The Media: Yellow Journalism Once More

"Yellow journalism and the yellow press are American terms for journalism and associated newspapers that present little or no legitimate well-researched news while instead using eye-catching headlines for increased sales. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion." . . .

 Publishers Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst are both attired
 as the Yellow Kidcomics character of the time, and are competitively
claiming ownership of the war in 1898

 Barrage of lawsuits shows media at rock bottom The state of American journalism today has hit rock bottom — and if takes a barrage of hefty lawsuits against “Hate Trump” outlets like CNN and The Washington Post to fix the #FakeNews epidemic that’s tearing our country apart, then so be it.

ake WaPo and CNN: both are being sued for $250 million by Covington High School student Nicholas Sandmann who along with classmates on a school trip to D.C. in Janurary were smeared by these outlets and others pushing a political narrative.

In an interview on Fox News, Sandmann’s attorney L. Lin Wood told host Mark Levin, “CNN was probably more vicious in its direct attacks on Nicholas than The Washington Post. And CNN goes into millions of individuals’ homes. It’s broadcast into their homes.”

. . . 

"CNN’s coverage on the incident was part of a social media firestorm, destroying the teens reputations by painting them as racists who don’t respect people of color or veterans who risked their lives for the country. The backlash was so intense the boys were subjected to death threats and Covington High School had to be closed for “safety concerns” following the incident.

"Then the truth emerged the Native American man, Nathan Phillips, wasn’t a “war hero,” that he never served in Vietnam despite the media’s portrayal of him. Then evidence surfaced that the boys didn’t accost Phillips — that he was the one who confronted them, instigating the provocation." . . .

A new special counsel should be appointed; "Now it’s time to investigate the investigators."

Boston Herald  "It’s become abundantly clear there was a conspiracy waged against a sitting U.S. president now that the Robert Mueller investigation has confirmed the Russia collusion hoax was just that — a hoax — manufactured by a witches’ brew of Democrats including Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, the Democratic National Committee, Obama deep state officials and a complicit media seeking to derail the Trump administration.

"The interference began as an attempt first to “stop Trump” from getting elected, as former FBI agent Peter Strzok said in a text message, since uncovered, to his lover during the 2016 election. When that failed, Trump’s enemies attempted to delegitimize and ultimately remove a duly-elected president.

"Now we learn that after an exhaustive 22-month special counsel probe, there was no collusion between Donald Trump or his campaign with Russia. You can bet if there was any criminal wrong-doing, Mueller and his henchmen would’ve found it and brought indictments.

"The question now becomes, when is House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s raid coming? How about predawn arrests for former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, former CIA spook John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and other Obama administration deep state officials who partook in the conspiracy to nullify a U.S. presidential election?

"Will these corrupt actors who sowed enormous discord and distrust our democracy be treated the same as Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, lawyer Michael Cohen and adviser Roger Stone, who were subjected to heavy-handed raids by the feds at their homes and offices?" . . .

The Doctor’s Bill Comes Due; Having weathered the Russian frame-up, the Republicans must now produce a health-care plan.

Conrad Black

"The Democrats and most of their media hallelujah chorus are still sanctimoniously congratulating themselves for showing such vigilance over Russia’s impact on the election. The more impetuous are denouncing the attorney general, William Barr, as a flimflammer, and the more imaginative are trying to make the flying broad jump to health care. Here the president’s supporters are often also disconcerted that he has raised the issue. This may be unfair to some of them, but it is easy to get the impression that they think that since all the administration has been able to do is repeal the coercive part of Obamacare, they should leave it at that.

"The fact that Texas was successful in getting a judicial declaration of the unconstitutionality of what remains of the Affordable Care Act requires the federal government to defend the (federal) law in question before the Supreme Court — or not. There seems to have been some disagreement in the Trump cabinet about this. But the administration, which was partly elected to “repeal and replace” Obamacare and was badly failed by the Republican leaders in the Congress, cannot now profess to uphold the remnants of that legislation against the Republican governor and legislature of Texas, the most populous Republican state.

