Poll: Media’s All-Out Assault on Trump Only Hurts Trust in Journalists

Breitbart

"Polling proves that public trust in the establishment media has collapsed in every imaginable way during Trump’s presidency.

"There is no doubt anymore that corporate media’s ongoing assault against President Trump has backfired in a way that journalists will never recover from.

"An IBD/TIPP poll asked about “the public’s perception of the mainstream news media” and found that “fully half the country says its trust in the media decreased over the past two years,” while only eight percent say they have more trust in the media.

"Inside that overall number, the poll finds a plurality of Independents (49 percent) have lost trust in the media over the last two years, along with 81 percent of Republicans, who already had a pretty low opinion of this wretched institution.

"In worse news (for the media), more than two-thirds of the public, a whopping 69 percent, believe the establishment media are “more concerned with advancing its points of view rather than reporting all the facts.”

"Only 29 percent disagree.

"What’s more, nearly half (43 percent) of Democrats agree with that statement, along with an incredible 72 percent of Independents and 95 percent of Republicans.

"When asked if media coverage is designed to “delegitimize the views held by President Trump and his supporters,” nearly six in ten (59 percent) agreed, including 60 percent of Independents and 93 percent of Republicans.

"The media’s non-stop lying and fake news stories about the Russia Collusion Hoax has also backfired. A majority of 53 percent now believe the media “prematurely declared President Trump guilty of collusion with Russia without sufficient evidence” — this includes 55 percent of Independents and even 22 percent of Democrats, which is more than one in five." . . .

Is Diversity an Enemy of Excellence?

Intellectual Takeout   . . . "Diversity is irrelevant to academe’s main purpose"

"The fundamental objection to diversity initiatives is that they have nothing whatever to do with the core mission of a university: which is intellectual excellence in the pursuit of truth via teaching and research. D&I efforts might still be acceptable if they did not interfere with the university’s core mission. Ancillaries like health care, dining facilities, and (perhaps) sports do not compromise education or research. But, is “diversity and inclusion” like that? No. Increasingly D&I conflicts with intellectual excellence.

"In addition to the political litmus tests feared by Dean Flier, diversity and inclusion of identity groups sometimes means exclusion and uniformity of ideas — and diversity advocates sometimes admit it. Identity diversity is very far from idea diversity. The drive for diversity can also limit rigor and dumb down difficult courses. The Canning and Reddick article provides a couple of examples.

"These two authors claim that the academy is not “a space of objective assessment” especially for “those on the margins.” Rather than defend this claim with any kind of empirical argument, they recite the tale of Carmen Mitchell, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Health Management at the university of Louisville.

"D&I evidently helped Ms. Mitchell, who affirms that “Nearly all of the most supportive and helpful faculty members who helped steer me toward a Ph.D. were women (of many races).” In other words, her personal leg-up justifies the D&I program. Reacting to a comment by a prominent critic of “diversity statements,” she writes,

"Back in September, Heather MacDonald, criticizing the new requirement, asked readers to consider whether Albert Einstein would have been hired into a faculty position if he had to provide an EDI statement, implying that it may have been a distraction from his work as a scientist." . . .

Amy Klobuchar Launches 2020 Presidential Bid: Minnesota Mean, or Minnesota Nice?

Legal Insurrection

Comes across as more likable than many other Dem candidates, in contrast to reports she’s a “Mean,” “Bad Boss”

"Over the past several days, there has been a flurry of news “reports” about Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) being a “mean boss” and a “bad boss.”  In sharp contrast to these accusations, Klobuchar’s 2020 presidential campaign announcement shows her to be immensely likable.  She has that genuine “it” quality that stands in sharp contrast to Elizabeth’s Warren’s Saturday launch. 

Mike Harris

"Having just seen the Warren launch, I had to smile as Klobuchar begins her speech by thanking, rather pointedly I thought, Minnesota Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan and noting that Flanagan is “the highest ranking Native American state official in our nation.”  A few minutes later, she mentions that the Mississippi river, the central theme of her speech, is Native American for “the father of waters,” a reference totally irrelevant to her speech.

In all honesty, this is the first time I have listened to Klobuchar give a speech, and I wasn’t expecting to find her so personable, so yes, I’ll say it again, likable.  It was a pleasant surprise, and I think the contrast between her and the triumvirate of angry Democrats (i.e. Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker) stands her in good stead.

