vetted and looked through to see whether, in fact, there was anything indicating that he had undergone some sort of a mental or emotional change.”
Feyerick did mention that Enright “ironically…was a volunteer working for a non-profit organization that promotes peace,” but didn’t mentioned that the organization, Intersections International, actually supports the planned mosque near Ground Zero. She continued with the speculation over the possible motivation of the attack, including the “anti-Muslim” charge….
…(read more)…
The Wall Street Journal points out some media bias here:
…Then–in paragraphs 28 and 29–comes this:
Mr. Enright is also a volunteer with Intersections International, an initiative of the Collegiate Churches of New York that promotes justice and faith across religions and cultures. The organization, which covered part of Mr. Enright’s travel expenses to Afghanistan, has been a staunch supporter of the Islamic center near ground zero. Mr. Enright volunteered with the group’s veteran-civilian dialogue project.
Joseph Ward III, the director of communications for Intersections, said that if Mr. Enright had been involved in a hate crime, it ran “counter to everything Intersections stands for” and was shocking.
It’s shocking, all right. It’s also news! The Times hasn’t exactly buried the lead here: The attack is a significant story in itself, and it’s an entirely defensible editorial decision to begin by simply telling what (allegedly) happened.
But revealing the suspect’s association with the pro-mosque left so low in the story shows atrocious news judgment. Rehearsing the America-hates-Muslims narrative first strongly suggests that the Times’s reporting is driven more by an ideological agenda than by the facts of the case.
That ideological agenda is shared by Intersections International, as evidenced by the organization’s Aug. 2 statement supporting the Ground Zero mosque:
The controversy surrounding this project stems from the fact that the proposed building location lies in close proximity to the former World Trade Center, the site of the horrific terrorist attack in New York City on September 11, 2001. Intersections grieves along with those who suffered losses in that tragedy. Intersections acknowledges that any association between that event and this project is a fabrication. Further, Intersections applauds the work of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan, principals in The Cordoba House, for their long-term and steadfast commitment to interfaith relations. While acknowledging the real pain that 9/11 continues to evoke, Intersections deplores those who would use this project to promote fear and vitriol for personal gain or partisan politics….
…(read more)…
And the woman interviewed at the beginning will take us out. Above she is interviewed by Contessa Brewer. Below she is interviewed by Michael Medved:
Sophia Nelson Interviewed About Islamophobia from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.
This is a FLASHBACK to August of 2010 to a Time Magazine article titled, “Is America Islamophobic?” Michael challenges Mr. Ratnesar on many points in the article/society. This is a VIMEO recovery and meant for an old post I titled: “Discussing Mosques and Men” (https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/discussing-mosques-and-men/)
You’re all racists, homophobes, sexists, Islamophobic, heterosexist, speciesist, paternalistic, hate-filled, bigoted, uncompassionate, war-loving, theocratic, gun-toting, flag-waving, patriotic jerks! With that said, could we now deal with the mosque issue using common sense and logic? (TOWNHALL)
I enjoy speaking with Mr. Coppedge on rare occasions when there are events in town about ID or creation. I have always enjoyed his company and conversation when the opportunity is afforded. For him to be anything but gracious in conversation is a tough stretch for me. So his drawing a line in the sand is wonderful and may change the culture at JPL closer to the one thought of in the founding documents of our nation than the culture practiced by [dialectical] Materialism found in the old Soviet Union, e.g., scientism. What Dr. Richard Lewontin, geneticist and past professor of biology at Harvard University, admitted was a metaphysical position, or, an a priori belief that interprets the evidence instead of allowing evidence to drive the interpretation:
…the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories; because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Here is a recent article on the Coppedge flap:
Demoted Employee for NASA Mission Fights Discrimination
An amended complaint was filed Monday in a lawsuit against a NASA laboratory in California on behalf of an employee who was demoted for discussing his beliefs about intelligent design.
Since his demotion last year, David Coppedge, who had served as a “team lead” technical specialist on Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Cassini mission to Saturn, has been “stigmatized in such a way that career advancement opportunities have been foreclosed to him,” the complaint reads.
Last March, Coppedge was accused of “pushing religion” on his co-workers after he began engaging colleagues in conversations about intelligent design – a theory that life and the existence of the universe derive not from undirected material processes but from an intelligent cause – and offering DVDs on the subject when the co-worker expressed interest.
His supervisor, Gregory Chin, allegedly received complaints from employees and threatened the long-time employee with termination if he persisted with his intelligent design discussions.
Coppedge said he would comply with the orders not to discuss the theory, politics or religion in the office but felt his constitutional rights were violated.
He later received a “written warning” which stated that his actions were harassing in nature and created a disruption in the workplace. Thereafter, he was removed from the team lead position in order to “lessen the strife” in the work area. His demotion was announced on a memo that was distributed on April 20, 2009.
According to the amended complaint, Coppedge said he was never told by a co-worker that his discussion of intelligent design was unwelcome or disruptive to their work. He was offered no specific details of the charges allegedly made by other co-workers.
Since the incident, Coppedge continues to suffer embarrassment, emotional distress, humiliation, indignity, apprehension, fear, ordeal and mental anguish, the complaint states. Specifically, he has remained constrained in his ability to express his personal views and has been “kept a prisoner of JPL’s systemic ideological culture.” The JPL employee also “endures each working day under a cloud of suspicion and a threat of termination lest he say anything by which someone might take offense.”
Coppedge’s attorney, William J. Becker, Jr., who is part of the Alliance Defense Fund, argues, “Discussing the origins of the universe with willing co-workers is not punishable just because it doesn’t fit a prevailing view at JPL.”
Becker further contends in the amended complaint that Coppedge suffered injustice and was deprived of his constitutional right to freely speak, write and publish his sentiments.
The written warning against Coppedge that was issued last April was expunged from his personnel file this year after his supervisors and manager revisited the matter. But he was not restored to the team lead position because the company continued to believe that his conduct in distributing the DVDs and advancing his views on intelligent design was inappropriate.
ADF Senior Counsel Joseph Infranco commented, “Mr. Coppedge has always maintained that ID is a scientific theory. Regardless, JPL has discriminated against him on the basis of what they deem is ‘religion.’ The only discussion allowed is what fits the agenda. Stray, and you are silenced and punished. It just doesn’t fit with JPL’s otherwise fine reputation in the industry.”