"A moron can see that nothing will pass Congress before the election unless a few compromises could be made in areas of shared interest, such as infrastructure, but the Republicans can’t go back to the country with no health-care proposal at all. The Democrats are stuck with Obamacare. Most people don’t like it even without the coercive feature. The promise to keep your plan and doctor, and the promise of steady fees, were all lies, and tens of millions of Americans remember that. They also remember the hypocrisy of the Republicans in Congress, who voted many times for repeal of Obamacare when they knew President Obama would veto their measures but chickened out when President Trump proposed repeal." . . .

‘Medicare for All’ vs. ‘Medicare for Less’?  . . . " 'Free” medical care vs. pushing granny off the cliff. For progressives, it doesn’t get any better.

"Or more misleading. On closer examination, most of the Medicare savings contained in the president’s budget would not adversely affect beneficiaries, and some would likely save them money. But Republicans are nevertheless vulnerable to the Medicare for All vs. Medicare for Less meme, because of their own reluctance to offer a credible alternative to the health-care status quo after losing the House in the 2018 elections.

"As even the New York Times has observed, it’s misleading to claim that the Trump budget would harm Medicare beneficiaries. Consider hospital uncompensated care. Medicare currently makes payments to hospitals for uncompensated care they provide to non-Medicare patients. The administration proposes to remove this spending from Medicare and fund it instead through a separate program. That shift would save Medicare $183 billion over ten years." . . .

To sense danger, learn to read facial signs of those approaching you.

Constitutional amendment introduced to abolish the Electoral College

WCTV

Hat tip: Dallice Hand

"A campaign to get rid of the Electoral College is picking up steam. Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, along with fellow Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein and Kirsten Gillibrand, introduced a constitutional amendment Tuesday to abolish the Electoral College.

" 'In an election, the person who gets the most votes should win. It's that simple," Schatz said in a statement. "No one's vote should count for more based on where they live. The Electoral College is outdated and it's undemocratic. It's time to end it."

"Other top Democrats, including presidential candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg, have also said the Electoral College should be scrapped. The concept has gained in popularity after both Al Gore and Hillary Clinton lost their respective presidential elections despite winning the popular vote.

"Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said it could happen again in the future.

" 'It's likely that if anything, the incidents of the popular vote being disregarded by the Electoral College will be increasing during the 21st century. Why? Because of the concentration of Democratic votes in a smaller number of states," Sabato told CBSN. "They may be big states like New York and California. But when you put all the electoral votes together, Democrats will have more trouble reaching 270 [electoral votes] than they will winning the popular vote.' " . . .

‘You mad bro?’ AOC responds to Tucker Carlson calling her a nasty, self-righteous moron by behaving like one

BPR  "During an MSNBC-hosted town hall last Friday, seemingly un-self-aware socialist congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lectured the audience about why they should abstain from attacking their political opponents with name-calling. Five seconds later, she attacked her political opponents with name-calling by smearing the multiracial Tea Party as xenophobic and racist.

Cartoon added

"Three days later on Fox News, “Tucker Carlson Tonight” host Tucker Carlson gave the hypocritical congresswoman a taste of her own medicine by labeling her a “nasty,” “self-righteous” and “awful” “moron.” In response, AOC doubled down on her sanctimony and hypocrisy.
" 'When someone called a fmr Republican Congressman a ‘moron’ at our televised town hall, I shut it down immediately — bc I believe our policies can win on merit, & can be improved w/ productive discourse. You know we’re winning when the GOP resort to vapid, personal insults,” the stunningly un-self-aware congresswoman tweeted early Tuesday morning." . . .

. . . "Schilling wasn’t wrong about AOC being a hidden blessing. The more she speaks, the further her favorably ratings drop. According to a Quinnipiac poll released last Thursday, she currently boasts a net NEGATIVE 13 overall approval rating. Not good. Not good at all.

"From touting radical ideas to continually acting hypocritical, sanctimonious and egotistical — it was only about a month ago that she told everyone who disagrees with her to shut up because she’s “the boss” and the words of people “shouting from the cheap seats” is irrelevant — AOC is doing a wonderful job destroying her own brand. Apparently, self-destruction comes easy to “awful” people. Who knew!?"

The purging of Biden is instructive

Don Surber  . . . 'This particular story is go-to-jail stuff but Biden is a protected grifter, just like Hillary.
"The Hill reported, "In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin."
. . . 
"The Hill reported, "But Ukrainian officials tell me there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didn’t mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.
" 'U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia."
"There's your obstruction of justice, comrade." . . .
"I get the feeling there is something more secret than this on Biden."