"Watch: Video

. . . 

"Having been reading for days about what a horrible human being she is, I was genuinely surprised to find Klobuchar so likable.  It’s not hard to imagine that the oppo research dump came from one (or more) of her 2020 Democrat competitors trying to get a head start on undermining her genuine charm and appeal.

"Here are just a few of the stories that have been running across leftstream media:" . . .

On American education of our voting citizens

South Dakota Drops Study of Early U.S. History as a High School Requirement

"Students in South Dakota will now graduate from high school without studying early American history, under new teaching guidelines adopted by the state.

"After a year of deliberations, the state Board of Education adopted new curriculum standards that no longer require instructors to teach the first 100 years of U.S. history. Such milestone events and developments as the Revolutionary War and the drafting of the U.S. Constitution could be completely ignored.

"Cutting out early U.S. history in 11th grade hurts the ability of students to “think historically” when they reach higher education, according to a letter sent to the state Board of Education by Ben Jones, dean of arts and sciences for Dakota State University and educators from the University of South Dakota, South Dakota State University, Northern State University, Augustana College, Presentation College, the University of Sioux Falls, Black Hills State University and other institutions.

“ 'By that, we mean they are unfamiliar with the use of sources, the identification of bias, analysis of information, understanding context and the development and practice of research that aid them both inside and outside the discipline of history,” according to the letter.

"That, of course, might be exactly what the Republican-dominated state government has in mind. “It’s disabling their citizenship,” Jones told the Argus Leader." . . .

The board members:

The Wound in American Education  "The failure of American colleges to promote free speech and intellectual diversity is like an open wound. It stains the imagination, obscuring paths of investigation with a sick pus. It drains the vitality of thought, leaving the mind weakened. And it strains intellectual discourse—the Socratic ideal of conversation—by making us fearful, anxious, and self-censoring." . . .

President Trump and Russia: no collusion

"Video: Even Democrats Are Now Agreeing: No Collusion 



Intelligence Committee Nears End to Russia Investigation, Still Hasn’t Discovered Evidence of Collusion . . . "Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr of North Carolina told CBS News late last week, “If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia.”
“We know we’re getting to the bottom of the barrel because there’re(sic) not new questions that we’re searching for answers to,” the Republican senator added.

“ 'What I’m telling you is that I’m going to present, as best we can, the facts to you and to the American people,” Burr said. “And you’ll have to draw your own conclusion as to whether you think that, by whatever definition, that’s collusion.”
"Intelligence Committee ranking member Democratic Virginia Sen. Mark Warner disagrees with Burr’s characterization of the evidence the panel has unearthed, but declined to offer his own assessment regarding the issue of collusion, according to NBC News." . . .

Is Mueller taking orders from Russia?  . . . "The donkeys have one clear goal: make sure that every single day of President Trump's first term is under investigation.  They will use all the government resources they can, as well as their media connections, for this fruitless endeavor.  It is the only hope Democrats have of one of their own terrible candidates beating him in the next presidential election." Next target: President Trump's financial records.

Mainstream Media Can’t Quite Accept Senate Committee’s Verdict of ‘No Russian Collusion’ . . . "In the meantime, I suppose we must be patient with the Democrats. They’ve experienced a terrible shock. They will wait until Mueller issues his report. That’s the one that counts anyway."

This just in: No collusion . . . " I posted the declassified/redacted House Intelligence Committee Report on Russian Active Measures on Scribd when the committee closed out its investigation last year. It too found no evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. I found the report to be a worthy piece of work. With the Democrats now in control of the House, new chairman Adam Schiff is still digging and defaming. Byron York captures the big picture in his Examiner column “Resistance rattled by ‘no collusion’ talk.' " . . .   Brit Hume tweeted:

Buried deep in this very long story is the chairman of this much-praised investigation saying that the Senate intelligence committee has found nothing to suggest collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

Byron York: Resistance rattled by 'no collusion' talk . . . "Many House Democrats have been relying on Mueller to give them a roadmap and cover to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. Now, they face the question of what to do if Mueller does not give them what they want.

"I'm watching you, Mr. president!"

"The answer could be that House Democrats will have to do the job by themselves. Frustrated by Republican control the last two years, followed, potentially, by the failure of both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Mueller investigation to provide proof of collusion, bound-and-determined House Democrats will have to rely on themselves to come up with grounds to impeach Trump. That is one reason why the talk in the House today is of new investigations that will go where Mueller could not, and finally uncover evidence of impeachable offenses. If the Senate and Mueller investigations reach a disappointing end, Democrats might have to go it alone."

AOC and the "Green New Deal" Democrats

Dems scream after Mitch McConnell schedules a vote on their own Green New Deal
"There's nothing quite like handing Democrats What They Want.

"So to accommodate them, wily old Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has scheduled a vote on freshman socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her sidekick Sen. Ed Markey's much-vaunted "Green New Deal," just to help them out.

"But wait. The Senate lefties are not happy about it" . . .

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal Backpedaling Doesn’t Reverse Its Stupidity  . . . On February 7th, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez released her Green New Deal. And people laughed — at the document, and at Democrats who praised it. While Ben Shapiro hailed it as “one of the stupidest [things] ever written” (here), Cory Booker imbecilically compared it to fighting Nazi’s in the 40’s (here).
"A few targeted American enemies of the directive? Planes and farts (here).
"Now, the “lost” representative (here) seems to be backpedaling." . . .

Cory Booker Continues His ‘Say Really Idiotic Things’ Series: Do This, or Destroy the Earth  "Whatever happened to the adultness of politics? Were there always elected national officials saying things this stupid? . . ."

Cory Booker Says The Earth ‘Can’t Sustain’ People Eating Meat. Liz Cheney Fires Off Meat-Eaters' Response In One Tweet.  . . . "Cheney tweeted, “Hey @CoryBooker I support PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals. @BeefUSA#WyomingBeefCountry.”

Leading to the following conclusion: The Dems Are Hilariously Bad Presidential Candidates . Requiring frighteningly silly voters which, terrifyingly, are out there in droves.
"These past few weeks have been a tonic and a delight for any Republicans depressed by the midterms. So far the Democratic presidential slate is a clown car that has spat out a gaggle of mountebanks*. The list includes a woman who previously and for many years claimed to be a “woman of color” but now has had to apologize after the world learned that “practically translucent” isn’t a color; T-Bone’s vegan buddy, who attacked meat eaters; a fake Latino who allowed himself to be trolled into going down to the border and railing against it; a “Senator Nice” who throws stuff at her terrorized staff and is rumored to make them shave her legs; and the She-Obama who just casually let slip that she wants to separate 150 million Americans from their private health insurance. Oh, and all of the above endorsed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s crazypants Green New Deal, a wishlist so bonkers even Nancy Pelosi mocked it.

"Hey, Dems, when a ranting 140-year-old socialist Larry David lookalike is the least nutty person around, you’ve got problems." . . .
*"Mountebanks often included various forms of light entertainment on stage in order to attract customers. Later, extended uses of "mountebank" referred to someone who falsely claims to have knowledge about a particular subject or a person who simply pretends to be something he or she is not in order to gain attention.
Also: "a person who mounted a bench, or platform, in a public place and sold quack medicines, usually attracting an audience by tricks, stories, etc.  . . . any charlatan, or quack." 

As Illustrated here: 

The Intersectional Road to Perdition

Victor Davis Hanson

Who is the greatest victim of them all? Leave it to the mob to pick the ‘winner.’

"From The Ox-Bow Incident to To Kill a Mockingbird, novelists warned of the American propensity to become mob-like and often lethally so. Our Puritan roots, when coupled to elements of Athenian-style democracy, can on occasion vary wildly between dangerous bias and equally mindless self-righteousness.

"Update those traditions within the modern bane of electronically charged instantaneous social media, identity politics, the decline of journalism, and vicarious virtue-signaling, and we increasingly suffer psychodramas like the Virginia fraternity mess, the Duke Lacrosse fiasco, the Kavanaugh hearings, and the Covington nightmare.

"In such cases, predictable constructs often set afire the new mob. “Vulnerable” women or minorities or both are juxtaposed against young white males who have the scent of traditionalism, conservatism, or “privilege.” I say “psychodramas,” because the point is never to assess guilt or innocence or to establish some set of objective standards by which to condemn or exempt the accused. No, the aim is to vent outrage — the quicker, the more venomous, and the more public, the more advantageous either in a careerist or psychological sense."