Surber suspects Obama.

Cartoons from The Week

The real prime target of Trump’s threat to close the border

Trump faces hardball negotiations with North Korea, China, Turkey, and many others. He can’t afford to be seen as making empty threats. Pushing the border crisis into a crisis that impacts the interests of the key obstacles to reform, costly though it will be in the short run, maybe an investment he is willing to make.

Thomas Lifson  "I think that President Trump is going after what the Left calls “root causes” in their typical grab for money to redistribute, purportedly to eliminate some social problem they blame on poverty. But Trump is not seeking a nebulous version of Ultimate Social Justice, he is focused on the real obstacles to immigration reform, and I think he has a specific goal in mind as he threatens a complete border closure.

"Simply stated, at home, Trump wants big business, as embodied in the US Chamber of Commerce, to grasp that he will not allow them to continue stonewall on open borders, targeting their donations to prevent any legal reform. Ever since NAFTA, huge investments have taken place predicted on the free movement of good across the border. Those investments are now held hostage by Trump’s threat. The implicit deal: either loudly and emphatically lobby for a simple revision to immigration law to allow asylum claimants to wait on the southern side of the border while their claims are adjudicated or endure a semi-catastrophic disruption.

"Trump knows that he has an excellent public case to make for this simple reform. With illegals now well aware that bringing along minors and an asylum claim guarantee admission to the USA, a hundred thousand a month are flooding in. The claims of a “manufactured crisis” look silly. Even Jeh Johnson, Obama’s DHS secretary admits it is real." . . .

Whatever happened to "Journalism" as a true profession?

Ratings for CNN and MSNBC continuing to crash, as viewers migrate to Fox News prime time  "Karma has come calling at CNN and MSNBC, the avid broadcast-

Cartoon added by TD

promoters of the Russia hoax.  Viewers who deserted the conspiracy theorists after it turned out that Mueller reported no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia are staying away and — even worse! — migrating to Fox News.
. . . 
"The culpability of these two cable news networks in promoting a hoax, employing former intelligence officials — John Brennan at CNN and James Clapper at MSNBC — to pretend to offer inside intelligence data convicting President Trump of treason, is serious.  Lee Smith, in a long and thoughtful article at Tablet Magazine, calls it "an extinction level event."  If they were independent businesses, it might be, but both are owned by huge, wealthy conglomerates that have many other business lines to generate cash and can use the influence ownership of a cable news network provides to protect and enhance those other businesses.  Neither is likely to go the way of the dinosaurs, much though they deserve that fate."

CNN Host Asks If FBI Should Have ‘Shut Down’ Trump Supporters Chanting ‘Lock Her Up’ . . . "CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour called "lock her up" chants by Donald Trump supporters "hate speech" in a new interview and asked James Comey if he wished he had "shut down that language" in his capacity as FBI Director at the time." . . .
Leftists chanted "Lock him up!" at General Mike Flynn as he walked into a courthouse hearing.

Jim Acosta doing his best to prove Trump is right about CNN as 'fake news'
. . . "CNN called the incident "a non-story." Actually, it was the story, and not just because CNN got negative coverage for its suppression - it's actually the story that CNN is belatedly reporting right now." . . .
"His credibility as a newsman is shot.  He's nothing but a narrative boy, doing the bidding of his Democratic Party masters.  Fake news is the only thing to call him because there's nothing believable about him."

           Joel B. Pollak‏Verified account

A few weeks ago, @Acosta accused @realDonaldTrump of "concocting" a national emergency at the border.Tonight, @CNN reports that it's a "crisis."

American press more concerned about avocado shortage than invasion

Legal Insurrection  "We have been covering the migrant caravans and the immigrant invasion supported by social justice activists for many months.

"After the recent launch of the largest of these caravans from Central America, President Donald Trump is now threatening to close the southern border with Mexico.

In remarks from the Oval Office, Mr. Trump reiterated his threat to shut the border if Mexico, America’s third largest trading partner, cannot restrict a flow of asylum seekers trying to cross into the United States. But the president’s economic team, concerned about the damage from such a move, said it was looking for ways to limit the fallout if Mr. Trump does do so.

“Sure, it’s going to have a negative impact on the economy,” Mr. Trump said, adding, “but security is most important.”

“Security is more important to me than trade,” he said.

"It is quite clear to most Americans  prefer security over  trade, so Trump’s priorities are correct.

"However, it appears that our press is more concerned about their specialty salads and sandwiches. The focus of many reports on the impending closure center on the potential of shortages of that life-essential food substance, the avocado.

Speaking to Reuters, Steve Barnard, president and chief executive of Mission Produce, the largest distributor and grower of avocados in the world, said Americans would run out of avocados in three weeks if imports from Mexico were stopped.

Last week, Trump said here was a “very good likelihood” he would close the border if Mexico did not stop migrants from reaching the United States.

The U.S. imports about $137 billion in food through the border with Mexico, and that includes about 90 percent of the imported avocados purchased by American consumers.

"Other fruits and vegetables could be impacted as well." . . .

Why do the least-bright people rise to the top? Could it be the "Peter Principle"?

That the greatest nation on the planet has to suffer fools like Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Maxine Waters, Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, every anchor at CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC, Bill Maher, all the late-night not-comics . . .

Patricia McCarthy  "For over two years, we have been tormented or delighted, depending on one's political preference, by the opinions and or declarations avowing President Trump's guilt with regard to collusion with Russia.  It was all a made-up scam from the beginning, but the media and the leftist loons have beaten this dead horse relentlessly in the fervid hope it would see Trump forced from the office he legitimately won.  

"Our horrific media who has long worked hand in glove with the Democrats, has spent hundreds of hours, over 500,000 columns, articles and op-eds asserting Trump's guilt.  It was all a hoax from the outset, fabricated within a few days of Hillary 's loss to Trump.  Most of those who got on board the Russia collusion hoax knew it was a lie from day one.  But they embraced the lie wholeheartedly.  

"Anything, any plan, any course of action, any sacrifice of one's moral sense, was on the table, worth the risk, worth the selling of one's soul to the devil.  Trump should not have won so the forces in positions of power worked together to undo his candidacy, then his election, then his inauguration, and then his presidency.  Who did all these things?  The people who rose to power in the principal law enforcement agencies in America. " . . .

The Peter Principle  (Originally satire)   . . . The Peter principle states that a person who is competent at their job will earn promotion to a more senior position which requires different skills. If the promoted person lacks the skills required for their new role, then they will be incompetent at their new level, and so they will not be promoted again. But if they are competent at their new role, then they will be promoted again, and they will continue to be promoted until they eventually reach a level at which they are incompetent. Being incompetent, they do not qualify to be promoted again, and so remain stuck at that final level for the rest of their career (termed "Final Placement" or "Peter's Plateau"). This outcome is inevitable, given enough time and assuming that there are enough positions in the hierarchy to which competent employees may be promoted. The "Peter Principle" is therefore expressed as: "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." This leads to Peter's Corollary: "In time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties." Hull calls the study of how hierarchies work "hierarchiology."

Top Democrat calling for full Mueller report had different view when Bill Clinton was investigated. Sleazy politicians.

Smear Machine Jerry Nadler Pushes to Release Confidential Grand Jury Material in Mueller Report

Washington Examiner  "Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is the leading Democrat demanding the release of the Mueller Report “in its entirety” without redactions.

"His committee is planning to subpoena the Justice Department for the full report.

"But back in 1998, as a member of the same committee, he vociferously opposed the release of the full Starr Report, saying that “as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all.”

"Then, the president was Bill Clinton. Now, it is a Republican, Donald Trump.

"Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating then-President Bill Clinton, delivered his report to Congress on Sept. 9, 1998. That night, Nadler went on Charlie Rose's show to push back against the Republican demand that the voluminous report should be made public. “It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses," Nadler said. "Salacious material. All kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,”

"What Nadler, 71, said in 1998 echoes what Attorney General William Barr told Congress last week. Barr, 68, wrote that he might redact grand jury testimony, information related to ongoing investigations, sensitive or classified information, and “information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties” from the report that he provides to Congress and the public.

"In a New York Times op-ed Monday, Nadler wrote: “We — the members of the Judiciary Committee, the House of Representatives, and the entire American public — are still waiting to see that report… We have an obligation to read the full report, and the Department of Justice has an obligation to provide it, in its entirely, without delay.' ” . . .